See also:

Islam vs Judaism
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1416607208

Islam vs Christianity
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1416819918

Christianity vs Judaism vs Islam (by AugCaesarustus - more of the spiritual side of things)
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1489289965

This topic seems to be taking over every thread lately. Karnal is asking why Jews are nicer people than Muslims despite the old testament being less nice than the Koran. Bobby is stuck on contradictions between the new testament and the old testament, after realising he does not actually understand what the new testament says about the old testament. Greg and Mothra insist the Bible is more violent than the Koran and that all violence should be condemned, but refuse to condemn the violence in nursery rhymes or discuss the causal link between scripture and violence.

My position is that there is a strong causal link between Islam and violence, that this link is far stronger in Islam than other religions (or indeed, a reversal), and that the quantity of violence is not a good measure of the extent to which a scripture actually causes violence.

Last point first. There is a lot of violence in modern movies. There is even violence in nursery rhymes. However, these do not cause terrorism or violence because they do not motivate people to follow their lead. Some even tell you not to try this at home. The whole point of religion on the other hand is to motivate people to modify not just their beliefs, but their behaviour. This can have a profound effect on an individual, and an even more profound effect on a society over a long period of time.

Judaism


Karnal wrote on Jun 13^th, 2017 at 10:48pm:

But for some reason, Jews are quite nice these days, despite their holy book telling them not to be. How do you account for this?

Lets start with a comparison of Judaism and Islam. It may be true (I have not checked, and the sources seem dubious at best, thanks Mothra and Greg) that the old testament has more violence in it. However, this largely takes the form of documenting rather than encouraging violence. There are also several other key aspects of Judaism that have a political and cultural effect on society. The key differences are:

1) Judaism is not a proselytising religion. Jewish "law" is for the Jews. The idea of imposing Judaism on others in a religious, political, cultural or military sense just does not make sense. This is why one of the dominant criticisms of Jews has been their insularity. In contrast, Islam is a proselytising religion that uses every political and legal trick available to impose religion on people.

2) The diaspora has been incorporated into the Jewish religious narrative, to the extent that Jews feel uncomfortable with the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. Many literally think it is going against God's wishes. Thus, not only is there an absence of a religious imperative to impose Judaism on non-Jews, there is also no religious imperative to impose Judaism on Jews in a political sense. Jewish doctrine indirectly calls for the separation of religion and state. In contrast, the natural state for Islam is an Islamic state, and many modern Muslims do see this as a religious imperative.

3) Exodus. Escape from slavery is a key aspect in Jewish religious identity and the foundation of the original nation of Israel. In contrast, Islam was founded and spread by the enslavement of non-Muslims, and it stuck with Islam until it was forcibly denied by non-Muslims.

4) Islam actually promotes wholesale violence.

These differences result in different behaviour of Jews individually and collectively. Israel is a good example of this. They have won several wars and seized large amounts of territory. They could have taken much more. If they had been Muslims, or communists, or French revolutionaries, or Romans, or just about any other militarily successful movement, they would have taken over the middle east and imposed their ways on others. Israel is an exception to this historical norm. They gave back most of the territory they won and despite their dramatic success, remained a very small country. This is also true of the historical nation of Israel. Israel is for the Jews, and it does not make sense to Jews to try to spread it and impose it on others.

Listen to these two podcasts

http://podcasts.joerogan.net/podcasts/megan-phelps-roper

http://podbay.fm/show/733163012/e/1497052459?autostart=1

Being a non-proselytising religion has a key strategic implication. A proselytising religion such as Islam can benefit from violent conflict so long as the converts gained outnumber the people killed in the process. For Judaism, this gives violent conflict no upside. Hence, Judaism survives by being militarily conservative. By getting along. Israel could have taken over the middle east, but Judaism would not spread as a result, and would largely come to an end in the middle east if the empire collapsed. The identification with the exodus story runs through both Judaism and Christianity, and no doubt contributed to the gradual ending of slavery in Europe following the collapse of the Roman Empire, which in turn lead to the eventual rise of liberal democracy, and Judeo-Christian society going back into the middle east and north Africa to bring an end to slavery in Islamic nations, rather than the other way round. Islam took over almost all of western civilisation in a century. Judaism has been around for millennia, has seen more than one Jewish state, but has never been at the core of an empire.

Christianity


Bobby. wrote on Jun 14^th, 2017 at 9:49pm:

It means that the Old Testament laws are still binding - no matter how cruel they are.

Gandalf and Bobby and the main proponents of comparisons between Islam and Christianity. I am leaving out Greg and Mothra here as they are yet to formulate their comparison of violence levels in (presumably) the old testament into a cogent argument. Gandalf likes to point out the misogyny of Paul, however compared to the treatment of women in Islam (eg sexual slavery) Paul is a saint. Bobby defers to the old testament and often quotes Jesus' references to old testament law. He recently claimed that this means everything in the old testament still applies. However the verses are ambiguous at best and Bobby has since backtracked to saying he does not understand it, that there are contradictions, and that the contradictions mean there is nothing of value. No-one else seems to share his confusion, and the obvious way to interpret it is that where there are contradictions, the example and message of Jesus take precedent.

The key messages taught and demonstrated by Jesus are:

1) Love your enemy

2) Turn the other cheek

3) Forgive

These can be challenging messages to put into practice, and there is no shortage of Christians falling short of them. They are also revolutionary from a social perspective, and I believe are a key reason why modern liberal democracy arose, several times in parallel, in Christian nations. Democracy and Freedom are inherently fragile, as they provide a convenient mechanism to bring about their own demise. Hitler was elected to office. Muslims are promoting Islam under the protection of freedom of religion. Luckily for us, they are resilient for other reasons. These values are so revolutionary socially because they provide a mechanism for defusing family and tribal feuds and also provide an individual release from self-reinforcing and self destructive behaviours and mindsets.

They are also incompatible with much of the "eye for an eye" stuff in the old testament, and the hatered preached by Islam.

Another important message of Christianity, this time more explicit, is the separation of church and state - give unto Caeser. Again, Islam teaches the opposite and Muhammad demonstrated the opposite.

Islam

In contrast to the violence documented in the old testament, the Koran provides explicit instructions to go out and slaughter the infidel. Not in a single time and location, but until the end times, when even the rocks will tell Muslims to come and slaughter the Jews who are hiding behind them.

Chapter 9 for example:

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

is slaughtering the infidel from start to finish. It is not a documentation of a slaughter, but a command to slaughter. Fight them in holy wars. Kill them. Beseige them. Ambush them. Punish them. Ban them. March forth against them. Proceed with Jihad. Take their money. This is what it actually says, repeatedly (also, wash your genitals with dust and water from urine and stools). The best Muslims are the ones who fight with their life and their wealth to kill the infidel. Fighting the infidel with your wealth in the name of Islam recieves a surprising degree of prominence, almost equal to fighting 'with your life'. The Muslims who shy away from fighting are inferior, unless they have a good excuse. Martyrdom and victory are the two best things.

Quote:

Bobby is stuck on contradictions between the new testament and the old testament, after realising he does not actually understand what the new testament says about the old testament.

The new testament says that the old laws are still binding.

However - Jesus sometimes makes exceptions -

therefore a contradiction!

In addition to explicitly promoting violence against non-Muslims, Islam created several new castes in what was until then a multicultural society. Muslims are on top. Jews and Christians are legally, socially, politically and morally inferior, as are women. Pagans are either Muslims or dead, or slaves. Jews and Christians can be enslaved also, and enslavement was a constant threat forcing them to put up with their inferior status in Muslim society. Enslavement  itself is a key tool for spreading Islam, and why Islam was so successful in spreading by the sword. Enemies captured in battle can be killed afterward, enslaved or ransomed back, depending on what is in the interest of the Islamic state at the time. Women in particular featured prominently among slaves, typically outnumbering men 2:1. They could earn their "freedom" by bearing their master a male offspring, however the offspring to a Muslim father is considered a Muslim. Male slaves were often castrated. Slaves could also gain their freedom by converting to Islam. Thus, Muhammad turned war and slavery into a recruitment tool.

It helped not just by recruiting converts to Islam. It also helped in recruiting Muslim men to the army. By allowing polygamy and lowering the status of women, Muhammad turned women into chattels. Young men could often not even talk to women they are not related to, and difficulty finding a wife was inevitable. The solution: join the army and capture a wife/sex slave in a foreign land, as well as spoils of war to support your family. The death penalty for apostasy still features prominently among the backwards beliefs held by modern Muslims because it is the final nail in the coffin of religious freedom. Together, these forces cemented Islam's grip on the lands they captured.

Christian Europe, despite being negatively influenced by Islam in several ways (invasion of Spain and reintroduction of slavery, depopulation of Italian coastline and slave raids along the rest of the coast and into eastern Europe, and being cut off from trade routes into the heart of western civilisation and beyond) eventually overtook the Muslim heartland of western civilisation to become wealthier, freer and democratic. This was almost universal. With the exception of Spain and Israel, the land captured by the original Caliphate stagnated and went from the most advanced civilisation on earth to the most backwards, violent and oppressive today. Islam is at the heart of that stagnation. The ideological strategies that made Islam so successful while the Caliphate was expanding militarily leave it moribund today.

The world we see today is not just an accident of history that happens to coincide with the rough geopolitical boundary between Islam and Christianity. The backwardness of the middle east and north Africa, the liberal democracies of Israel, Europe and the new world reflect the different natures of the belief systems that shaped the societies and still influence the attitudes and behaviour of people in those societies today. Even if you are not a Christian or a Muslim, if you live in Europe or the middle east then you grew up with and adopted a culture that has been shaped by those religions for generations.

Muhammad basically found everything that can go wrong with religion, wrapped it up into a book, called it the Koran, then set it loose on the world - all to get back at his family in Mecca for mistreating him. It is the ultimate hissy fit.

1. Yes, FD,  Judaism is not a proselytising religion. Jewish law is for the Jews and their slaves.

2. You're confusing Jewish doctrine with secular Zionism., a 19th century cause. Jewish doctrine is so tied up in the notion of a Jewish state that for much of their history, the Pharisees would not allow kings. The modern state of Israel was influenced by rifts between secular and Orthodox Zionists.

3. Escape from slavery is a tenant for Jews, but not those they conquered and enslaved. One of Jesus's teachings was, slaves, be nice to your masters and vice versa. Slaves were a vital part of Jewish households, as was the domestic servitude of women.

4. The Torah, the foundational text of the Jews, incites wholesale violence, slaughter, torture and barbarity. Everybody knows this. Getting "Old Testament" on someone means to overcome someone through hardship and torture. There are specific instructions in the Old Testament on which behaviours deserve execution and the mode of execution. There is specific encouragement to go out and kill other tribes and seize their land, women and livestock. There are exemplars, such as King David, held up as warrior role models. And finally, the Jews are exhempt from any universal justice in this regard because they're (a) following G_d's orders and (b) they're G_d's chosen people.

The Old Testament is an amazing, poetic book, rich in meaning and depth. This is not a criticism of the Torah or its historical characters, who struggle with G_d's laws and plans. There is an incredible amount of wisdom in the OT.

Now I don't understand the Koran, it's history or its context too well, but it makes a number of references to the Old and New Testaments. There are, without a doubt, less instructions to kill, mame and enslave others than the Torah The Old Testament even encourages animal cruelty, which the Koran seeks to overturn.

If I was you, FD, I'd have a look at the Old Testament to try to understand what you're writing about here. You have not come close to explaining our riddle: if Muslims are violent because of their religious text, why aren't Jews far worse?

I look forward to us all putting our brains together and coming up with a credible answer.

Quote:

Muhammad basically found everything that can go wrong with religion, wrapped it up into a book, called it the Koran, then set it loose on the world - all to get back at his family in Mecca for mistreating him. It is the ultimate hissy fit.

Curious, aren't you?

Quote:

You just made that up. You might want to read over it.

No I didn't.


Quote:

Escape from slavery is a tenant for Jews, but not those they conquered and enslaved. One of Jesus's teachings was, slaves, be nice to your masters and vice versa. Slaves were a vital part of Jewish households, as was the domestic servitude of women.

The point is, the story of exodus is something both Jews and Christians identify with. It makes them more likely to empathise with slaves and take political action to end slavery.


Quote:

The Torah, the foundational text of the Jews, incites wholesale violence, slaughter, torture and barbarity. Everybody knows this. Getting "Old Testament" on someone means to overcome someone through hardship and torture. There are specific instructions in the Old Testament on which behaviours deserve execution and the mode of execution.

Executing someone for a crime, whether legitimate or not, is not wholesale slaughter. Muhammaed and the Koran promote wholesale slaughter.


Quote:

There is specific encouragement to go out and kill other tribes and seize their land, women and livestock.

Can you quote it?


Quote:

Now I don't understand the Koran, it's history or its context, but it makes a number of references to the Old and New Testaments. There are, without a doubt, less instructions to kill, mame and enslave others.

Chapter 9 says to slaughter the infidel. It repeats this over and over, from start to finish. There is nothing in any religion that even comes close.

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

And it refers to the old and new testaments to say they are corrupted.

YHVH.

Jews had no motivation to end slavery, FD, and had little or no part in its 19th century abolition. Your Freeeedom narrative is a Protestant European one.

If you're going to quote religious texts, it would be good to see a reference to something other than a member's post here. There are numerous references to the Bible in the Koran. The Koran pitches itself as an evolution - an extension - of the Bible.

I'm sorry, I can't quote the books of Genesis, Deuteronomy and Leviticus here. There's a character limit.

Karnal wrote on Jun 16^th, 2017 at 10:39pm:

Jews had no motivation to end slavery, FD, and had little or no part in its 19th century abolition. Your Freeeedom narrative is a Protestant European one. If you're going to quote religious texts, it would be good to see a reference to something other than a member's post here. There are numerous references to the Bible in the Koran. The Koran pitches itself as an evolution - an extension - of the Bible. I'm sorry, I can't quote the books of Genesis, Deuteronomy and Leviticus here. There's a character limit.

Indeed - Jesus is mentioned many times in the Koran.

Why has his message of forgiveness been forgotten by Muslims?

Bobby. wrote on Jun 16^th, 2017 at 10:44pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 16th, 2017 at 10:39pm: Jews had no motivation to end slavery, FD, and had little or no part in its 19th century abolition. Your Freeeedom narrative is a Protestant European one. If you're going to quote religious texts, it would be good to see a reference to something other than a member's post here. There are numerous references to the Bible in the Koran. The Koran pitches itself as an evolution - an extension - of the Bible. I'm sorry, I can't quote the books of Genesis, Deuteronomy and Leviticus here. There's a character limit. Indeed - Jesus is mentioned many times in the Koran. Why has his message of forgiveness been forgotten by Muslims?

I believe your answer is in the Koran itself, Bobby.

If I knew the passage, I'd tell you.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 16^th, 2017 at 9:25pm:

Quote: Bobby is stuck on contradictions between the new testament and the old testament, after realising he does not actually understand what the new testament says about the old testament. The new testament says that the old laws are still binding. However - Jesus sometimes makes exceptions - therefore a contradiction!

You should stick to commenting on stuff you actually understand Booby. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Karnal wrote on Jun 16^th, 2017 at 10:39pm:

Jews had no motivation to end slavery, FD, and had little or no part in its 19th century abolition. Your Freeeedom narrative is a Protestant European one. If you're going to quote religious texts, it would be good to see a reference to something other than a member's post here. There are numerous references to the Bible in the Koran. The Koran pitches itself as an evolution - an extension - of the Bible. Yes and no....  it is a replacement for "the bible" not an extension.  It is the new unadulterated version of God's word.  It supercedes all that came before.  The Koran is the only book the only guidance you need. I'm sorry, I can't quote the books of Genesis, Deuteronomy and Leviticus here. There's a character limit.

Grendel wrote on Jun 16^th, 2017 at 11:20pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 16th, 2017 at 9:25pm: Quote: Bobby is stuck on contradictions between the new testament and the old testament, after realising he does not actually understand what the new testament says about the old testament. The new testament says that the old laws are still binding. However - Jesus sometimes makes exceptions - therefore a contradiction! You should stick to commenting on stuff you actually understand Bobby. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Do you understand it?

I'm honest - it makes no sense at all.

All you other Einsteins can claim you understand it but you don't.

You don't have to be Einstein to understand it Booby.
Clearly YOU don't. ::)

Quote:

Jews had no motivation to end slavery, FD, and had little or no part in its 19th century abolition. Your Freeeedom narrative is a Protestant European one.

