Religion

[Burning Petard]

Terrorist? Change comes from the ends of a gun. F35 planes, Even M4 rifles are not cheap and require a pretty sophisticated industrial base.

IED's made with ordinary clothing and materials purchased at a local grocery store do not. Terrorist activities are the tactics of the weak. Always have been, always will be. As power aggregates to the few, motivation for terrorist activity also aggregates to the least powerful. This is just basic history and human nature. The religious text of choice among the 'Wretched of the Earth' is of no particular importance.

Snail gate

[rubato]

"... Terrorist activities are the tactics of the weak. Always have been, always will be. ... "

Snail gate

That isn't true. White southerners used terrorist tactics against blacks in the south from reconstruction until very near the present. White South Africans used terrorist tactics against blacks. In the areas ISIS rules they use terrorist tactics to control the populations there. &c.


Terrorist tactics are often used by the powerful against the weak because the weak have no recourse in the law.


yrs,
rubato

[Burning Petard]

Yes, it is true. Terrorist activities are the tactics of the weak. Always have been, always will be.

I did not say they were exclusive to the weak. The powerful also use them for similar reasons--they work. they are cheap.

[kmccune]

Dont care much for political and religious fanatics ,God can fight His own battles ,certainly someone who created the "multi verse " can handle a few "sinners ".

[oldr_n_wsr]

Substitute jew for moslem and synagogue for mosque and you will get a document vaguely reminiscent of anti-Semitic documents of a few decades back.

But I don't recall any Jews going around bombing and shooting innocents as these islamic terrorists do and have done.

[Bicycle Bill]

Dont care much for political and religious fanatics ,God can fight His own battles ,certainly someone who created the "multi verse " can handle a few "sinners ".

The Great Flood.
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
The destruction of Pharoah's army during the Exodus from Egypt.

Yeah, He can handle a few sinners, and usually in epic fashion to boot.

-"BB"-

[oldr_n_wsr]

If I was God, I would do it BIG also.
What good is the omnipotent being if you don't flaunt it once and a while.

[rubato]

If the Quran is worse than Christian scripture then why is it that Christians have performed the worst atrocities of all time? The total destruction of the Mayan written language, the extermination of the Inca, the holocaust, the crusades most of which began with the slaughter of Jews, (both in Europe and the middle east), the persecution of the Waldensies and Hugenots, the complete genocide of the Cathars, the inquisition and murder of thousands of 'apostates'. Whatever their scripture says it has produced much kinder and more moral people than the Bible has (and less alcoholism)


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Ignorance is bliss.

[Econoline]

If the Quran is worse than Christian scripture then why is it that Christians have performed the worst atrocities of all time?

Because they had a head start?

[Lord Jim]

The Qu'ran on the other hand makes categorical and ongoing instruction in which the prophet Mohamed provides outright requirements on all the faithful forever - not tempered by any thought at all of God's love. For fun, is there anything in the book about God and love? I don't know the answer to that but I suspect it's maybe difficult to find

Actually it wasn't that tough to find...

I will take that quote I reposted above as an acknowledgement that you are not all that familiar with what is in the Quran, or other Muslim faith works. (Beyond quotes you've pulled out from some anti-Muslim websites.)

You know Meade, I have been very critical of the head-in-the-sanders at the other end of the spectrum, who want to try and pretend that all we're dealing with is "a small gang of thugs". That position is totally divorced from reality. I've posted polling statistics that show an unfortunately high percentage (though not generally a majority) of Muslims that while they would not engage in terrorism have some level of sympathy for those who do, (it's worst in some Majority Muslim countries, but also much worse in Europe than here) and also some numbers that show significant numbers of Muslims supporting other things that are antithetical to Western democracies, (like Sharia law.)

And I actually agreed with the main thrust of the article you posted by Douglas Murray. Pointless and wrong headed self-flagellation by many of on the left in Europe (and some in the US) over blame for Islamic terrorism is a genuine problem. The terrorists are responsible for Islamic terrorism, and those who support or provide protection for them are to blame for that support and/or protection.

An obsessive focus on avoiding a "backlash" or "over reaction" as opposed to having the primary focus on combating and thwarting the Islamic terrorism is also a problem. (I really had my eyes rolling after the San Bernadino attack, when I saw the Attorney General of the United States saying that her "number one" concern was a backlash against Muslims. Sure that should be a concern, however I'm sorry ma'am but among other things the FBI reports to you,and your "number one" concern in this matter must be protecting Americans from radical Jihadist terrorist attacks.)

So yes, we have a large, and real, and serious problem with Jihadist terrorism. It's a global problem that involves many thousands of people and numerous variations that requires a full court press approach with military, police, intelligence, cyber and money trail components.

So I can hardly be considered in anyway soft on this issue, or dismissive of the seriousness of the problem.

But your position at the other extreme, that somehow its the fault of the whole Muslim religion itself, is every bit as wrongheaded as that of the people who want to pretend there really isn't much of a problem at all.