These Jews would beg to differ:
Adolphe Crémieux
Berthold Auerbach
Heinrich Heine
Einhorn
Michael Heilprin
August Bondi
Nathan Mayer Rothschild
Ernestine Louise Rose
David Einhorn

I am not claiming either scripture directly motivates people to end slavery. But it is far more likely in a culture that identifies with slaves who gained their freedom than one who identifies with a leader who enslaved people to build his empire. Do you think a Jew would rather view himself as the Egyptian slave owner being punished by God or the slave gaining freedom?

Muslims cannot actually take the position that slavery is inherently wrong because to do so is to criticise Muhammad. Isn't that right Gandalf?

Jews and African-Americans cooperated in the Civil Rights movement, motivated partially by the common background of slavery. Seymour Siegel suggests that the historic struggle against prejudice faced by Jews led to a natural sympathy for any people confronting discrimination.


Quote:

If you're going to quote religious texts, it would be good to see a reference to something other than a member's post here. There are numerous references to the Bible in the Koran. The Koran pitches itself as an evolution - an extension - of the Bible.

...and says the Bible has been corrupted. Muhammad basically reinvented Judaism and Christianity for his own benefit, then wondered why it pissed people off. He incorporated Judaism, Christianity and Paganism on an ad-hoc and contradictory basis as he saw opportunities to encourage converts. He couldn't understand why the Jews did not realise he was actually their prophet, even after he informed them and encouraged them to see sense by threatening to slaughter them. It was not an empty threat.


Bobby. wrote on Jun 16^th, 2017 at 11:29pm:

Grendel wrote on Jun 16th, 2017 at 11:20pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 16th, 2017 at 9:25pm: Quote: Bobby is stuck on contradictions between the new testament and the old testament, after realising he does not actually understand what the new testament says about the old testament. The new testament says that the old laws are still binding. However - Jesus sometimes makes exceptions - therefore a contradiction! You should stick to commenting on stuff you actually understand Bobby. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) Do you understand it? I'm honest - it makes no sense at all. All you other Einsteins can claim you understand it but you don't.

Do you know which law he was refering to? Why do you assume it must include things that directly contradict his message and example? You only see a contradiction with your assumptions.

Grendel wrote on Jun 16^th, 2017 at 11:44pm:

You don't have to be Einstein to understand it Bobby. Clearly YOU don't. ::)

Yes you do as there are clear contradictions.

I would imagine there are plenty too - in the Koran.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2017 at 9:00am:

Quote: Jews had no motivation to end slavery, FD, and had little or no part in its 19th century abolition. Your Freeeedom narrative is a Protestant European one. These Jews would beg to differ: Adolphe Crémieux Berthold Auerbach Heinrich Heine Einhorn Michael Heilprin August Bondi Nathan Mayer Rothschild Ernestine Louise Rose David Einhorn I am not claiming either scripture directly motivates people to end slavery. But it is far more likely in a culture that identifies with slaves who gained their freedom than one who identifies with a leader who enslaved people to build his empire. Do you think a Jew would rather view himself as the Egyptian slave owner being punished by God or the slave gaining freedom? Muslims cannot actually take the position that slavery is inherently wrong because to do so is to criticise Muhammad. Isn't that right Gandalf? Jews and African-Americans cooperated in the Civil Rights movement, motivated partially by the common background of slavery. Seymour Siegel suggests that the historic struggle against prejudice faced by Jews led to a natural sympathy for any people confronting discrimination. [quote]If you're going to quote religious texts, it would be good to see a reference to something other than a member's post here. There are numerous references to the Bible in the Koran. The Koran pitches itself as an evolution - an extension - of the Bible.

...and says the Bible has been corrupted. Muhammad basically reinvented Judaism and Christianity for his own benefit, then wondered why it pissed people off. He incorporated Judaism, Christianity and Paganism on an ad-hoc and contradictory basis as he saw opportunities to encourage converts. He couldn't understand why the Jews did not realise he was actually their prophet, even after he informed them and encouraged them to see sense by threatening to slaughter them. It was not an empty threat.


Bobby. wrote on Jun 16^th, 2017 at 11:29pm:

Grendel wrote on Jun 16th, 2017 at 11:20pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 16th, 2017 at 9:25pm: Quote: Bobby is stuck on contradictions between the new testament and the old testament, after realising he does not actually understand what the new testament says about the old testament. The new testament says that the old laws are still binding. However - Jesus sometimes makes exceptions - therefore a contradiction! You should stick to commenting on stuff you actually understand Bobby. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) Do you understand it? I'm honest - it makes no sense at all. All you other Einsteins can claim you understand it but you don't.

Do you know which law he was refering to? Why do you assume it must include things that directly contradict his message and example? You only see a contradiction with your assumptions.[/quote]

That would be nice, FD, if Muslims and Muslim countries weren't opposed to slavery. I was just in cute and cuddly Malaysia, where human trafficking is being severely cracked down on. They even grill you at the airport, just in case you're being trafficked.

This goes to the heart of your argument. The Jewish prophets all had slaves. Jews don't practice slavery. As you point out, individual Jews even advocated for abolition.

So why would slavery be inherently Muslim?

Quote:

That would be nice, FD, if Muslims and Muslim countries weren't opposed to slavery. I was just in cute and cuddly Malaysia, where human trafficking is being severely cracked down on. They even grill you at the airport, just in case you're being trafficked.

Malaysia has never had shariah law imposed on it. It is hardly a good example of the legal and political implications of Islam.

In Islam's heartland of the middle east and north Africa, it took European and American interference, including several wars, to stamp out the practice.


Quote:

So why would slavery be inherently Muslim?

Did I say it was? I think you are mincing your words here Karnal. What are you trying to say?

I have seen this happen in what we call good Christian families.....it isnt something I have seen in other religious families though...is it a fault somewhere in CHristian teachings... or are these families just plain unlucky?
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/jacob-stockdale-reportedly-killed-mum-kathryn-and-brother-james/news-story/d20bded84ef60293f756d996390b7dbc

A MEMBER in a Christian family band, who also appeared on TV’s Wife Swap, is said to have shot dead his mum and brother before trying to kill himself.

Police say Jacob Stockdale, 25, killed his mother Kathryn, 54, and brother James, 21, at the family’s farm home near Beach City, Ohio.

Once deputies could safely enter the home they located two deceased victims, who have been identified as 21-year-old James William Stockdale and 54-year-old Kathryn Barbara Stockdale,” police said in a statement. “The alleged suspect, 25-year-old Jacob Timothy Stockdale, suffered an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound. He was taken by life flight to Cleveland Metro Hospital.”
They were all part of the Stockdale Family Band, a bluegrass group that includes dad, Tim, and older brothers Calvin and Charles.

The family also appeared on Wife Swap in the US in 2008.
In the episode, Kathryn Stockdale lists all the strict rules she has for the family including controlling all they listen to, home schooling them and banning the boys from going on dates. The family also raises and kills all the meat that they eat.

“It’s important we have control over their character and education,” she said.
In the episode, Jacob says “I have never been on a date, there’s better ways to find out about girls then dating.”

According to the Canton Rep, Tim Stockdale, who played in the band with his sons, arrived home shortly after 6pm and fell to his knees crying when told about the shooting.

Tim Stockdale has been cooperating with the investigation and, Mr Maier said, he “indicated no issues leading up to” the incident.

“It’s hard to surmise what the motive may have been. There’s some speculation. ... We’ll continue to investigate this case and try to determine the motive,” Sheriff George T. Maier said.

Timothy Stockdale issued the following statement regarding his late wife, according to Michah Derry, the family’s spokesman: “Kathy has been my beloved wife of 32 years and a wonderful mother to our four sons. She loved nothing more than being a mother and grandmother. She had a strong love of learning and was passionate about her Christian faith, natural health, and organic farming.”

Calvin Stockdale, the eldest brother of the family, also issued a statement regarding his late brother, James: “James, our youngest brother, has always been a catalyst of family fun. Aside from being a gifted musician, James enjoyed dancing and had an innate love of people. James was working on a business degree and hoped to go into the business side of entertainment. He leaves behind many friends and a family that love him dearly.”


Calvin Stockdale, pictured left with brother Charles, issued a statement about his brothers James and Jacob. Picture: Facebook
“My brother, Jacob, is still in critical condition and we are praying for his physical recovery as our family makes funeral plans and begins the healing process.”


Neighbours were left stunned by the killings.

“They are a religious family and conservative and this seems out of place,” said Michael Fuller, a next-door neighbour.



how can everything be so normal........


yet end up like this? :( :(

Quote:

I have seen this happen in what we call good Christian families.....it isnt something I have seen in other religious families though...is it a fault somewhere in CHristian teachings... or are these families just plain unlucky?

What?
What makes you think Christianity has anything to do with it?  Personally I've never heard or seen this sort of thing happen in "good Christian families" cods.
BTW they have so far no idea why it happened.

As for other religions...  Islam has Honour Killings.  I personally know of a few arranged marriages, and people of different religions kept apart and even 1 honour killing of a school friend's sister.

But honestly I haven't seen or heard of this sort of thing being common in "Christian" families. :D :D :D :D :D

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2017 at 2:17pm:

Quote: That would be nice, FD, if Muslims and Muslim countries weren't opposed to slavery. I was just in cute and cuddly Malaysia, where human trafficking is being severely cracked down on. They even grill you at the airport, just in case you're being trafficked. Malaysia has never had shariah law imposed on it. It is hardly a good example of the legal and political implications of Islam. In Islam's heartland of the middle east and north Africa, it took European and American interference, including several wars, to stamp out the practice. [quote]So why would slavery be inherently Muslim?

Did I say it was? I think you are mincing your words here Karnal. What are you trying to say?[/quote]

Oh mendacious mincing moi.


Quote:

Muslims cannot actually take the position that slavery is inherently wrong because to do so is to criticise Muhammad. Isn't that right Gandalf?

How many Muslim countries have Sharia legal codes, FD?

What happened to that law Malaysia made to stone apostates to death?

And why is a small part of the Middle East more Muslim than anywhere else? Is it your plausible sub-species theory again?

Questions questions.

Perhaps the thing to do is to look for some Christian teachings which advocate this particular tragedy as being the true path.

I'm absolutely sure the following are what causes inhumanities against muslim women.

qur’an 4:15 “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four witnesses from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death [by starvation] claims them.”

qur’an 24:33 “Force not your slave-girls to whoredom (prostitution) if they desire chastity, that you may seek enjoyment of this life; and whoever compels them, then surely after their compulsion allah is forgiving, merciful

qur’an 24:1 “(This is) a surah which We have revealed and made obligatory and in which We have revealed clear communications that you may be mindful. For the woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by allah. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment.”

qur'an 4.34: Men are the maintainers of women because allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely allah is high, great.

muhammad was a practicing pedophile with a 6 year old wife, muslims to this day still force little girls to marry old men.

Also let's not forget the good old female genital mutilation practiced by muslims.

Their infallible book tells them to beat women, flog women, starve them to death and rape them, have no compassion for them.

So islam definitely favours barbarity against women and little girls.

It's also strange how feminists and apologists for islam never criticize this barbarity.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Muslim_Percent_Population.svg/550px-Muslim_Percent_Population.svg.png

Questions questions...  too dumb to look for answers eh?

Quote:

What happened to that law Malaysia made to stone apostates to death?

It was overturned by the federal court on constitutional grounds.


Quote:

And why is a small part of the Middle East more Muslim than anywhere else? Is it your plausible sub-species theory again?

Again, not sure what you are talking about. Islam took over the middle east and north Africa within about a century. They have similar exposure periods, though Mecca obviously is a bit more of a focal point.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2017 at 3:53pm:

Quote: What happened to that law Malaysia made to stone apostates to death? It was overturned by the federal court on constitutional grounds. [quote]And why is a small part of the Middle East more Muslim than anywhere else? Is it your plausible sub-species theory again?

Again, not sure what you are talking about. Islam took over the middle east and north Africa within about a century. They have similar exposure periods, though Mecca obviously is a bit more of a focal point.[/quote]

Right. So how many countries have Sharia legal codes?

Apart from cute and cuddly - and constitutional - Malaysia?

http://thatswhy.isdb.org/irj/go/km/docs/documents/IDBDevelopments/Internet/thatswhy/images/world-map.jpg

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2013/05/sharia-map.jpg

Quote:

Countries with Sharia law Sharia is a significant source of legislation in various Muslim countries. Some apply all or a majority of the sharia code, and these include Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Brunei, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Yemen and Mauritania.

Apparently we have Sharia law too...  Muslim populations decide what laws they will and will not obey apparently.

Oh and these are ok...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_Islamic_law_by_country
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_Islamic_law_by_country#/media/File:Use_of_Sharia_by_country.svg
and
http://research.omicsgroup.org/index.php/Application_of_sharia_law_by_country

Thanks, Grendel.

And how many countries have Jewish courts?

"There are exemplars, such as King David, held up as warrior role models."

No.

The God of Israel [the God of the O.T.] disallowed David, to build a Holy national temple, to the name of the God of Israel, "because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight."


1 Chronicles 22:7
And David said to Solomon, My son, as for me, it was in my mind to build an house unto the name of the LORD my God:
8  But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build an house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight.


1 Chronicles 28:3
But God said unto me, Thou shalt not build an house for my name, because thou hast been a man of war, and hast shed blood.





Karnal wrote on Jun 16^th, 2017 at 9:56pm:

4. The Torah, the foundational text of the Jews, incites wholesale violence, slaughter, torture and barbarity.              THAT IS A LIE - No it doesn't Everybody knows this.              No they don't.    Only an ignorant, unread person, who had not studied those texts could be deceived into believing that. Getting "Old Testament" on someone means to overcome someone through hardship and torture.              No it doesn't There are specific instructions in the Old Testament on which behaviours deserve execution and the mode of execution.               True - But these punishments relate to covenant breaking [which was very, very serious, because it related to promises which were made to their God], and criminal behaviour. There is specific encouragement to go out and kill other tribes and seize their land, women and livestock.              God called upon his people to cleanse the land of Israel, by killing a very specific set of peoples who inhabited the land of Israel. And the Israelites were to [one time] kill everything that drew breath.    Deuteronomy 20:16-18 There are exemplars, such as King David, held up as warrior role models.              THAT IS A LIE - God actually rebuked David, firstly as an adulterer and a murderer, and later, said that as a 'bloody man' he, David, was unfit for a Holy task. And finally, the Jews are exhempt from any universal justice in this regard because they're (a) following G_d's orders and (b) they're G_d's chosen people.              THAT IS A LIE - The Israelites were to be an example to other peoples and nations, and were to be a Holy and righteous people.   Deuteronomy 4:5-8     In the O.T. texts, the God of Israel, specifically called upon his people to be righteous and Holy.

Leviticus 11:44
For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy:....


Leviticus 19:2
Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy.


Leviticus 20:26
And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.


Deuteronomy 4:5
Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it.
6  Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.
7  For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for?
8  And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?



Exodus 25:8
And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.

The people, were to be the 'sanctuary', of their God!


Exodus 29:45
And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God.


James 4:8
Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you....

Karnal wrote on Jun 17^th, 2017 at 6:44pm:

Thanks, Grendel. And how many countries have Jewish courts?

Do I look like your serf? :D
Look... do you mean Courts of Judaism?  Or courts in Jewish lands?
I'll give you 1 for free...  Israel. It has both religious and secular courts.

Yadda wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 1:21am:

"There are exemplars, such as King David, held up as warrior role models." No. The God of Israel [the God of the O.T.] disallowed David, to build a Holy national temple, to the name of the God of Israel, "because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight." 1 Chronicles 22:7 And David said to Solomon, My son, as for me, it was in my mind to build an house unto the name of the LORD my God: 8  But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build an house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight. 1 Chronicles 28:3 But God said unto me, Thou shalt not build an house for my name, because thou hast been a man of war, and hast shed blood. Karnal wrote on Jun 16th, 2017 at 9:56pm: 4. The Torah, the foundational text of the Jews, incites wholesale violence, slaughter, torture and barbarity.              THAT IS A LIE - No it doesn't Everybody knows this.              No they don't.    Only an ignorant, unread person, who had not studied those texts could be deceived into believing that. Getting "Old Testament" on someone means to overcome someone through hardship and torture.              No it doesn't There are specific instructions in the Old Testament on which behaviours deserve execution and the mode of execution.               True - But these punishments relate to covenant breaking [which was very, very serious, because it related to promises which were made to their God], and criminal behaviour. There is specific encouragement to go out and kill other tribes and seize their land, women and livestock.              God called upon his people to cleanse the land of Israel, by killing a very specific set of peoples who inhabited the land of Israel. And the Israelites were to [one time] kill everything that drew breath.    Deuteronomy 20:16-18 There are exemplars, such as King David, held up as warrior role models.              THAT IS A LIE - God actually rebuked David, firstly as an adulterer and a murderer, and later, said that as a 'bloody man' he, David, was unfit for a Holy task. And finally, the Jews are exhempt from any universal justice in this regard because they're (a) following G_d's orders and (b) they're G_d's chosen people.              THAT IS A LIE - The Israelites were to be an example to other peoples and nations, and were to be a Holy and righteous people.   Deuteronomy 4:5-8     In the O.T. texts, the God of Israel, specifically called upon his people to be righteous and Holy. Leviticus 11:44 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy:.... Leviticus 19:2 Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy. Leviticus 20:26 And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine. Deuteronomy 4:5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. 6  Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. 7  For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for? 8  And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day? Exodus 25:8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them. The people, were to be the 'sanctuary', of their God! Exodus 29:45 And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God. James 4:8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you....

Thanks, Y. Good posting. You've made an important point here.

Grendel wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 10:57am:

Karnal wrote on Jun 17th, 2017 at 6:44pm: Thanks, Grendel. And how many countries have Jewish courts? Do I look like your serf? :D Look... do you mean Courts of Judaism?  Or courts in Jewish lands? I'll give you 1 for free...  Israel. It has both religious and secular courts.

How about Australia, The US and U.K, Grendel? Do they count?

Karnal wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 11:33am:

Grendel wrote on Jun 18th, 2017 at 10:57am: Karnal wrote on Jun 17th, 2017 at 6:44pm: Thanks, Grendel. And how many countries have Jewish courts? Do I look like your serf? :D Look... do you mean Courts of Judaism?  Or courts in Jewish lands? I'll give you 1 for free...  Israel. It has both religious and secular courts. How about Australia, The US and U.K, Grendel? Do they count?

Are you making a claim?
Then you'll be posting much more information won't you.

I'm sure Karnal is on the verge of making some kind of point.

He's always on the verge....  getting to the point though is not his forte.

freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 12:12pm:

I'm sure Karnal is on the verge of making some kind of point.

Karnal, is always making claims here on OzPol, but a 'point' ?

I don't think so.



Karnal does not know how to present a 'sharp' and valid 'point'.

.....does he ???

My guess is that he's coming at us about Beth Din Rabbinical courts and Sharia courts.  Maybe even Kosher vs Halal too.

If so....  here's a good article to read.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/sharia-law-uk-britains-jewish-beth-din-court-example-muslim-legal-system-1540381

Then we can have a good argument about Multiculturalism and why we should abolish it. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Karnal wrote on Jun 16^th, 2017 at 10:51pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 16th, 2017 at 10:44pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 16th, 2017 at 10:39pm: Jews had no motivation to end slavery, FD, and had little or no part in its 19th century abolition. Your Freeeedom narrative is a Protestant European one. If you're going to quote religious texts, it would be good to see a reference to something other than a member's post here. There are numerous references to the Bible in the Koran. The Koran pitches itself as an evolution - an extension - of the Bible. I'm sorry, I can't quote the books of Genesis, Deuteronomy and Leviticus here. There's a character limit. Indeed - Jesus is mentioned many times in the Koran. Why has his message of forgiveness been forgotten by Muslims? I believe your answer is in the Koran itself, Bobby. If I knew the passage, I'd tell you.

Maybe Gandalf can tell us?

He's the expert.

Karnal wrote on Jun 16^th, 2017 at 9:56pm:

1. Yes, FD,  Judaism is not a proselytising religion. Jewish law is for the Jews and their slaves. 2. You're confusing Jewish doctrine with secular Zionism., a 19th century cause. Jewish doctrine is so tied up in the notion of a Jewish state that for much of their history, the Pharisees would not allow kings. The modern state of Israel was influenced by rifts between secular and Orthodox Zionists. 3. Escape from slavery is a tenant for Jews, but not those they conquered and enslaved. One of Jesus's teachings was, slaves, be nice to your masters and vice versa. Slaves were a vital part of Jewish households, as was the domestic servitude of women. 4. The Torah, the foundational text of the Jews, incites wholesale violence, slaughter, torture and barbarity. Everybody knows this. Getting "Old Testament" on someone means to overcome someone through hardship and torture. There are specific instructions in the Old Testament on which behaviours deserve execution and the mode of execution. There is specific encouragement to go out and kill other tribes and seize their land, women and livestock. There are exemplars, such as King David, held up as warrior role models. And finally, the Jews are exhempt from any universal justice in this regard because they're (a) following G_d's orders and (b) they're G_d's chosen people. The Old Testament is an amazing, poetic book, rich in meaning and depth. This is not a criticism of the Torah or its historical characters, who struggle with G_d's laws and plans. There is an incredible amount of wisdom in the OT. Now I don't understand the Koran, it's history or its context too well, but it makes a number of references to the Old and New Testaments. There are, without a doubt, less instructions to kill, mame and enslave others than the Torah The Old Testament even encourages animal cruelty, which the Koran seeks to overturn. If I was you, FD, I'd have a look at the Old Testament to try to understand what you're writing about here. You have not come close to explaining our riddle: if Muslims are violent because of their religious text, why aren't Jews far worse? I look forward to us all putting our brains together and coming up with a credible answer.

............................ 8-)

Your point?

Grendel wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 12:26pm:

If so....  here's a good article to read. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/sharia-law-uk-britains-jewish-beth-din-court-example-muslim-legal-system-1540381 Then we can have a good argument about Multiculturalism and why we should abolish it. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Thanks, Grendel, a good read.


Quote:

But Frei also sees evidence of Islamophobia in the criticism of Sharia. He said: "There is a demonisation of the community. You just have to mention the word Sharia and the first thing people think of is hands being cut off. It is rubbish: it might be a criminal aspect of Sharia law but it is not Sharia in general. It has become a bogey word for the British public – you just mention Sharia and you get a headline."

The number of countries with Sharia criminal codes is 3: Saudi Arabia, Iran and Yemen. The other Muslim countries have secular legal systems with Sharia courts functioning as an adjunct, usually for property disputes and family matters.

Not unlike the Beth Din.

Alas, we can't abolish multiculturalism, and nor can the Muselman. In most Muslim countries - Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, cute and cuddly Malaysia - multiculturalism is a fact of life.

The only three countries I know of where Sharia courts apply to non-Muslims are Saudi Arabia, Iran and Yemen.

In much-maligned Aceh, an autonomous state in Indonesia, Sharia law is optional for non-Muslims.

freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2017 at 9:19pm:

Christianity vs Judaism vs Islam (by AugCaesarustus - more of the spiritual side of things) http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1489289965

What? I only got a passing reference?


freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2017 at 9:19pm:

However, this largely takes the form of documenting rather than encouraging violence.

There are quotes in the Torah calling for the murder of apostates, and 'kill any person who curses his mother or father...' The Torah is known as the Law, and the purpose was the guide the Jewish community.

HOWEVER,

As I have just recently researched, the Jewish people also have a tradition of the Oral Torah, which they believe was transmitted orally by God but not recorded in the Torah (see Oral Torah on Wikipedia/Google). The oral torah is compiled in the form of the Talmud, which gives explanations and interpretations of the written torah. Now, the oral torah was developed due to the Jews being expelled from Jerusalem by the Romans; it suited a diaspora community. Also, the oral torah opened up a tradition whereby Rabbis can interpret meanings within the Torah with divine sanction. The Orthodox Jews hold the Talmud as authoritative, whereas Reform Jews believe that individual Rabbis can interpret the Torah according to modern times.

This tradition doesn't exist in Sunni Islam, but exists in Shi'a Islam. If you look at the Ismaili Shia Muslim community, they tend to be more progressive in their beliefs because they have structured authority (in the leader of Aga Khan) who can issue interpretations on the Quran.


Karnal wrote on Jun 16^th, 2017 at 9:56pm:

I look forward to us all putting our brains together and coming up with a credible answer.

The issue here mainly is WHAT people believe, not necessarily what's in the scripture. I agree that there is a 'straighter line' from scripture to violence in the Quran that in any other Monotheistic religion, and that with 'uneducated' eyes, it can be easy to take the verses literally. However, given the behaviour of Ismailis and other Shia sects, it seems to be that authority has a huge role to play in belief. It ultimately comes down to authority. In the case of Sunni Islam, the authority is vested in the Quran and Hadith, which is in itself a problem, given that the Quran when read out of context contains belligerent verses.

I actually believe that Shia tradition is the answer here. If the majority of the world Muslims were Shiite and not Sunni, I don't think we'd have such a widespread problem as we had today.

Maybe Gandalf can tell us?

He's the expert.

Where is he when you need him?

Bobby. wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 3:59pm:

Maybe Gandalf can tell us? He's the expert. Where is he when you need him?

You know, I actually didn't know that Gandalf was a Muslim until like two weeks ago.

Auggie wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 4:01pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 18th, 2017 at 3:59pm: Maybe Gandalf can tell us? He's the expert. Where is he when you need him? You know, I actually didn't know that Gandalf was a Muslim until like two weeks ago.

Gandalf is a dyed in the wool Muslim who
seldom gets on here to explain anything even
though he's the moderator.

I don't know why you'd need a hierarchical model to interpret the Koran. The Protestant reformation was about getting Bible education to everyone so they could read and think for themselves.

This is not all good, however. It inspired fundamentalists to take the Bible word for word. There was a move away from the monastic tradition of prayer and silence. A literalist form of religion took over.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 4:04pm:

Auggie wrote on Jun 18th, 2017 at 4:01pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 18th, 2017 at 3:59pm: Maybe Gandalf can tell us? He's the expert. Where is he when you need him? You know, I actually didn't know that Gandalf was a Muslim until like two weeks ago. Gandalf is a dyed in the wool Muslim who seldom gets on here to explain anything even though he's the moderator.

Really? I've seen Gandalf post about many things regarding Islam. In fact, I think him to be one of the best forum members. I'm always conscious that I will offend him as I think he is a genuinely nice guy.

Quote:

Really? I've seen Gandalf post about many things regarding Islam. In fact, I think him to be one of the best forum members. I'm always conscious that I will offend him as I think he is a genuinely nice guy.

If Gandalf was easily offended, given the posts his way from Effendi some others, he'd had been out of here years ago.

To his eternal credit, he maintains a non-abusive, and polite position.

Aussie wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 4:13pm:

Quote: Really? I've seen Gandalf post about many things regarding Islam. In fact, I think him to be one of the best forum members. I'm always conscious that I will offend him as I think he is a genuinely nice guy. If Gandalf was easily offended, given the posts his way from Effendi some others, he'd had been out of here years ago. To his eternal credit, he maintains a non-abusive, and polite position.

I concur with that assertion.

Karnal wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 4:08pm:

I don't know why you'd need a hierarchical model to interpret the Koran. The Protestant reformation was about getting Bible education to everyone so they could read and think for themselves.

If anything, the protestant reformation emphasized Paul's teachings and theology over other theologies, for e.g. like that of James who focused on deeds over belief - that's why Luther called the Epistle of James 'an Epistle of the straw'.


Karnal wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 4:08pm:

This is not all good, however. It inspired fundamentalists to take the Bible word for word. There was a move away from the monastic tradition of prayer and silence. A literalist form of religion took over.

Correct. And as the NT (solely, not counting the OT) is not as violent as the Quran, the resulting practices became more benign.

Karnal wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 2:53pm:

Alas, we can't abolish multiculturalism, and nor can the Muselman. In most Muslim countries - Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, cute and cuddly Malaysia - multiculturalism is a fact of life.

Karnal is simply not telling us the truth.

Karnal continually presents a false view in this forum, of the character of ISLAM and moslems.

Karnal is very probably, a moslem himself.




The problem is that those moslems who we        believe        are 'moderate' moslems [because they tell us they are], are not really 'moderate' moslems - AT ALL.

They merely       pretend       to separate themselves, from the 'extremist' views of the moslems in the Middle East.

And the moslems who live among us are simply      pretending      to follow a moderate and tolerant version of ISLAM.




MOSLEMS ARE LYING TO US.

LYING TO NON-MOSLEMS, IS WHAT MOSLEMS ROUTINELY, AND SHAMELESSLY DO.




The truth is;

THERE ARE NO MODERATE MOSLEMS!

....BECAUSE THERE IS NO 'MODERATE' ISLAM.      !!!!!!




A cute and cuddly Malaysia ???

It is a fabrication.

It is 'smoke and mirrors'.

Just look at the MSM views that are often expressed about 'liberal' and 'pluralist' Malaysia !!!



Q.
But why is it that the views      BELOW     being expressed        BY MOSLEMS       within nations like Malaysia, almost never make our nightly TV news reports ????



Quote:

"Malaysia's Prime Minister: LGBTs, liberalism, and pluralism are enemies of Islam" "Last Malaysian Hindu temple in central Kuala Lumpur condemned, given five days to vacate" "Malaysian temple condemned, temple staff and devotees given 15 minutes to leave" "Malaysian government views LGBT community as a 'spreading problem' to be stopped" "Malaysian deputy prime minister: Islam not compatible with freedom, liberal thought" "Yet another Malaysian non-Muslim house of worship demolished" "Malaysian state holding seminar on "threat of Christianity" " "A message from Malaysia's king: "Muslims need to emulate Prophet Muhammad" "

http://www.jihadwatch.org/category/malaysia/


See also.....

http://www.jihadwatch.org/category/indonesia/

http://www.jihadwatch.org/category/turkey/



.



MOSLEMS ARE LYING TO US.

LYING TO NON-MOSLEMS, IS WHAT MOSLEMS ROUTINELY, AND SHAMELESSLY DO.





.





Quote:

"Peace summarises everything in Islam, because it means submitting your will to God, so you acquire peace through it," he said. "When I'm following its [i.e. ISLAM's] teachings, I know that my own actions are in line     with what my creator wants, and hence I am at peace with myself, [with] my community and the rest of the world."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-19/darwins-muslim-community-tackles-discrimination-at-meeting/6025586?section=nt




IMAGE....
http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5814780-3x2-700x467.jpg


Quote:

"Mr Yunus has been encouraging peaceful community bridging since starting his post as Darwin's Islamic leader in 2014."

- ABC news report - 2015-01-19



QUOTE;
"Peace summarises everything in Islam..."
- Mr Yunus


NO, IT DOESN'T!

Mr Yunus is LYING to naive Australians.

Of course we can abolish multiculti karnal, we simply reinstated integration or assimilation as our settlement policy and those unhappy can leave.

Grendel wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 4:42pm:

Of course we can abolish multiculti karnal, we simply reinstated integration or assimilation as our settlement policy and those unhappy can leave.

I agree that migrants that should assimilate and integrate, but I want to know what you consider to be integration and assimilation?

Der.. the policies we had before Multiculturalism...

Grendel wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 5:23pm:

Der.. the policies we had before Multiculturalism...

Which was when? I don't know.

Grendel wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 5:23pm:

Der.. the policies we had before Multiculturalism...

No.  Man up Grendel.  Enough of the tap dances in custard.  It is a simple question, using your own terms.


Quote:

.......what you consider to be integration and assimilation?

Bobby. wrote on Jun 16^th, 2017 at 11:29pm:

Grendel wrote on Jun 16th, 2017 at 11:20pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 16th, 2017 at 9:25pm: Quote: Bobby is stuck on contradictions between the new testament and the old testament, after realising he does not actually understand what the new testament says about the old testament. The new testament says that the old laws are still binding. However - Jesus sometimes makes exceptions - therefore a contradiction! You should stick to commenting on stuff you actually understand Bobby. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) Do you understand it? I'm honest - it makes no sense at all. All you other Einsteins can claim you understand it but you don't.

Ok, so here's my view. The law = the 10 commandments.

Quote:

The law = the 10 commandments.

I reckon a half-hour Workshop of 10-12 year olds would have come up with them.

Nothing particularly penetrating or beyond simple stuff in them.

Quote:

In much-maligned Aceh, an autonomous state in Indonesia, Sharia law is optional for non-Muslims.

They are only getting started. Islam is still young there. It is actually another good demonstration of the principle that the longer Islam has been in a place, the worse it gets.


Quote:

What? I only got a passing reference?

You can always bump the thread if you want.


Quote:

There are quotes in the Torah calling for the murder of apostates, and 'kill any person who curses his mother or father...'

There are entire chapters of the Koran dedicated to slaughtering the infidel.


Quote:

The issue here mainly is WHAT people believe, not necessarily what's in the scripture.

We have so much Islamic terrorism because of what is in the scripture, and because Muslims believe it to be the word of God. It is inevitable that some will get round to actually reading it.