If you want to make a rubato comparison, frankly I'm hard put to find much of a difference between your approach to the Muslim faith, and rube's approach to Christianity. A tiny bit of knowledge, combined with some cherry picked quotes and incomplete anecdotal examples, all designed to reinforce a pre-existing antipathy. That is precisely the rubato approach.

But let's for the moment assume that you were correct (which of course you aren't) in your view that the radical Jihadis have the accurate interpretation of what the Muslim religion requires. Of what possible value could it be, to tell the millions upon millions of Muslim (particularly here in the US) who absolutely reject that interpretation, that they misunderstand their own religion, and that if they truly wanted to be devout Muslims they should be supporting terrorism? And of what possible value could it be to tell non-Muslims that they should view every single Muslim with suspicion because they are adherents to an evil religion that demands attacks on non-Muslims?

I really don't see much value in either of those. One of the main reasons that we have relatively less of a problem with Islamic terrorism here in the US than in Europe is because our culture and society has done a much better job of bringing Muslims into mainstream society. Numerous terrorist plots have been foiled because of information provided by people in the Muslim communities to law enforcement officials. This relationship is mission critical. (We could certainly have an attack in this country like the ones in Paris and Brussels. But what would almost certainly not happen here, would be for one of the terrorists to be able to hide out in one community for four months without anyone turning him in, as happened in that Muslim community in Brussels.)

If we were to start a policy that takes the position that the Muslim religion itself is an evil faith that requires violence, how long do you suppose that relationship would last? People don't particularly care to be told they are part of an evil religion. Singling people out as a group tends to make that group more insular and less trusting of authorities. (Which part of what's so stupid and self-defeating about Trump's crazy-assed ideas about how to handle the radical Jihadi threat.)

So even if your views on this were correct, (which I'll point out again, they are not) any kind of policy approach based on those views would be disastrously counter-productive.

[MajGenl.Meade]

An interesting post there, LJ. On the subject of love, this is an interesting link to an article by Farid Mahally showing that the Qu'ran does speak of Allah loving those who love him - his love is dependent upon action. I have not previously looked at the question of love as it relates to Allah.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/love.htm

. It points to a philosphical/theological difference that is of no particular significance to what we're discussing here - but it is illuminating in its entirety.

Conclusions: For those acquainted with the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the Qur'anic commentary of God's love is striking in its paucity, and in its human-like description of God's love to mankind. Jesus said in Luke 6:32 "But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them."

If God then only loves those who love Him, or do good, or are pure then this love is not above or beyond man's love since man also loves and appreciates such people. But a love that goes beyond the surface and loves the unlovable and seeks to win over even the most wicked and rebellious can only be a manifestation of the One who is love.

However, this: But your position at the other extreme, that somehow its the fault of the whole Muslim religion itself is the result of a misunderstanding. I prefer the word "consequence" rather than fault. The application by Islamic extremists of the worldview of the Qu'ran is not a "false interpretation". It may be morally and ethically wrong, but it isn't "false".

On the other side, consider the issue of slavery. There is no tenet of the Bible that endorses chattel slavery as a desirable state of things past, present and future. But people created such an argument by false application of history to the present and future. They went further (especially in the USA), equating black people with the sons of Ham and therefore rightfully held in bondage and contempt by those who are not sons of Ham. Again, woven from whole cloth - false. Their arguments could not then and cannot now be legitimately supported by biblical Christian exegesis.

That is not so in Islam. And yes, of course one turns to critics of Islam to find criticism of Islam. Turning to friends of Islam is rather a dim thing to do - what does one expect an apologist to do but defend? In my time, I've learned a lot from listening to people like Gob and even rubato who critique Christianity. So in the spirit of your peaceful Islam quotations:

Is Islam a religion of peace? Many of its advocates say that it is. Let's see what the Qur'an actually says.

The Qur'an tells Muslims to kill and go to war to fight for Islam: Quran, chapters (Surahs) 9:5, 2:191, 2:193, 3:118, 4:75, 76, 5:33, 8:12, 8:65, 9:73, 123, 33:60-62.
Fight for Allah: "And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers," (Quran 2:191).
Muslims are to battle for Allah: "Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah; and those who disbelieve do battle for the cause of idols. So fight the minions of the devil. Lo! the devil's strategy is ever weak," (Quran 4:76).
Kill those against Islam: "The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter," (Quran 5:33).
Beheading: "When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger. 13That is because they opposed Allah and His messenger. Whoso opposeth Allah and His messenger, (for him) lo! Allah is severe in punishment," (Quran 8:12).
Allah urges war: "O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand," (Quran 8:65).
Slay non-muslims: "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful," (Quran 9:5).
Allah urges war: "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination," (Quran 9:73).
Allah urges war: "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)," (Quran 9:123).
Allah urges killing: " . . . the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease and the agitators in the city do not desist . . . 61Cursed: wherever they are found they shall be seized and murdered, a (horrible) murdering. 62(Such has been) the course of Allah with respect to those who have gone before; and you shall not find any change in the course of Allah, (Quran 33:60-62).
Beheading: "Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens . . . " (Quran 47:4).
Allah loves those who fight for him: "Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure," (Quran 61:4).