Quote:

I agree that there is a 'straighter line' from scripture to violence in the Quran that in any other Monotheistic religion

Are you making a distinction with polytheism? I am yet to find any religion that promotes violence as explicitly as Islam.


Quote:

given that the Quran when read out of context contains belligerent verses

They are beligerant regardless of context.

freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 5:36pm:

There are entire chapters of the Koran dedicated to slaughtering the infidel.

True, there are. It's ultimately a matter of degree.


freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 5:36pm:

Are you making a distinction with polytheism? I am yet to find any religion that promotes violence as explicitly as Islam.

No, I'm making the distinction between a religion like Jainism, which has non-violence as its core principal, but is not really a true monotheistic religion.


freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 5:36pm:

They are beligerant regardless of context.

I'm willing to meet a Muslim halfway by agreeing that the violent verses are within the context of self-defence. It's important to understand that 'pre-emptive attacks' can be used as a method for self-defence - i.e. when Muhammad raided caravans, one could argue that such preemptive strike was 'defensive' in nature.

What I can't reconcile is the views of women, particularly wife-beating (I'm not sure if this is in the Torah), and the view of sexual slavery. I also cannot reconcile the Hadith attributing to Muhammad the command to kill or beat women.

Some people might say 'oh, well that was the society at the time'. Was it, really? We like to absolve historical characters of their flaws by saying that 'it was the prevailing attitude of their time' but I don't really think that (in any case) it applied to most people. Most men were respectful of women in any age or time from an INDIVIDUAL level.

Auggie wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 5:43pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 18th, 2017 at 5:36pm: There are entire chapters of the Koran dedicated to slaughtering the infidel. True, there are. It's ultimately a matter of degree.

Degree of what? Slaughtering the infidel is a matter of what degree??

I know you want to appear all considerate but you are just all reflexively non-thinking.

Auggie wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 5:29pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 16th, 2017 at 11:29pm: Grendel wrote on Jun 16th, 2017 at 11:20pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 16th, 2017 at 9:25pm: Quote: Bobby is stuck on contradictions between the new testament and the old testament, after realising he does not actually understand what the new testament says about the old testament. The new testament says that the old laws are still binding. However - Jesus sometimes makes exceptions - therefore a contradiction! You should stick to commenting on stuff you actually understand Bobby. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) Do you understand it? I'm honest - it makes no sense at all. All you other Einsteins can claim you understand it but you don't. Ok, so here's my view. The law = the 10 commandments.

No it's not.


613 laws in the OT:

jump to 5:45

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

Frank wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 9:28pm:

Auggie wrote on Jun 18th, 2017 at 5:43pm: freediver wrote on Jun 18th, 2017 at 5:36pm: There are entire chapters of the Koran dedicated to slaughtering the infidel. True, there are. It's ultimately a matter of degree.  Degree of what? Slaughtering the infidel is a matter of what degree?? I know you want to appear all considerate but you are just all reflexively non-thinking.

What I was saying was that both the Torah and the Quran have violence in them. The degree to which both contain violence is the question: and in my view the Quran has more violence than the Torah.

We cannot say that the Torah does not have verses that call people to kill others; it does. To what extent does it, and to what extent do people believe those verses.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 11:02pm:

Auggie wrote on Jun 18th, 2017 at 5:29pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 16th, 2017 at 11:29pm: Grendel wrote on Jun 16th, 2017 at 11:20pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 16th, 2017 at 9:25pm: Quote: Bobby is stuck on contradictions between the new testament and the old testament, after realising he does not actually understand what the new testament says about the old testament. The new testament says that the old laws are still binding. However - Jesus sometimes makes exceptions - therefore a contradiction! You should stick to commenting on stuff you actually understand Bobby. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) Do you understand it? I'm honest - it makes no sense at all. All you other Einsteins can claim you understand it but you don't. Ok, so here's my view. The law = the 10 commandments. No it's not. 613 laws in the OT: jump to 5:45 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzzORZhnCao

Ok, I know that this is what the esoteric claim is, but I'm talking about the every day understanding of the law in 1st century Israel among peasants. I highly doubt that Paul and the NT were referring to all 613 laws, given that those laws were codified until much later, I believe. Either way, the average peasant in 1st century Israel would've known all 613 laws. That's why God 'simplified it' to 10.

Auggie wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 5:29pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 16th, 2017 at 11:29pm: Grendel wrote on Jun 16th, 2017 at 11:20pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 16th, 2017 at 9:25pm: Quote: Bobby is stuck on contradictions between the new testament and the old testament, after realising he does not actually understand what the new testament says about the old testament. The new testament says that the old laws are still binding. However - Jesus sometimes makes exceptions - therefore a contradiction! You should stick to commenting on stuff you actually understand Bobby. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) Do you understand it? I'm honest - it makes no sense at all. All you other Einsteins can claim you understand it but you don't. Ok, so here's my view. The law = the 10 commandments.

I don't know, Augie. I think, for a Rabbinically-trained Jew like Yeheshua of Nazareth, "the law" would mean a little more than the 10 commandments, but that's just me.

Karnal wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 11:33pm:

Auggie wrote on Jun 18th, 2017 at 5:29pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 16th, 2017 at 11:29pm: Grendel wrote on Jun 16th, 2017 at 11:20pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 16th, 2017 at 9:25pm: Quote: Bobby is stuck on contradictions between the new testament and the old testament, after realising he does not actually understand what the new testament says about the old testament. The new testament says that the old laws are still binding. However - Jesus sometimes makes exceptions - therefore a contradiction! You should stick to commenting on stuff you actually understand Bobby. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) Do you understand it? I'm honest - it makes no sense at all. All you other Einsteins can claim you understand it but you don't. Ok, so here's my view. The law = the 10 commandments. I don't know, Augie. I think, for a Rabbinically-trained Jew like Yeheshua of Nazareth, "the law" would mean a little more than the 10 commandments, but that's just me.

Well, I just did the research. The 613 laws weren't actually codified until the 3rd century, so how much of that was around when Jesus was alive is debatable at best.

Another point of view could be that the 'law' was used in the context of 'deeds' - i.e. doing things. Paul strongly condemned doing deeds as the only way into Heaven (given his personal experience), and so the law could've been used in this context.

Regarding Jesus, I don't think he rabinically-trained, although it's possible. What makes you think that?

Auggie wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 12:02am:

Karnal wrote on Jun 18th, 2017 at 11:33pm: Auggie wrote on Jun 18th, 2017 at 5:29pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 16th, 2017 at 11:29pm: Grendel wrote on Jun 16th, 2017 at 11:20pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 16th, 2017 at 9:25pm: Quote: Bobby is stuck on contradictions between the new testament and the old testament, after realising he does not actually understand what the new testament says about the old testament. The new testament says that the old laws are still binding. However - Jesus sometimes makes exceptions - therefore a contradiction! You should stick to commenting on stuff you actually understand Bobby. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) Do you understand it? I'm honest - it makes no sense at all. All you other Einsteins can claim you understand it but you don't. Ok, so here's my view. The law = the 10 commandments. I don't know, Augie. I think, for a Rabbinically-trained Jew like Yeheshua of Nazareth, "the law" would mean a little more than the 10 commandments, but that's just me. Well, I just did the research. The 613 laws weren't actually codified until the 3rd century, so how much of that was around when Jesus was alive is debatable at best. Another point of view could be that the 'law' was used in the context of 'deeds' - i.e. doing things. Paul strongly condemned doing deeds as the only way into Heaven (given his personal experience), and so the law could've been used in this context. Regarding Jesus, I don't think he rabinically-trained, although it's possible. What makes you think that?

His debates with Rabinically-trained Jewish scholars when he was 12 were said to be flawless. Some say Yeheshua was trained in the Kabbalah - the oral tradition. His discourses were certainly laden with symbolism, metaphor and paradox, and quite a disciplined form of these qualities.

Yeheshua was no travelling fool, that's for sure. He knew the law so well, apparently, he was able to make it "flesh" as it were.

Really?
Can't you ever just make a straight forward point K?

Here is one example explanation.
Luke 2:40-52

40  And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.

41  Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.

42  And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.

43  And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.

44  But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day’s journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.

45  And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him.

46  And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.

47  And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.

48  And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

49  And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?

50  And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.

51  And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.

52  And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.


It's obvious Jesus had a great knowledge at a very young age.  Merely a man?  :o

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2017 at 9:00am:

Muslims cannot actually take the position that slavery is inherently wrong because to do so is to criticise Muhammad. Isn't that right Gandalf?

I take the position that slavery is inherently wrong.

Is that clear enough for you?

Grendel wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 4:42pm:

Of course we can abolish multiculti karnal, we simply reinstated integration or assimilation as our settlement policy and those unhappy can leave.

The integration model was specifically designed for multiculturalism G.

It acknowledged that we can no longer pretend that people from different cultures can simply stop being who they are culturally and "assimilate" into the dominant culture. Multiculti and integration work hand in hand. In fact I don't know anyone who supports multiculti who doesn't advocate an integrationist model. But it is one of the common strawmen that critics like to bounce around.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 11:22am:

freediver wrote on Jun 17th, 2017 at 9:00am: Muslims cannot actually take the position that slavery is inherently wrong because to do so is to criticise Muhammad. Isn't that right Gandalf? I take the position that slavery is inherently wrong. Is that clear enough for you?

So what is your take on Muhammad condoning slavery and using it as a recruiting tool?

You previously described slavery as merciful.

Aussie wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 5:26pm:

Grendel wrote on Jun 18th, 2017 at 5:23pm: Der.. the policies we had before Multiculturalism... No.  Man up Grendel.  Enough of the tap dances in custard.  It is a simple question, using your own terms. Quote: .......what you consider to be integration and assimilation?

I guess you firstly need to understand the difference between the two before you can answer that coherently.

Assimilationism was the 'bad ol days' of the White Australia Policy - and even a short period after its abolition. It basically dictated that other cultures weren't allowed. It was a failure - not least of all economically, as migrants (essentially our main source of labour for most of our history) tend not to be very productive when they are denied their cultural heritage. Not surprisingly it was actually the business-minded liberals (and their business lobyists) who pushed for change and gravitated their policies towards integration. Because it made good business sense to make your workers as productive as possible. So integration says that migrants can hold on to their culture, provided they "integrate" into our core values.

as an interesting side-note, its interesting to follow the liberal party's positions on immigration and multiculturalism. Especially now with the re-emergence of "race" and culture as a political issue - vis-a-vis One Nation. We often mistake the liberal party as anti-immigration and anti-multiculti, but in fact the opposite is true. And this is for two key reasons: firstly, the business/productivity motivation as mentioned above. In more recent years though another powerful motivation has emerged: the rise of powerful Asian business lobbyists who overwhelmingly support the liberal party. You might have noticed recently an internal brawl within the federal libs over whether or not to usurp ON policies to negate ON as a political force. Advocates for such a strategy were pretty much slapped down by the party, and in the aftermath we saw a number of signals from liberals in defense of multiculturalism and religious freedom. They understand only too well that any leeching of votes by ON pales in comparison to the backlash by their own migrant lobby if they were ever seen to be cozying up to ON or their platform.

Auggie wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 5:43pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 18th, 2017 at 5:36pm: There are entire chapters of the Koran dedicated to slaughtering the infidel. True, there are. It's ultimately a matter of degree. freediver wrote on Jun 18th, 2017 at 5:36pm: Are you making a distinction with polytheism? I am yet to find any religion that promotes violence as explicitly as Islam. No, I'm making the distinction between a religion like Jainism, which has non-violence as its core principal, but is not really a true monotheistic religion. freediver wrote on Jun 18th, 2017 at 5:36pm: They are beligerant regardless of context. I'm willing to meet a Muslim halfway by agreeing that the violent verses are within the context of self-defence. It's important to understand that 'pre-emptive attacks' can be used as a method for self-defence - i.e. when Muhammad raided caravans, one could argue that such preemptive strike was 'defensive' in nature. What I can't reconcile is the views of women, particularly wife-beating (I'm not sure if this is in the Torah), and the view of sexual slavery. I also cannot reconcile the Hadith attributing to Muhammad the command to kill or beat women. Some people might say 'oh, well that was the society at the time'. Was it, really? We like to absolve historical characters of their flaws by saying that 'it was the prevailing attitude of their time' but I don't really think that (in any case) it applied to most people. Most men were respectful of women in any age or time from an INDIVIDUAL level.

That's a very cynical view on self defence.

Gandalf does not justify the caravans and murder of traders as self defence, but retribution for his mistreatement in Mecca. They were merely 'stealing back' what was taken from them, and the people Muhammad murdered just happened to get in his way.

Muhammad ordered several battles battles and massacres merely to destroy pagan temples that were competing with the Kaaba, which he had just seized control of. From there they established control over the Arabian Peninsula militarily by going to place to place and forcing people to submit to Islam and pay the Islamic tax (or die). Sometimes they just slaughtered small pagan communities who had not yet converted, but posed no threat at all.

Even where you can try to construe his violence as self defence, it came after belligerent antagonism by Muhammad. For example, Muhammad once murdered 800 innocent, unarmed Jews in a single day. Gandalf likes to draw a very long bow and paint the Muslims as the victims and the genocide as an act of self defence, for example by accusing the Jews (without any evidence at all, even by Muslim standards) of conspiring the genocide of Muslims, and ignoring Muhammad's efforts to convert them, which can at best be described as anti-diplomacy.

If you can turn all of that into self defence, you can also turn every modern act of terrorism into self defence. If destroys the meaning of the term.

freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 12:10pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 11:22am: freediver wrote on Jun 17th, 2017 at 9:00am: Muslims cannot actually take the position that slavery is inherently wrong because to do so is to criticise Muhammad. Isn't that right Gandalf? I take the position that slavery is inherently wrong. Is that clear enough for you? So what is your take on Muhammad condoning slavery and using it as a recruiting tool? You previously described slavery as merciful.

My take is that he 'condoned' slavery only in so far as he didn't seek wholesale abolition of a deeply ingrained practice - but arguably sought to phase it out gradually. Muhammad was not a revolutionary. He was the first leader to regulate the practice, stipulating human rights of slaves that must be respected (not quite a contradiction in terms as you are no doubt thinking), and most importantly, greatly broadened the conditions on which slaves could be freed - in addition to encouraging owners to free their slaves.

FD, there's a verse in the Torah of a man violating a girl. God then instructs him to pay 50 shekels and marry her.

Isn't this condoning rape? Ergo, not really different from any other like verse in the Quran?

Shouldn't we acknowledge that both monotheistic traditions are rooted in tribal culture and therefore the rules and norms governing a tribal society are no longer compatible with modern, secular nation states?

freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 12:27pm:

Gandalf likes to draw a very long bow and paint the Muslims as the victims and the genocide as an act of self defence, for example by accusing the Jews (without any evidence at all, even by Muslim standards) of conspiring the genocide of Muslims

More nonsense from FD.

The Banu Qurayza conspired with the people who were laying siege to Medina. This you don't dispute. That the Quraysh were threatening "genocide" with their 10 thousand strong army who were attempting to overrun Medina is my assessment - and I don't think its an unreasonable one. Certainly more reasonable than calling the execution of a few hundred warriors for treason as "genocide".

Auggie wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 1:02pm:

FD, there's a verse in the Torah of a man violating a girl. God then instructs him to pay 50 shekels and marry her. Isn't this condoning rape? Ergo, not really different from any other like verse in the Quran? Shouldn't we acknowledge that both monotheistic traditions are rooted in tribal culture and therefore the rules and norms governing a tribal society are no longer compatible with modern, secular nation states?

Caesar trust me, you won't find any verse in the Quran saying or even suggesting rapists should marry their victims.