And one of the key theological rationales for terrorism in the Qu'ran is the notion that the only people guaranteed to go to Heaven are those who die in jihad. Suicide bombers and attackers are those who believe devoutly in this truth. The Qu'ran says clearly that those who haven't done enough good deeds (how many is enough?) are cast into the pit by Allah; only those who die in jihad are guaranteed salvation. That belief is nowhere contradicted in the Qu'ran.

So, do most Moslems want war? Of course they don't. They want to go to work, live, eat, raise children - no different to anyone else. They can only do that in their faith by ignoring and discarding what the faith teaches. I hope they do

[kmccune]

Maybe a little education and common sense would help them? Superstition needs to stop being the driving force behind politics .All this deity worship,where are the offices of the deitys representatives ? Be kinda nice if Allah or someone like Him would speak at the UN once in awhile.
We know who POTUS is ,has anyone seen God ? Think about this a little bit ,I used to despise "Imagine " ,then I took the the time to listen to it and think about it .Yes we must have Faith ,otherwise the concept of deity worship falls on its face .Faith has accomplished much ,misguided faith has the potential for great destruction.

[rubato]

If the Quran is worse than Christian scripture then why is it that Christians have performed the worst atrocities of all time?

Because they had a head start?

True enough. Christianity had a 700-year head start. If you deduct the last 700 years of Christian atrocities they are about evenses. It would wipe out the slave trade erasing millions of deaths and cases of torture.


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

If the Quran is worse than Christian scripture then why is it that Christians have performed the worst atrocities of all time?

Because they had a head start?

True enough. Christianity had a 700-year head start. If you deduct the last 700 years of Christian atrocities they are about evenses. It would wipe out the slave trade erasing millions of deaths and cases of torture.

yrs,
rubato

Christians have not performed the worst atrocities of all times. That dubious honor belongs to A. Hitler, J. Stalin and P. Pot - dishonorable mentions for M. T. Dung!, G. Khan, and others too numerous to mention.

On a lighter note, wiping out the slave trade (in the context intended above) would not have reduced deaths by one, let alone millions. All those people would be dead today even if they never became slaves. Not to forget that the naughty Euro slave traders who went black-birding could not have captured more than a handful of slaves if not for the assiduous efforts of non-Christian African tribal leaders and non-Christian Moslem slave traders - the interior of Africa was no place for effete white chaps to go gadding about in.

It's interesting that enterprises like the Crusades (terrible things) arose from (among other things) misapplication of Biblical teaching whereas Islamic conquest arises from a precise application of Allah's handbook. Of course, both arise from sin.

[rubato]

"....


Christians have not performed the worst atrocities of all times. That dubious honor belongs to A. Hitler, J. Stalin and P. Pot - dishonorable mentions for M. T. Dung!, G. Khan, and others too numerous to mention.

On a lighter note, wiping out the slave trade (in the context intended above) would not have reduced deaths by one, let alone millions. All those people would be dead today even if they never became slaves. Not to forget that the naughty Euro slave traders who went black-birding could not have captured more than a handful of slaves if not for the assiduous efforts of non-Christian African tribal leaders and non-Christian Moslem slave traders - the interior of Africa was no place for effete white chaps to go gadding about in.

It's interesting that enterprises like the Crusades (terrible things) arose from (among other things) misapplication of Biblical teaching whereas Islamic conquest arises from a precise application of Allah's handbook. Of course, both arise from sin.

Christians have performed many of the worst atrocities of all time. (Aztec religious practices were pretty nasty but involved fewer victims.)

The atrocities of A. Hitler were carried out by Christians one and all who had embraced the anti-semitism which the Christian church invented and kept bleeding and fresh for 1,000 years. Christians all put on the swastika and the death's head and cheerfully murdered their neighbors and stole their stuff.

German Christians, Polish Christians, Ukranian Christians, Austrian Christians, Czech Christians, French Christians, and will less energy and enthusiasm by Italian Christians.


And just because you have re-interpreted the Bible very recently to dis-approve of the Crusades does not change the fact that your Bible promoted it at the time just as it promoted the murder of conversos ( Christians began the practice of killing apostates ).


A crackpot interpretation of the Koran does not change the fact that Muslims have a much more peaceful history than Christians.


yrs,
rubato

.

[MajGenl.Meade]

And just because you have re-interpreted the Bible very recently to dis-approve of the Crusades

Leaving aside the rest of your bigoted anal twaddle, what exactly does the above sentence mean?

I recently re-interpreted the Bible? I did that? And so now the Crusades are disapproved of... because I did something?

and this:

your Bible promoted it at the time just as it promoted the murder of conversos

Since the Bible has not changed a jot in all this time, can you possibly identify where it promoted the Crusades but now does not?

[Clue: are you confusing the Roman church with the Bible? They do tend to think they are God's word in place of the Bible, it's true]