FD argues that the Quran allows spousal rape by rhetorically asking me where the Quran condemns such a practice - as opposed to pointing to any passage that condones it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 12:01pm:

Grendel wrote on Jun 18th, 2017 at 4:42pm: Of course we can abolish multiculti karnal, we simply reinstated integration or assimilation as our settlement policy and those unhappy can leave. The integration model was specifically designed for multiculturalism G. Actually it wasn't it was designed by a handful of social scientists who wanted to experiment with our society.  It became a settlement policy.  Before it we already had Assimilation which was replaced by INTEGRATION...  but that wasn't enough for these few loonies.  They wanted more. It acknowledged that we can no longer pretend that people from different cultures can simply stop being who they are culturally and "assimilate" into the dominant culture. Oh dear which is why we went from Assimilation which worked pretty well for an awfully long time, to INTEGRATION, where all sorts of helpful agencies were formed.  Multiculti and integration work hand in hand. No they don't, Multiculturalism does not require Assimilation or Integration... Multiculti expects tolerance yet it seems to be a very one way street... In fact I don't know anyone who supports multiculti who doesn't advocate an integrationist model. that's because they are confused and that has been part of the multiculti experience, the policy is always being fiddled with around the edges to make it more palatable to the wider community.  Ask most people about it and they'll give you recipes....  well you don't need Multiculti for recipes or to eat different food... But it is one of the common strawmen that critics like to bounce around. So you admit people want Integration and not Multiculti...  goodo, I can agree with that.  Time has passed when Multiculti should be abandoned.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 1:16pm:

Auggie wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 1:02pm: FD, there's a verse in the Torah of a man violating a girl. God then instructs him to pay 50 shekels and marry her. Isn't this condoning rape? Ergo, not really different from any other like verse in the Quran? Shouldn't we acknowledge that both monotheistic traditions are rooted in tribal culture and therefore the rules and norms governing a tribal society are no longer compatible with modern, secular nation states? Caesar trust me, you won't find any verse in the Quran saying or even suggesting rapists should marry their victims. FD argues that the Quran allows spousal rape by rhetorically asking me where the Quran condemns such a practice - as opposed to pointing to any passage that condones it.

Yet G we have this article....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/04/05/malaysian-lawmaker-says-victims-could-marry-their-rapists-even-if-they-are-children/?utm_term=.33a891a6cea2
There are some very disturbing beliefs in there from this male Muslim Malaysian Sharia judge and Parliamentarian.
Where do you suppose those ideas have come from?

Auggie wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 5:24pm:

Grendel wrote on Jun 18th, 2017 at 5:23pm: Der.. the policies we had before Multiculturalism... Which was when? I don't know.

Before Fraser was PM....  time to learn how to Google Auggie, how you don't know yet feel free to comment is strange in deed.

Oh and Aussie you troll...  I've posted here and in many sites on the NET the definitions of those policies...  Man up yourself Gunga. :D

If you both want to learn a bit about Multiculti I suggest you go to the appropriate topic.
If you want a government opinion, you could read this...
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1011/11rp06
You could buy Mark Lopez's excellent book...
The Origins of multiculturalism in Australian Politics 1945-1975
or
Read just about anything on the topic by Katherine Betts...
Just to name a few sources.

BTW they all back me up. ::) ::) ::)

Grendel wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 2:21pm:

Auggie wrote on Jun 18th, 2017 at 5:24pm: Grendel wrote on Jun 18th, 2017 at 5:23pm: Der.. the policies we had before Multiculturalism... Which was when? I don't know. Before Fraser was PM....  time to learn how to Google Auggie, how you don't know yet feel free to comment is strange in deed. Oh and Aussie you troll...  I've posted here and in many sites on the NET the definitions of those policies...  Man up yourself Gunga. :D

You're the one who brought up the claim, and the onus is on you to provide evidence. I'm not going to do your homework for you; I don't ask you to do mine.

If you bring up a claim, you need to be ready to provide evidence; that's what I do. Saying 'oh, look up Google' is just you're being lazy - a claim not backed by any evidence.

Grendel wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 2:35pm:

If you both want to learn a bit about Multiculti I suggest you go to the appropriate topic. If you want a government opinion, you could read this... http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1011/11rp06 You could buy Mark Lopez's excellent book... The Origins of multiculturalism in Australian Politics 1945-1975 or Read just about anything on the topic by Katherine Betts... Just to name a few sources. BTW they all back me up. ::) ::) ::)

Back you up on what? What's your claim? That multiculturalism has failed Australia?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 1:16pm:

Auggie wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 1:02pm: FD, there's a verse in the Torah of a man violating a girl. God then instructs him to pay 50 shekels and marry her. Isn't this condoning rape? Ergo, not really different from any other like verse in the Quran? Shouldn't we acknowledge that both monotheistic traditions are rooted in tribal culture and therefore the rules and norms governing a tribal society are no longer compatible with modern, secular nation states? Caesar trust me, you won't find any verse in the Quran saying or even suggesting rapists should marry their victims. FD argues that the Quran allows spousal rape by rhetorically asking me where the Quran condemns such a practice - as opposed to pointing to any passage that condones it.

Maybe, but what about the claim that Muhammad had illicit sexual relations with a 9 year old girl?

Auggie wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 3:32pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 1:16pm: Auggie wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 1:02pm: FD, there's a verse in the Torah of a man violating a girl. God then instructs him to pay 50 shekels and marry her. Isn't this condoning rape? Ergo, not really different from any other like verse in the Quran? Shouldn't we acknowledge that both monotheistic traditions are rooted in tribal culture and therefore the rules and norms governing a tribal society are no longer compatible with modern, secular nation states? Caesar trust me, you won't find any verse in the Quran saying or even suggesting rapists should marry their victims. FD argues that the Quran allows spousal rape by rhetorically asking me where the Quran condemns such a practice - as opposed to pointing to any passage that condones it. Maybe, but what about the claim that Muhammad had illicit sexual relations with a 9 year old girl?

based on questionable ahadith. More recent scholarship has cast serious doubts on the hadithic age of Aisha at consummation - and estimate she was actually in her late teens/early twenties.

In any case, none of that is mentioned in the Quran.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 3:51pm:

Auggie wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 3:32pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 1:16pm: Auggie wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 1:02pm: FD, there's a verse in the Torah of a man violating a girl. God then instructs him to pay 50 shekels and marry her. Isn't this condoning rape? Ergo, not really different from any other like verse in the Quran? Shouldn't we acknowledge that both monotheistic traditions are rooted in tribal culture and therefore the rules and norms governing a tribal society are no longer compatible with modern, secular nation states? Caesar trust me, you won't find any verse in the Quran saying or even suggesting rapists should marry their victims. FD argues that the Quran allows spousal rape by rhetorically asking me where the Quran condemns such a practice - as opposed to pointing to any passage that condones it. Maybe, but what about the claim that Muhammad had illicit sexual relations with a 9 year old girl? based on questionable ahadith. More recent scholarship has cast serious doubts on the hadithic age of Aisha at consummation - and estimate she was actually in her late teens/early twenties. In any case, none of that is mentioned in the Quran.

Ah ok, fair enough. I know there is a growing movement know as Quranism, which exclusively focuses on the Quran and not on any other sources. I personally find the idea of 'testimonies' about Muhammad behaviour to be fundamentally against the tradition of Islam, given that the Quran is meant to the Word of God.

Also, what do you think of the Shia tradition? Is the presence of an Imanate more likely to result in progressive and moderate Islam as opposed to the Sunni tradition? For e.g. a branch of the Shia tradition - the Ismailis are very moderate compared to other branches of Islam without an authority due to the authority of the Aga Khan.

According to Twelver tradition, the Iman possess wisdom to interpret the 'esoteric' meanings of the Quran.

I must confess my ignorance of Shia theology. But isn't the Imanate sect just one of several Shia sects? I understand the Shia to have some quite progressive sects, namely the Alawites and the Houthies - who are currently getting pulverised by American and British bombs in Yemen.

But I can tell you that you don't need a special Iman to obtain subtle and enlightened meaning from the Quran. Reinterpreting the Quran actually has a very rich tradition in Islam - 'Ijtihad' - and it involves using ones intellect and reasoning to look beyond the mere literal meaning of the words. Unfortunately, many muslims consider the doors to ijtihad to be closed - and insist that a medieval canon of Quranic law is fit until the end of time.

The Islamic world doesn't need an Iman, it needs the doors to ijtihad to be reopened - for muslims to think for themselves and use their powers of reasoning to obtain sensible meaning of Quranic law that is appropriate for this day and age.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 4:19pm:

I must confess my ignorance of Shia theology. But isn't the Imanate sect just one of several Shia sects? I understand the Shia to have some quite progressive sects, namely the Alawites and the Houthies - who are currently getting pulverised by American and British bombs in Yemen. But I can tell you that you don't need a special Iman to obtain subtle and enlightened meaning from the Quran. Reinterpreting the Quran actually has a very rich tradition in Islam - 'Ijtihad' - and it involves using ones intellect and reasoning to look beyond the mere literal meaning of the words. Unfortunately, many muslims consider the doors to ijtihad to be closed - and insist that a medieval canon of Quranic law is fit until the end of time. The Islamic world doesn't need an Iman, it needs the doors to ijtihad to be reopened - for muslims to think for themselves and use their powers of reasoning to obtain sensible meaning of Quranic law that is appropriate for this day and age.

I totally agree. Weren't the Mut'alizites focused on using reasoning and intellect to interpret the Quran?

In fact, my whole previous argument on interpreting the Quran (i.e. my partiality that FD found unique) was that parts of the Quran that go against God's nature cannot be from God, etc., and that if the Quran is God's speech then 'God must have preceded his own speech...' which He did because He revealed the message to other Prophets.

The argument, in my view, was also that because the style of the Quran changes over time, not all of the Quran can't be God's Word: assuming that He is omnipotent and omniscent, then it's rational to assume that God is consistent and speaks with one voice. That he speaks in a poetic manner earlier on in the tradition and then changes toward a more prose-form later on indicates a significant degree of change that rationality cannot explain, unless of course one argues that God is arbitrary (which is then irrational, based on my view).

I see the Medinan verses of the Quran as a kind of 'Quranic aHadith' - supplementary texts that accompany the Quran. If you read the Quran chronologically, you'll find that about part way through it, Muhammad begins to mentioned Kitab (book) compared to Quran (recitation). Does this mean that only those few verses are actually the Quran and that everything else is commentary?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 1:01pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 12:10pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 11:22am: freediver wrote on Jun 17th, 2017 at 9:00am: Muslims cannot actually take the position that slavery is inherently wrong because to do so is to criticise Muhammad. Isn't that right Gandalf? I take the position that slavery is inherently wrong. Is that clear enough for you? So what is your take on Muhammad condoning slavery and using it as a recruiting tool? You previously described slavery as merciful. My take is that he 'condoned' slavery only in so far as he didn't seek wholesale abolition of a deeply ingrained practice - but arguably sought to phase it out gradually. Muhammad was not a revolutionary. He was the first leader to regulate the practice, stipulating human rights of slaves that must be respected (not quite a contradiction in terms as you are no doubt thinking), and most importantly, greatly broadened the conditions on which slaves could be freed - in addition to encouraging owners to free their slaves.

Yeheshua condoned slavery: slaves, be true to thy masters.

So I'm curious. Why isn't FD criticising Christianity?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 4:19pm:

I must confess my ignorance of Shia theology. But isn't the Imanate sect just one of several Shia sects? I understand the Shia to have some quite progressive sects, namely the Alawites and the Houthies - who are currently getting pulverised by American and British bombs in Yemen. But I can tell you that you don't need a special Iman to obtain subtle and enlightened meaning from the Quran. Reinterpreting the Quran actually has a very rich tradition in Islam - 'Ijtihad' - and it involves using ones intellect and reasoning to look beyond the mere literal meaning of the words. Unfortunately, many muslims consider the doors to ijtihad to be closed - and insist that a medieval canon of Quranic law is fit until the end of time. The Islamic world doesn't need an Iman, it needs the doors to ijtihad to be reopened - for muslims to think for themselves and use their powers of reasoning to obtain sensible meaning of Quranic law that is appropriate for this day and age.

Yes, but you must be aware that this is all taqiyya, shurely.

Out with it, G. Are you trying to trick us into thinking for ourselves so that, when we least expect it, you'll jump out with a bomb and blow us all up?

Please explain.

Karnal wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 5:16pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 1:01pm: freediver wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 12:10pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 11:22am: freediver wrote on Jun 17th, 2017 at 9:00am: Muslims cannot actually take the position that slavery is inherently wrong because to do so is to criticise Muhammad. Isn't that right Gandalf? I take the position that slavery is inherently wrong. Is that clear enough for you? So what is your take on Muhammad condoning slavery and using it as a recruiting tool? You previously described slavery as merciful. My take is that he 'condoned' slavery only in so far as he didn't seek wholesale abolition of a deeply ingrained practice - but arguably sought to phase it out gradually. Muhammad was not a revolutionary. He was the first leader to regulate the practice, stipulating human rights of slaves that must be respected (not quite a contradiction in terms as you are no doubt thinking), and most importantly, greatly broadened the conditions on which slaves could be freed - in addition to encouraging owners to free their slaves. Yeheshua condoned slavery: slaves, be true to thy masters. So I'm curious. Why isn't FD criticising Christianity?

Incorrect? Paul made that comment, not Jesus?

Auggie wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 5:42pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 5:16pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 1:01pm: freediver wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 12:10pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 11:22am: freediver wrote on Jun 17th, 2017 at 9:00am: Muslims cannot actually take the position that slavery is inherently wrong because to do so is to criticise Muhammad. Isn't that right Gandalf? I take the position that slavery is inherently wrong. Is that clear enough for you? So what is your take on Muhammad condoning slavery and using it as a recruiting tool? You previously described slavery as merciful. My take is that he 'condoned' slavery only in so far as he didn't seek wholesale abolition of a deeply ingrained practice - but arguably sought to phase it out gradually. Muhammad was not a revolutionary. He was the first leader to regulate the practice, stipulating human rights of slaves that must be respected (not quite a contradiction in terms as you are no doubt thinking), and most importantly, greatly broadened the conditions on which slaves could be freed - in addition to encouraging owners to free their slaves. Yeheshua condoned slavery: slaves, be true to thy masters. So I'm curious. Why isn't FD criticising Christianity? Incorrect? Paul made that comment, not Jesus?

Thanks, Augie, you're right. Paul condoned slavery.

Paul created Christianity. He was so responsible, early Christians were called Paulinians.

So why not criticise Christianity for condoning slavery?

Karnal wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 6:02pm:

Auggie wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 5:42pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 5:16pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 1:01pm: freediver wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 12:10pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 11:22am: freediver wrote on Jun 17th, 2017 at 9:00am: Muslims cannot actually take the position that slavery is inherently wrong because to do so is to criticise Muhammad. Isn't that right Gandalf? I take the position that slavery is inherently wrong. Is that clear enough for you? So what is your take on Muhammad condoning slavery and using it as a recruiting tool? You previously described slavery as merciful. My take is that he 'condoned' slavery only in so far as he didn't seek wholesale abolition of a deeply ingrained practice - but arguably sought to phase it out gradually. Muhammad was not a revolutionary. He was the first leader to regulate the practice, stipulating human rights of slaves that must be respected (not quite a contradiction in terms as you are no doubt thinking), and most importantly, greatly broadened the conditions on which slaves could be freed - in addition to encouraging owners to free their slaves. Yeheshua condoned slavery: slaves, be true to thy masters. So I'm curious. Why isn't FD criticising Christianity? Incorrect? Paul made that comment, not Jesus? Thanks, Augie, you're right. Paul condoned slavery. Paul created Christianity. He was so responsible, early Christians were called Paulinians. So why not criticise Christianity for condoning slavery?

Yes, I agree, however, the FDs and like compare the teachings of Muhammad with the teachings of Jesus. And there, I'm afraid is a clear distinction.

Islam and Christianity are separate issues.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 1:01pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 12:10pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 11:22am: freediver wrote on Jun 17th, 2017 at 9:00am: Muslims cannot actually take the position that slavery is inherently wrong because to do so is to criticise Muhammad. Isn't that right Gandalf? I take the position that slavery is inherently wrong. Is that clear enough for you? So what is your take on Muhammad condoning slavery and using it as a recruiting tool? You previously described slavery as merciful. My take is that he 'condoned' slavery only in so far as he didn't seek wholesale abolition of a deeply ingrained practice - but arguably sought to phase it out gradually. Muhammad was not a revolutionary. He was the first leader to regulate the practice, stipulating human rights of slaves that must be respected (not quite a contradiction in terms as you are no doubt thinking), and most importantly, greatly broadened the conditions on which slaves could be freed - in addition to encouraging owners to free their slaves.

Crap. There were plenty of regulations regarding the condition of slaves prior to Muhammad.

Would you mind quoting where Muhammad talked about human rights? How exactly do you respect a person's human rights while denying them every human right by enslaving them? This is just more Islamic spin-doctoring, trying to polish a turd by redefining human rights, respect etc.

Muslims freed slaves who converted because it was yet another way to compel people to adopt Islam. And the idea of "freeing" a female slave after she bears her owner a son is about as cynical as it gets.

Are you now saying that Muhammad condoned something you consider to be inherently wrong?


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 1:13pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 12:27pm: Gandalf likes to draw a very long bow and paint the Muslims as the victims and the genocide as an act of self defence, for example by accusing the Jews (without any evidence at all, even by Muslim standards) of conspiring the genocide of Muslims More nonsense from FD. The Banu Qurayza conspired with the people who were laying siege to Medina. This you don't dispute. That the Quraysh were threatening "genocide" with their 10 thousand strong army who were attempting to overrun Medina is my assessment - and I don't think its an unreasonable one. Certainly more reasonable than calling the execution of a few hundred warriors for treason as "genocide".

You accused them, several times, of conspiring to commit genocide. You lied. You made the whole thing up. And now you are trying to tapdance around it. Muhammad committed genocide. The Jews did not. They did not conspire to commit genocide. They were not a mindless collective. These are all just lies you tell yourself to make you feel better about adopting an evil religion.


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 1:16pm:

Auggie wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 1:02pm: FD, there's a verse in the Torah of a man violating a girl. God then instructs him to pay 50 shekels and marry her. Isn't this condoning rape? Ergo, not really different from any other like verse in the Quran? Shouldn't we acknowledge that both monotheistic traditions are rooted in tribal culture and therefore the rules and norms governing a tribal society are no longer compatible with modern, secular nation states? Caesar trust me, you won't find any verse in the Quran saying or even suggesting rapists should marry their victims. FD argues that the Quran allows spousal rape by rhetorically asking me where the Quran condemns such a practice - as opposed to pointing to any passage that condones it.

A legal system without punishment for rape condones rape. Particularly if it considers sex to be a man's right and a woman's responsibility, and also condones wife beating.


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 3:51pm:

Auggie wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 3:32pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 1:16pm: Auggie wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 1:02pm: FD, there's a verse in the Torah of a man violating a girl. God then instructs him to pay 50 shekels and marry her. Isn't this condoning rape? Ergo, not really different from any other like verse in the Quran? Shouldn't we acknowledge that both monotheistic traditions are rooted in tribal culture and therefore the rules and norms governing a tribal society are no longer compatible with modern, secular nation states? Caesar trust me, you won't find any verse in the Quran saying or even suggesting rapists should marry their victims. FD argues that the Quran allows spousal rape by rhetorically asking me where the Quran condemns such a practice - as opposed to pointing to any passage that condones it. Maybe, but what about the claim that Muhammad had illicit sexual relations with a 9 year old girl? based on questionable ahadith. More recent scholarship has cast serious doubts on the hadithic age of Aisha at consummation - and estimate she was actually in her late teens/early twenties. In any case, none of that is mentioned in the Quran.

The "questionable" ahadith is Aisha herself talking about how old she was.

Don't want to say, eh?

We understand. We'll need to ask you in a separate thread, no?

Karnal wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 9:26pm:

Don't want to say, eh? We understand. We'll need to ask you in a separate thread, no?

You talkin' to me? - Robert De Niro (Taxi)

Auggie wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 9:29pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 9:26pm: Don't want to say, eh? We understand. We'll need to ask you in a separate thread, no? You talkin' to me? - Robert De Niro (Taxi)

I think so.  karnal is just pleased to have someone respond, makes a change. 

Karnal wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 9:26pm:

Don't want to say, eh? We understand. We'll need to ask you in a separate thread, no?

I agree that FD and others should talk about slavery in Christianity and I believe they already have.

The question is about what the followers of the religion believe and how seriously they take the scripture. In the case of Christians, most don't actually believe that it's the Word of God (I can here FD over my shoulder castigating me for 'inventing followers'). Besides, the Bible makes no such claim that it's the literal Word of God; the Quran does.

Makes sense?

Auggie wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 9:56pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 9:26pm: Don't want to say, eh? We understand. We'll need to ask you in a separate thread, no? I agree that FD and others should talk about slavery in Christianity and I believe they already have. The question is about what the followers of the religion believe and how seriously they take the scripture. In the case of Christians, most don't actually believe that it's the Word of God (I can here FD over my shoulder castigating me for 'inventing followers'). Besides, the Bible makes no such claim that it's the literal Word of God; the Quran does. Makes sense?

Britain led the abolishing of slavery in the West.

It is STILL not abolished in Islam. Muslims have traded far, FAR more slaves than Europeans, for far longer. It's still not unIslamic to trade slaves.
Get back to us when Islam abolishes slavery.


You prove yourself stupider than Brian with every post. And god knows, that is saying something. Are you in competition with him?

Auggie wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 9:56pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 9:26pm: Don't want to say, eh? We understand. We'll need to ask you in a separate thread, no? I agree that FD and others should talk about slavery in Christianity and I believe they already have. The question is about what the followers of the religion believe and how seriously they take the scripture. In the case of Christians, most don't actually believe that it's the Word of God (I can here FD over my shoulder castigating me for 'inventing followers'). Besides, the Bible makes no such claim that it's the literal Word of God; the Quran does. Makes sense?

Not at all, Augie. I was taught as a kid that the Bible is the "living" word of God, the absolute truth, and the essence of Christianity is to believe this.

You will find numerous pronouncements to back this up, from the Nicean creeds to various Catholic encyclicals to the works of Calvin and Luther.

I have no idea who's telling you Christians don't believe the Bible is the word of God. In some places, this would have you shunned or hunted down.

Frank wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 10:17pm:

Auggie wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 9:56pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 9:26pm: Don't want to say, eh? We understand. We'll need to ask you in a separate thread, no? I agree that FD and others should talk about slavery in Christianity and I believe they already have. The question is about what the followers of the religion believe and how seriously they take the scripture. In the case of Christians, most don't actually believe that it's the Word of God (I can here FD over my shoulder castigating me for 'inventing followers'). Besides, the Bible makes no such claim that it's the literal Word of God; the Quran does. Makes sense? Britain led the abolishing of slavery in the West. It is STILL not abolished in Islam. Muslims have traded far, FAR more slaves than Europeans, for far longer.

Apart from the Greeks and Romans, of course.

You're always right, old boy.

Karnal wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 10:27pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 10:17pm: Auggie wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 9:56pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 9:26pm: Don't want to say, eh? We understand. We'll need to ask you in a separate thread, no? I agree that FD and others should talk about slavery in Christianity and I believe they already have. The question is about what the followers of the religion believe and how seriously they take the scripture. In the case of Christians, most don't actually believe that it's the Word of God (I can here FD over my shoulder castigating me for 'inventing followers'). Besides, the Bible makes no such claim that it's the literal Word of God; the Quran does. Makes sense? Britain led the abolishing of slavery in the West. It is STILL not abolished in Islam. Muslims have traded far, FAR more slaves than Europeans, for far longer. Apart from the Greeks and Romans, of course. You're always right, old boy.

And Egyptians, Babylonians, Africans, Asians, Chinese, American Indians.

You stupid bastard.

Frank wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 10:34pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 10:27pm: Frank wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 10:17pm: Auggie wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 9:56pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 9:26pm: Don't want to say, eh? We understand. We'll need to ask you in a separate thread, no? I agree that FD and others should talk about slavery in Christianity and I believe they already have. The question is about what the followers of the religion believe and how seriously they take the scripture. In the case of Christians, most don't actually believe that it's the Word of God (I can here FD over my shoulder castigating me for 'inventing followers'). Besides, the Bible makes no such claim that it's the literal Word of God; the Quran does. Makes sense? Britain led the abolishing of slavery in the West. It is STILL not abolished in Islam. Muslims have traded far, FAR more slaves than Europeans, for far longer. Apart from the Greeks and Romans, of course. You're always right, old boy. And Egyptians, Babylonians, Africans, Asians, Chinese, American Indians. You stupid bastard.

Ee-gad, you're right.

All Muslims, were they?

Karnal wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 10:59pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 10:34pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 10:27pm: Frank wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 10:17pm: Auggie wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 9:56pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 9:26pm: Don't want to say, eh? We understand. We'll need to ask you in a separate thread, no? I agree that FD and others should talk about slavery in Christianity and I believe they already have. The question is about what the followers of the religion believe and how seriously they take the scripture. In the case of Christians, most don't actually believe that it's the Word of God (I can here FD over my shoulder castigating me for 'inventing followers'). Besides, the Bible makes no such claim that it's the literal Word of God; the Quran does. Makes sense? Britain led the abolishing of slavery in the West. It is STILL not abolished in Islam. Muslims have traded far, FAR more slaves than Europeans, for far longer. Apart from the Greeks and Romans, of course. You're always right, old boy. And Egyptians, Babylonians, Africans, Asians, Chinese, American Indians. You stupid bastard. Ee-gad, you're right. All Muslims, were they?

So Muslims are not Europeans - what the hell are they doing in Europe and in Western countries?
They have a completely alien ethics, why shouldn't we  keep them out? They still haven't abolished slavery.
Keep Islam out. It bring nothing positive, only degradation and backwardness.

Frank wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 11:06pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 10:59pm: Frank wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 10:34pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 10:27pm: Frank wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 10:17pm: Auggie wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 9:56pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 9:26pm: Don't want to say, eh? We understand. We'll need to ask you in a separate thread, no? I agree that FD and others should talk about slavery in Christianity and I believe they already have. The question is about what the followers of the religion believe and how seriously they take the scripture. In the case of Christians, most don't actually believe that it's the Word of God (I can here FD over my shoulder castigating me for 'inventing followers'). Besides, the Bible makes no such claim that it's the literal Word of God; the Quran does. Makes sense? Britain led the abolishing of slavery in the West. It is STILL not abolished in Islam. Muslims have traded far, FAR more slaves than Europeans, for far longer. Apart from the Greeks and Romans, of course. You're always right, old boy. And Egyptians, Babylonians, Africans, Asians, Chinese, American Indians. You stupid bastard. Ee-gad, you're right. All Muslims, were they? So Muslims are not Europeans - what the hell are they doing in Europe and in Western countries? They have a completely alien ethics, why shouldn't we  keep them out? They still haven't abolished slavery. Keep Islam out.

Good point. Let's keep Babylonians, Egyptians and American Indians out.

They might be tempted to make a purchase from the slave market, no?

freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 9:19pm:

Crap. There were plenty of regulations regarding the condition of slaves prior to Muhammad.

Such as? Of course its in the interests of slave owners to have healthy, and to an extent, happy slaves. But as far as legal rights go, I don't think there was much beyond "keep them alive". This was very different under Muhammad (according to hadithic literature, which you know I take with a grain of salt)


Quote:

Would you mind quoting where Muhammad talked about human rights? How exactly do you respect a person's human rights while denying them every human right by enslaving them? This is just more Islamic spin-doctoring, trying to polish a turd by redefining human rights, respect etc.

Of course human rights and slavery are contradiction in terms, and the preference is for there to be no slavery. You don't need to give me that tired lecture again. But it doesn't mean you can't improve the institution by granting certain "rights" (for want of a better word) that to my knowledge had never been granted before. These include (according to ahadith):
- the owner must provide his slave the equivalent food and clothing that he gets
- falsely accusing a slave is a punishable offense
- slaves must not be overburdened in their labour

most significantly for me is Islam's emphasis on freeing slaves as a virtue, and possibly most radical of all - the granting of the right for a slave to earn money and buying his freedom. And no, despite popular perception, freedom was not restricted to muslim slaves


Quote:

Are you now saying that Muhammad condoned something you consider to be inherently wrong?

If you recall I qualified the word "condone". I don't really believe he condoned it and he wanted it to end. My understanding is that most of the regulation around slavery were basically grandfather laws for slavery that already existed before Islam. Though I do acknowledge that slaves continued to be taken under Muhammad's rule. And yes I note the cruel irony in the fact that slavery flourished under Islam thereafter.

freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 9:19pm:

You accused them, several times, of conspiring to commit genocide. You lied. You made the whole thing up. And now you are trying to tapdance around it. Muhammad committed genocide. The Jews did not. They did not conspire to commit genocide. They were not a mindless collective. These are all just lies you tell yourself to make you feel better about adopting an evil religion.

FD you being disingenuous.

Did the Banu Qurayza not conspire with the 10 thousand strong army that was attempting to overrun Medina? At no time have you disputed this.

I speculate that that 10 thousand strong army would have committed genocide of the Medinans had they won, and I don't think its an unreasonable speculation to make. Thats really it FD. That is not lying or tapdancing.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 10:55am:

freediver wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 9:19pm: Crap. There were plenty of regulations regarding the condition of slaves prior to Muhammad. Such as? Of course its in the interests of slave owners to have healthy, and to an extent, happy slaves. But as far as legal rights go, I don't think there was much beyond "keep them alive". This was very different under Muhammad (according to hadithic literature, which you know I take with a grain of salt) Quote: Would you mind quoting where Muhammad talked about human rights? How exactly do you respect a person's human rights while denying them every human right by enslaving them? This is just more Islamic spin-doctoring, trying to polish a turd by redefining human rights, respect etc. Of course human rights and slavery are contradiction in terms, and the preference is for there to be no slavery. You don't need to give me that tired lecture again. But it doesn't mean you can't improve the institution by granting certain "rights" (for want of a better word) that to my knowledge had never been granted before. These include (according to ahadith): - the owner must provide his slave the equivalent food and clothing that he gets - falsely accusing a slave is a punishable offense - slaves must not be overburdened in their labour most significantly for me is Islam's emphasis on freeing slaves as a virtue, and possibly most radical of all - the granting of the right for a slave to earn money and buying his freedom. And no, despite popular perception, freedom was not restricted to muslim slaves [quote]Are you now saying that Muhammad condoned something you consider to be inherently wrong?

If you recall I qualified the word "condone". I don't really believe he condoned it and he wanted it to end. My understanding is that most of the regulation around slavery were basically grandfather laws for slavery that already existed before Islam. Though I do acknowledge that slaves continued to be taken under Muhammad's rule. And yes I note the cruel irony in the fact that slavery flourished under Islam thereafter.

[/quote]

Interesting. Compared to the New Testament's onus on the slave: slaves, be true to thy masters, Islam sounds really nice.

Is FD complaining because Islam has more Freeeeedom than Christianity? 


freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2017 at 9:19pm:

Escape from slavery is a key aspect in Jewish religious identity and the foundation of the original nation of Israel. In contrast, Islam was founded and spread by the enslavement of non-Muslims, and it stuck with Islam until it was forcibly denied by non-Muslims.

Karnal wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 10:26pm:

Auggie wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 9:56pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 9:26pm: Don't want to say, eh? We understand. We'll need to ask you in a separate thread, no? I agree that FD and others should talk about slavery in Christianity and I believe they already have. The question is about what the followers of the religion believe and how seriously they take the scripture. In the case of Christians, most don't actually believe that it's the Word of God (I can here FD over my shoulder castigating me for 'inventing followers'). Besides, the Bible makes no such claim that it's the literal Word of God; the Quran does. Makes sense? Not at all, Augie. I was taught as a kid that the Bible is the "living" word of God, the absolute truth, and the essence of Christianity is to believe this. You will find numerous pronouncements to back this up, from the Nicean creeds to various Catholic encyclicals to the works of Calvin and Luther. I have no idea who's telling you Christians don't believe the Bible is the word of God. In some places, this would have you shunned or hunted down.

Anything in the Bible?

LOL slaves now....  when was slavery abolished and by whom?
karnal is a dope.  Don't let him keep this shyte going he's a liar.

How about posting the exact quote from the teachings of Jesus re slavery karnal?  hmmm.


Quote:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Do you think Christ said this? :D

As for trying to hold us today to standards and practices of biblical times puhlease.... we sell ourselves today and our time and skills to others, so we must all be slaves as they were in the past. :D :D :D :D :D

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 11:00am:

freediver wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 9:19pm: You accused them, several times, of conspiring to commit genocide. You lied. You made the whole thing up. And now you are trying to tapdance around it. Muhammad committed genocide. The Jews did not. They did not conspire to commit genocide. They were not a mindless collective. These are all just lies you tell yourself to make you feel better about adopting an evil religion. FD you being disingenuous. Did the Banu Qurayza not conspire with the 10 thousand strong army that was attempting to overrun Medina? At no time have you disputed this. I speculate that that 10 thousand strong army would have committed genocide of the Medinans had they won, and I don't think its an unreasonable speculation to make. Thats really it FD. That is not lying or tapdancing.

So you support Muhammad's genocide of the Jews based on 'speculation' that the Jews' allies intended genocide of the Muslims, which you presented as the Jews conspiring to commit genocide?

Do you have any reason for this speculation? Or do you only speculate this because it is necessary to justify Muhammad's genocide? Did all the pagans slaughtered by Muhammad also conspire to commit genocide of Muslims, or just the Jews?

On the issue of slavery, what real rights or changes did Muhammad implement? The only real change I can see is that he ramped up slavery as a tool for compelling people to convert to Islam and for growing the empire. For something you consider inherently wrong, you are taking a remarkably generous approach to Muhammad's institutionalisation of slavery under Islamic law. Muhammad came to be in a position of absolute power. He had the ability to end something you consider to be inherently wrong. Instead he legalised it eternally as the God-given right of Muslims, for political and military expedience.

He did the same with women's rights. As I understand, he actually attempted to ban wife beating, but changed his mind because it was unpopular, and it is now and for all eternity the God-given right of Muslim men to beat their wives. He sold women out for political gain just as he sold slaves out for political gain. At least the slaves had a chance of escaping their condition by converting to Islam, if they were male.

Quote:

Britain led the abolishing of slavery in the West. It is STILL not abolished in Islam. Muslims have traded far, FAR more slaves than Europeans, for far longer. It's still not unIslamic to trade slaves. Get back to us when Islam abolishes slavery. You prove yourself stupider than Brian with every post. And god knows, that is saying something. Are you in competition with him?

Yes, you see, Brian and I have a pact; we're actually good friends in real-life and we spend a couple of hours of day coordinating what arguments to post of OzPolitic. We have a map out in the War Room, and smoke a couple of cigars, thinking "how best can we piss off Frank and Grendel?"

I'm afraid you're outnumbered and trapped..

Auggie wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 6:16pm:

Quote: Britain led the abolishing of slavery in the West. It is STILL not abolished in Islam. Muslims have traded far, FAR more slaves than Europeans, for far longer. It's still not unIslamic to trade slaves. Get back to us when Islam abolishes slavery. You prove yourself stupider than Brian with every post. And god knows, that is saying something. Are you in competition with him? Yes, you see, Brian and I have a pact; we're actually good friends in real-life and we spend a couple of hours of day coordinating what arguments to post of OzPolitic. We have a map out in the War Room, and smoke a couple of cigars, thinking "how best can we piss off Frank and Grendel?" I'm afraid you're outnumbered and trapped..

Hmmmm, I don't see why you'd like to single out me, I address your arguments, I don't personally attack you even though you do on occasion have a shot at me.
So considering I can wipe the floor with both of you, re debating reality, why would you seek to try and flame me on purpose? ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Why would you seek to piss me off, I don't seek to piss anyone off. ::)

Grendel wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 6:49pm:

Auggie wrote on Jun 20th, 2017 at 6:16pm: Quote: Britain led the abolishing of slavery in the West. It is STILL not abolished in Islam. Muslims have traded far, FAR more slaves than Europeans, for far longer. It's still not unIslamic to trade slaves. Get back to us when Islam abolishes slavery. You prove yourself stupider than Brian with every post. And god knows, that is saying something. Are you in competition with him? Yes, you see, Brian and I have a pact; we're actually good friends in real-life and we spend a couple of hours of day coordinating what arguments to post of OzPolitic. We have a map out in the War Room, and smoke a couple of cigars, thinking "how best can we piss off Frank and Grendel?" I'm afraid you're outnumbered and trapped.. Hmmmm, I don't see why you'd like to single out me, I address your arguments, I don't personally attack you even though you do on occasion have a shot at me. So considering I can wipe the floor with both of you, re debating reality, why would you seek to try and flame me on purpose? ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) Why would you seek to piss me off, I don't seek to piss anyone off. ::)

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lx9jb1SPMr1qdrpdr.gif

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 12:20pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 18th, 2017 at 5:26pm: Grendel wrote on Jun 18th, 2017 at 5:23pm: Der.. the policies we had before Multiculturalism... No.  Man up Grendel.  Enough of the tap dances in custard.  It is a simple question, using your own terms. Quote: .......what you consider to be integration and assimilation? I guess you firstly need to understand the difference between the two before you can answer that coherently. Assimilationism was the 'bad ol days' of the White Australia Policy - and even a short period after its abolition. It basically dictated that other cultures weren't allowed. It was a failure - not least of all economically, as migrants (essentially our main source of labour for most of our history) tend not to be very productive when they are denied their cultural heritage. Not surprisingly it was actually the business-minded liberals (and their business lobyists) who pushed for change and gravitated their policies towards integration. Because it made good business sense to make your workers as productive as possible. So integration says that migrants can hold on to their culture, provided they "integrate" into our core values. as an interesting side-note, its interesting to follow the liberal party's positions on immigration and multiculturalism. Especially now with the re-emergence of "race" and culture as a political issue - vis-a-vis One Nation. We often mistake the liberal party as anti-immigration and anti-multiculti, but in fact the opposite is true. And this is for two key reasons: firstly, the business/productivity motivation as mentioned above. In more recent years though another powerful motivation has emerged: the rise of powerful Asian business lobbyists who overwhelmingly support the liberal party. You might have noticed recently an internal brawl within the federal libs over whether or not to usurp ON policies to negate ON as a political force. Advocates for such a strategy were pretty much slapped down by the party, and in the aftermath we saw a number of signals from liberals in defense of multiculturalism and religious freedom. They understand only too well that any leeching of votes by ON pales in comparison to the backlash by their own migrant lobby if they were ever seen to be cozying up to ON or their platform.

LOL take your own advice there G you don't know what Assimilation was at all.... no one was forced deny their cultural heritage and we were doing very well economically in actual fact it was a settlement policy not an immigration or economic policy.
If you have no clue re ON and its policies I suggest you simply shut up about them, many of their policies were taken by both major parties even after they ridiculed them.
Integration was brought in as the new settlement policy in the 60s, after the post world war II immigration waves.

Grendel wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 6:49pm:

I address your arguments,

Actually, you don't. All you do is say: "read that post; I've already addressed these concerns in another post..."

What I do, Grendel, is I present my argument several times, even if I have to repeat myself several times.

I make this effort with you, so you should have the courtesy to make this effort with me....


Grendel wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 6:49pm:

I don't personally attack you even though you do on occasion have a shot at me.

I'm certain I apologized for that only a couple of days ago....


Grendel wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 6:49pm:

So considering I can wipe the floor with both of you,

Actually, you can't and you haven't. You don't match me in presenting your argument. Sure, you made a good post about multiculturalism, but you can't leave it there, you need to continue to engage. Engage....

I engage you, so you should engage me.... If you don't, then you cannot claim to 'wipe the floor with me.'

I also challenged you and Frank to comment on Constitutional Convention, and neither of you have done so. Political reform is a very complex issue and I expect that you are capable of dealing with it.

Grendel wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 6:49pm:

Why would you seek to piss me off, I don't seek to piss anyone off.

It was a joke....

Grendel wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 12:38pm:

LOL slaves now....  when was slavery abolished and by whom? karnal is a dope.  Don't let him keep this shyte going he's a liar. How about posting the exact quote from the teachings of Jesus re slavery karnal?  hmmm. Quote: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT) Do you think Christ said this? :D As for trying to hold us today to standards and practices of biblical times puhlease.... we sell ourselves today and our time and skills to others, so we must all be slaves as they were in the past. :D :D :D :D :D

What do you think, FD? Does Grendel's Bible quote follow your thesis on Freeedom?

I'm curious.

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 12:17pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 10:26pm: Auggie wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 9:56pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 9:26pm: Don't want to say, eh? We understand. We'll need to ask you in a separate thread, no? I agree that FD and others should talk about slavery in Christianity and I believe they already have. The question is about what the followers of the religion believe and how seriously they take the scripture. In the case of Christians, most don't actually believe that it's the Word of God (I can here FD over my shoulder castigating me for 'inventing followers'). Besides, the Bible makes no such claim that it's the literal Word of God; the Quran does. Makes sense? Not at all, Augie. I was taught as a kid that the Bible is the "living" word of God, the absolute truth, and the essence of Christianity is to believe this. You will find numerous pronouncements to back this up, from the Nicean creeds to various Catholic encyclicals to the works of Calvin and Luther. I have no idea who's telling you Christians don't believe the Bible is the word of God. In some places, this would have you shunned or hunted down. Anything in the Bible?

Oh, indeed. But don't take my word for it. Take what Christians themselves say:


Quote:

http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-bible.html

You might want to address slavery first, FD. All Christians believe in the authority of the Bible. To suggest otherwise is itself blasphemy.

And we all know what the penalty for that is, right?

Auggie wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 8:24pm:

Grendel wrote on Jun 20th, 2017 at 6:49pm: Why would you seek to piss me off, I don't seek to piss anyone off. It was a joke....

Then I suggest you find one and don't say to me you do things to "piss me off" like you did.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 12:20pm:

I guess you firstly need to understand the difference between the two before you can answer that coherently. Assimilationism was the 'bad ol days' of the White Australia Policy - and even a short period after its abolition. It basically dictated that other cultures weren't allowed. It was a failure - not least of all economically, as migrants (essentially our main source of labour for most of our history) tend not to be very productive when they are denied their cultural heritage. Not surprisingly it was actually the business-minded liberals (and their business lobyists) who pushed for change and gravitated their policies towards integration. Because it made good business sense to make your workers as productive as possible. So integration says that migrants can hold on to their culture, provided they "integrate" into our core values. as an interesting side-note, its interesting to follow the liberal party's positions on immigration and multiculturalism. Especially now with the re-emergence of "race" and culture as a political issue - vis-a-vis One Nation. We often mistake the liberal party as anti-immigration and anti-multiculti, but in fact the opposite is true. And this is for two key reasons: firstly, the business/productivity motivation as mentioned above. In more recent years though another powerful motivation has emerged: the rise of powerful Asian business lobbyists who overwhelmingly support the liberal party. You might have noticed recently an internal brawl within the federal libs over whether or not to usurp ON policies to negate ON as a political force. Advocates for such a strategy were pretty much slapped down by the party, and in the aftermath we saw a number of signals from liberals in defense of multiculturalism and religious freedom. They understand only too well that any leeching of votes by ON pales in comparison to the backlash by their own migrant lobby if they were ever seen to be cozying up to ON or their platform.

Assimilation never dictated that 'other cultures were not allowed'. Don't be stupid.

You do not migrate to remain in every way as if you hadn't migrated. You migrate because you want assimilate to your chosen new country - unless you are a practicing Muslim. Muslims, uniquely among migrants, want their chosen countries to assimilate to Islam.  That is why they should be kept out.

In Muslim areas of large Western cities, no other cultures are allowed by, er, Muslims.  There is not a single country in the Western world that has benefited from the influx of Muslims who cleave to Islam. All Western countries are much, much worse off by admitting non-assimilating Muslims. No exception.

Non-assimilating Muslims bring no benefit to any country. So you WANT them to assimilate or to stay out.

It's not hard, Gandalf.

Karnal wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 8:30pm:

Grendel wrote on Jun 20th, 2017 at 12:38pm: LOL slaves now....  when was slavery abolished and by whom? karnal is a dope.  Don't let him keep this shyte going he's a liar. How about posting the exact quote from the teachings of Jesus re slavery karnal?  hmmm. Quote: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT) Do you think Christ said this? :D As for trying to hold us today to standards and practices of biblical times puhlease.... we sell ourselves today and our time and skills to others, so we must all be slaves as they were in the past. :D :D :D :D :D What do you think, FD? Does Grendel's Bible quote follow your thesis on Freeedom? I'm curious.

I'm curious as to what the point is you are trying to make?
Do you know?
You seldom make serious or logical points, I'm thinking this is just par for the course re you. :D :D :D :D :D
BTW that quote I posted is not from Jesus... I assumed you'd know that, just from the wording itself. :D

The argument that Muhammad was stuck with existing institutions like slavery does not stack up. He changed many of them.

Freeing slaves may have actually helped Muhammad grow his empire and his economy.  It would have gained him instant supporters in every city he fought against as well as highly motivated warriors. Spartacus for example nearly upended Rome when it was near the peak of its strength. The economic success of Europe in the industrial revolution is partly attributed by some economists to free men working harder because they stood to benefit directly from it. Not just more effectively, as there is also evidence they worked longer hours.

The downside of course is that free men tend to choose their own religion, whereas slaves can be forced to adopt Islam as a way out of slavery. Also, it would have meant no steady flow of female slaves to help the Muslims outbreed their enemies. Maybe even fewer concubines for Muhammad himself.


Karnal wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 8:49pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 20th, 2017 at 12:17pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 10:26pm: Auggie wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 9:56pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 9:26pm: Don't want to say, eh? We understand. We'll need to ask you in a separate thread, no? I agree that FD and others should talk about slavery in Christianity and I believe they already have. The question is about what the followers of the religion believe and how seriously they take the scripture. In the case of Christians, most don't actually believe that it's the Word of God (I can here FD over my shoulder castigating me for 'inventing followers'). Besides, the Bible makes no such claim that it's the literal Word of God; the Quran does. Makes sense? Not at all, Augie. I was taught as a kid that the Bible is the "living" word of God, the absolute truth, and the essence of Christianity is to believe this. You will find numerous pronouncements to back this up, from the Nicean creeds to various Catholic encyclicals to the works of Calvin and Luther. I have no idea who's telling you Christians don't believe the Bible is the word of God. In some places, this would have you shunned or hunted down. Anything in the Bible? Oh, indeed. But don't take my word for it. Take what Christians themselves say: Quote: http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-bible.html You might want to address slavery first, FD. All Christians believe in the authority of the Bible. To suggest otherwise is itself blasphemy. And we all know what the penalty for that is, right?

That appears to be a reference to the book of revelation, not the Bible. I don't think the Bible even existed then.

BTW, Ephesians 6 is a statement of the equality of slaves and slave owners in the eyes of God. Again, not really sure what point you are trying to make.

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 9:18pm:

The argument that Muhammad was stuck with existing institutions like slavery does not stack up. He changed many of them. Freeing slaves may have actually helped Muhammad grow his empire and his economy.  It would have gained him instant supporters in every city he fought against as well as highly motivated warriors. Spartacus for example nearly upended Rome when it was near the peak of its strength. The economic success of Europe in the industrial revolution is partly attributed by some economists to free men working harder because they stood to benefit directly from it. Not just more effectively, as there is also evidence they worked longer hours.

Interesting point that makes me ask:

What IS the political economy of sharia Islam? Where is the economic analysis of the cost and benefits of a sharia-aspiring society?  Islam will never be reformed on theological grounds. Nobody with any authority can mount a theological argument today.  Social critiques have been completely dominated by virtue-signalling identity-politics mongers, so no criticism of Islam will ever come from feminists, gays, atheists, trannies, the curious (Karnal).

But in the spirit of the age, economic analysis of Islam would yield irresistible and irrefutable knock-out blows to the curse of Islamic sharia doctrines.  Islam - it's bad for you. Lose it.

Readers are invited to come up with better advertising slogans. The winner will be proven right.

Gandalf claims to be a socialist. I think Abu made vague references to Islamic economics having similarities with socialism, but I couldn't get anyone to elaborate. Slavery and socialism are mutually exclusive, and Muhammad made a lot of money as a trader and by seizing control of the Kaaba, which had been a lucrative source of income for his family, and then by taxing people and collecting spoils of war. I suspect they just trot the socialism line out to appeal to deluded hippies.

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 9:18pm:

The argument that Muhammad was stuck with existing institutions like slavery does not stack up. He changed many of them. Freeing slaves may have actually helped Muhammad grow his empire and his economy.  It would have gained him instant supporters in every city he fought against as well as highly motivated warriors. Spartacus for example nearly upended Rome when it was near the peak of its strength. The economic success of Europe in the industrial revolution is partly attributed by some economists to free men working harder because they stood to benefit directly from it. Not just more effectively, as there is also evidence they worked longer hours. The downside of course is that free men tend to choose their own religion, whereas slaves can be forced to adopt Islam as a way out of slavery. Also, it would have meant no steady flow of female slaves to help the Muslims outbreed their enemies. Maybe even fewer concubines for Muhammad himself. Karnal wrote on Jun 20th, 2017 at 8:49pm: freediver wrote on Jun 20th, 2017 at 12:17pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 10:26pm: Auggie wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 9:56pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 19th, 2017 at 9:26pm: Don't want to say, eh? We understand. We'll need to ask you in a separate thread, no? I agree that FD and others should talk about slavery in Christianity and I believe they already have. The question is about what the followers of the religion believe and how seriously they take the scripture. In the case of Christians, most don't actually believe that it's the Word of God (I can here FD over my shoulder castigating me for 'inventing followers'). Besides, the Bible makes no such claim that it's the literal Word of God; the Quran does. Makes sense? Not at all, Augie. I was taught as a kid that the Bible is the "living" word of God, the absolute truth, and the essence of Christianity is to believe this. You will find numerous pronouncements to back this up, from the Nicean creeds to various Catholic encyclicals to the works of Calvin and Luther. I have no idea who's telling you Christians don't believe the Bible is the word of God. In some places, this would have you shunned or hunted down. Anything in the Bible? Oh, indeed. But don't take my word for it. Take what Christians themselves say: Quote: http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-bible.html You might want to address slavery first, FD. All Christians believe in the authority of the Bible. To suggest otherwise is itself blasphemy. And we all know what the penalty for that is, right? That appears to be a reference to the book of revelation, not the Bible. I don't think the Bible even existed then. BTW, Ephesians 6 is a statement of the equality of slaves and slave owners in the eyes of God. Again, not really sure what point you are trying to make.

FD, if you're going to make the claim that certain Biblical books are not in the Bible, you're just practicing taqiyya.

But your interpretation of Ephesians 6 means that we can literally interpret the Koran any way we like, just as you have Ephesians 6.

You're not seriously expecting any of this to stand, are you?

Start again, and we'll pretend you didn't post any of this.

We're curious.

I am just reading what it says Karnal. Try it yourself.

Or do you suggest that if I stuck Revelations in a Harry Potter book, it would make it the word of God?

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 9:54pm:

Gandalf claims to be a socialist. I think Abu made vague references to Islamic economics having similarities with socialism, but I couldn't get anyone to elaborate. Slavery and socialism are mutually exclusive, and Muhammad made a lot of money as a trader and by seizing control of the Kaaba, which had been a lucrative source of income for his family, and then by taxing people and collecting spoils of war. I suspect they just trot the socialism line out to appeal to deluded hippies.

Socialism is a continuation of slavery, they are not mutually exclusive.
In slavery, the lord owns you, In socialism, the State does.
Under Islam, the Ummah owes you,under sharia. It will kill you if you leave, like an escaping slave. Islam does mean Submission. It's just another word for Slavery. Muslims are Allah's slaves.


Economically, Islam is the worst possible system, it is a recipe fr poverty, degradation, slavery, backwardness. It suppresses economic, social activity.

A curse. It is suitable only for an ever-aggressive, ever-expanding and plundering economic model. There is  no room for that today. Islamic political economy is a curse, a toxic threat.

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 10:09pm:

I am just reading what it says Karnal. Try it yourself. Or do you suggest that if I stuck Revelations in a Harry Potter book, it would make it the word of God?

Revelations is in the Bible. Would you like to spend 20 pages arguing it isn't?

Let's focus on St Paul instead. How does Grendel's Ephesians quote show that Christianity is anti-slavery?

We're all curious, FD. You asked for a thread that compared the Koran to other religious texts.

Here it is. Here's your chance for the post-2007 FD to shine.

Quote:

Revelations is in the Bible. Would you like to spend 20 pages arguing it isn't?

Read what I actually posted Karnal.

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 10:56pm:

Quote: Revelations is in the Bible. Would you like to spend 20 pages arguing it isn't? Read what I actually posted Karnal.

Don't want to answer the question, eh?

Shall we revisit your OP?

Come back tomorrow, FD.

Frank wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 10:17pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 20th, 2017 at 9:54pm: Gandalf claims to be a socialist. I think Abu made vague references to Islamic economics having similarities with socialism, but I couldn't get anyone to elaborate. Slavery and socialism are mutually exclusive, and Muhammad made a lot of money as a trader and by seizing control of the Kaaba, which had been a lucrative source of income for his family, and then by taxing people and collecting spoils of war. I suspect they just trot the socialism line out to appeal to deluded hippies. Socialism is a continuation of slavery, they are not mutually exclusive. In slavery, the lord owns you, In socialism, the State does. Under Islam, the Ummah owes you,under sharia. It will kill you if you leave, like an escaping slave. Islam does mean Submission. It's just another word for Slavery. Muslims are Allah's slaves. Economically, Islam is the worst possible system, it is a recipe fr poverty, degradation, slavery, backwardness. It suppresses economic, social activity. A curse. It is suitable only for an ever-aggressive, ever-expanding and plundering economic model. There is  no room for that today. Islamic political economy is a curse, a toxic threat.

Even the abolition of compound interest?

Karnal, I asked if there was anything in the Bible itself saying it is the living word of God. You gave me a passage from revelations, which says not to alter this book. However, by "this book" it appears to mean Revelations, not the Bible, which was put together after the book of Revelations. By suggesting that what it says applies to the whole Bible, you are doing exactly what it says not to.


Quote:

Even the abolition of compound interest?

Really bad idea. One outcome was that only 'good' Muslims were able to get loans, because no-one had any incentive to loan money. Banks provide a valuable service. There is nothing wrong with getting paid for it.

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2017 at 9:14am:

Karnal, I asked if there was anything in the Bible itself saying it is the living word of God. You gave me a passage from revelations, which says not to alter this book. However, by "this book" it appears to mean Revelations, not the Bible, which was put together after the book of Revelations. By suggesting that what it says applies to the whole Bible, you are doing exactly what it says not to. Quote: Even the abolition of compound interest? Really bad idea. One outcome was that only 'good' Muslims were able to get loans, because no-one had any incentive to loan money. Banks provide a valuable fservice. There is nothing wrong with getting paid for it.

My link contains multiple quotes, FD. I'm not posting them because you're using this to distract from the real agenda here: slavery and Freeeedom.

If you refuse to reply, you will be charged with that most Musel of crimes:

Evasion.

You should find a religion you can be part of and understand karnal, or become an agnostic or atheist and avoid making a fool of yourself on subjects you are clueless about.

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 12:41pm:

So you support Muhammad's genocide of the Jews based on 'speculation' that the Jews' allies intended genocide of the Muslims, which you presented as the Jews conspiring to commit genocide?

I don't think its unreasonable to execute for treason. Particularly in a time of war, and even more particularly when you have just barely seen off an enemy 10 thousand strong attempting to overrun your home city. It was an existential threat, and those who conspire with that threat - behind your back - shouldn't expect mercy when they are defeated and exposed. Harsh - yes, but it doesn't make one a genocidal maniac. I think even the US still has it on the books.


Quote:

Do you have any reason for this speculation?

10 thousand warriors - the largest army that had been seen at that time and place, attempting to overrun a city. You can join the dots FD.

Quote:

On the issue of slavery, what real rights or changes did Muhammad implement? The only real change I can see is that he ramped up slavery as a tool for compelling people to convert to Islam and for growing the empire. For something you consider inherently wrong, you are taking a remarkably generous approach to Muhammad's institutionalisation of slavery under Islamic law.

See this is you once again not bothering to read what I say on the matter. I carefully set out a fairly detailed answer to that exact question.

Why should I bother explaining if you're not bothered to listen FD?

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2017 at 9:14am:

Really bad idea. One outcome was that only 'good' Muslims were able to get loans, because no-one had any incentive to loan money. Banks provide a valuable service. There is nothing wrong with getting paid for it.

Compound interest is not the only way banks can get paid for a service, so you are constructing a false dichotomy.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 21^st, 2017 at 10:55am:

freediver wrote on Jun 20th, 2017 at 12:41pm: So you support Muhammad's genocide of the Jews based on 'speculation' that the Jews' allies intended genocide of the Muslims, which you presented as the Jews conspiring to commit genocide? I don't think its unreasonable to execute for treason. Particularly in a time of war, and even more particularly when you have just barely seen off an enemy 10 thousand strong attempting to overrun your home city. It was an existential threat, and those who conspire with that threat - behind your back - shouldn't expect mercy when they are defeated and exposed. Harsh - yes, but it doesn't make one a genocidal maniac.

Yes it does. Genocides don't happen in times of peace when everyone is feeling safe and secure Gandalf. You are an apologist for genocide. No wonder so many Muslims are up for a bit of jihad today.


Quote:

[quote]Do you have any reason for this speculation?

10 thousand warriors - the largest army that had been seen at that time and place, attempting to overrun a city. You can join the dots FD.

[/quote]

Do you always equate war with genocide, or only when Muslims are involved? The Meccans wanted Muhammad to stop raiding caravans and murdering innocent traders. There is no  evidence that they intended genocide, or that the Jews conspired to commit genocide. You made it up. You lied to justify Muhammad's genocide of the Jews.


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 21^st, 2017 at 11:41am:

freediver wrote on Jun 21st, 2017 at 9:14am: Really bad idea. One outcome was that only 'good' Muslims were able to get loans, because no-one had any incentive to loan money. Banks provide a valuable service. There is nothing wrong with getting paid for it. Compound interest is not the only way banks can get paid for a service, so you are constructing a false dichotomy.

So they charge the same amount, but call it something else?

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2017 at 1:11pm:

The Meccans wanted Muhammad to stop raiding caravans and murdering innocent traders

Ah yes, of course the Meccans (Quraysh) are the victims here.  ;D

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 21^st, 2017 at 1:21pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 21st, 2017 at 1:11pm: The Meccans wanted Muhammad to stop raiding caravans and murdering innocent traders Ah yes, of course the Meccans (Quraysh) are the victims here.  ;D

Are you suggesting that the innocent traders that Muhammad murdered and robbed were not victims?

Are you going to invoke the mindless collective argument again Gandalf?

freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2017 at 9:19pm:

Escape from slavery is a key aspect in Jewish religious identity and the foundation of the original nation of Israel.

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 10:09pm:

I am just reading what it says Karnal. Try it yourself.

Grendel wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 12:38pm:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Put it in the Wiki, FD.

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2017 at 1:31pm:

Are you suggesting that the innocent traders that Muhammad murdered and robbed were not victims?

no, I'm suggesting you are looking for any excuse to apologise for the Qurayza's treason and to pretend there wasn't just cause to punish them for their actions. Now you are introducing another, but well worn apology: excusing the Quraysh for the forced eviction of peaceful protesters from their homes and ceasing all their property - or pretending it didn't happen.

Did the Qurayza stab Muhammad in the back because they felt so terrible about the poor murdered and robbed traders? Thats a novel line - you should try that one. tsk tsk, yawn

Quote:

Really bad idea. One outcome was that only 'good' Muslims were able to get loans, because no-one had any incentive to loan money. Banks provide a valuable service. There is nothing wrong with getting paid for it.

Notice that I said 'compound interest', not 'simple interest'. Islamic financing allows for simple interest: i.e. if I want to buy a house that costs $500,000, then the back would buy the house, but I would pay back $700,000, therefore the bank makes $200,000 in profit.

Now, there are some Islamic banks in the UK who claim that they have Islamic financing by using fancy numbers and calculations, but the result is the same - the amount payable back to the bank is the same as normal financing. The point of Islamic financing is that THE TOTAL AMOUNT IS SUPPOSED TO BE CHEAPER, which is why it's better.

Of course, I acknowledge that in our economy, simple interest interest isn't viable; but I wanted to make that distinction.

Auggie wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 11:26pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 20th, 2017 at 10:17pm: freediver wrote on Jun 20th, 2017 at 9:54pm: Gandalf claims to be a socialist. I think Abu made vague references to Islamic economics having similarities with socialism, but I couldn't get anyone to elaborate. Slavery and socialism are mutually exclusive, and Muhammad made a lot of money as a trader and by seizing control of the Kaaba, which had been a lucrative source of income for his family, and then by taxing people and collecting spoils of war. I suspect they just trot the socialism line out to appeal to deluded hippies. Socialism is a continuation of slavery, they are not mutually exclusive. In slavery, the lord owns you, In socialism, the State does. Under Islam, the Ummah owes you,under sharia. It will kill you if you leave, like an escaping slave. Islam does mean Submission. It's just another word for Slavery. Muslims are Allah's slaves. Economically, Islam is the worst possible system, it is a recipe fr poverty, degradation, slavery, backwardness. It suppresses economic, social activity. A curse. It is suitable only for an ever-aggressive, ever-expanding and plundering economic model. There is  no room for that today. Islamic political economy is a curse, a toxic threat. Even the abolition of compound interest?

Why not? Money is a commodity like any other.  Should I let you use my money to enrich yourself without charging you that use?

Frank wrote on Jun 21^st, 2017 at 7:09pm:

Auggie wrote on Jun 20th, 2017 at 11:26pm: Frank wrote on Jun 20th, 2017 at 10:17pm: freediver wrote on Jun 20th, 2017 at 9:54pm: Gandalf claims to be a socialist. I think Abu made vague references to Islamic economics having similarities with socialism, but I couldn't get anyone to elaborate. Slavery and socialism are mutually exclusive, and Muhammad made a lot of money as a trader and by seizing control of the Kaaba, which had been a lucrative source of income for his family, and then by taxing people and collecting spoils of war. I suspect they just trot the socialism line out to appeal to deluded hippies. Socialism is a continuation of slavery, they are not mutually exclusive. In slavery, the lord owns you, In socialism, the State does. Under Islam, the Ummah owes you,under sharia. It will kill you if you leave, like an escaping slave. Islam does mean Submission. It's just another word for Slavery. Muslims are Allah's slaves. Economically, Islam is the worst possible system, it is a recipe fr poverty, degradation, slavery, backwardness. It suppresses economic, social activity. A curse. It is suitable only for an ever-aggressive, ever-expanding and plundering economic model. There is  no room for that today. Islamic political economy is a curse, a toxic threat. Even the abolition of compound interest? Why not? Money is a commodity like any other.  Should I let you use my money to enrich yourself without charging you that use?

But, does it have to be compound interest? Why can't it be simple interest? I'd still be making a profit either way.

Auggie wrote on Jun 21^st, 2017 at 7:51pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 21st, 2017 at 7:09pm: Auggie wrote on Jun 20th, 2017 at 11:26pm: Frank wrote on Jun 20th, 2017 at 10:17pm: freediver wrote on Jun 20th, 2017 at 9:54pm: Gandalf claims to be a socialist. I think Abu made vague references to Islamic economics having similarities with socialism, but I couldn't get anyone to elaborate. Slavery and socialism are mutually exclusive, and Muhammad made a lot of money as a trader and by seizing control of the Kaaba, which had been a lucrative source of income for his family, and then by taxing people and collecting spoils of war. I suspect they just trot the socialism line out to appeal to deluded hippies. Socialism is a continuation of slavery, they are not mutually exclusive. In slavery, the lord owns you, In socialism, the State does. Under Islam, the Ummah owes you,under sharia. It will kill you if you leave, like an escaping slave. Islam does mean Submission. It's just another word for Slavery. Muslims are Allah's slaves. Economically, Islam is the worst possible system, it is a recipe fr poverty, degradation, slavery, backwardness. It suppresses economic, social activity. A curse. It is suitable only for an ever-aggressive, ever-expanding and plundering economic model. There is  no room for that today. Islamic political economy is a curse, a toxic threat. Even the abolition of compound interest? Why not? Money is a commodity like any other.  Should I let you use my money to enrich yourself without charging you that use? But, does it have to be compound interest? Why can't it be simple interest? I'd still be making a profit either way.

Borrow from someone who charges interestst the way you like it.

Frank wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2017 at 9:29am:

Auggie wrote on Jun 21st, 2017 at 7:51pm: Frank wrote on Jun 21st, 2017 at 7:09pm: Auggie wrote on Jun 20th, 2017 at 11:26pm: Frank wrote on Jun 20th, 2017 at 10:17pm: freediver wrote on Jun 20th, 2017 at 9:54pm: Gandalf claims to be a socialist. I think Abu made vague references to Islamic economics having similarities with socialism, but I couldn't get anyone to elaborate. Slavery and socialism are mutually exclusive, and Muhammad made a lot of money as a trader and by seizing control of the Kaaba, which had been a lucrative source of income for his family, and then by taxing people and collecting spoils of war. I suspect they just trot the socialism line out to appeal to deluded hippies. Socialism is a continuation of slavery, they are not mutually exclusive. In slavery, the lord owns you, In socialism, the State does. Under Islam, the Ummah owes you,under sharia. It will kill you if you leave, like an escaping slave. Islam does mean Submission. It's just another word for Slavery. Muslims are Allah's slaves. Economically, Islam is the worst possible system, it is a recipe fr poverty, degradation, slavery, backwardness. It suppresses economic, social activity. A curse. It is suitable only for an ever-aggressive, ever-expanding and plundering economic model. There is  no room for that today. Islamic political economy is a curse, a toxic threat. Even the abolition of compound interest? Why not? Money is a commodity like any other.  Should I let you use my money to enrich yourself without charging you that use? But, does it have to be compound interest? Why can't it be simple interest? I'd still be making a profit either way. Borrow from someone who charges interestst the way you like it.

I wasn't arguing that if it were practical to abolish compound interest, I was simply asking if it was 'moral'. Of course, no one will lend at simple interest, because the economic/financial system doesn't make it profitable to do so.

So, I was asking you the question from a moral perspective, not a practical one.