Al-Shabab attack - Kenya: Muslims defend Christians

[MongGrel]

5:51 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends: They are but friends to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.


To take the literal interpretation (like so many are doing today) one should not make friends or be friendly. There's thousands more verses on how poorly a muslim should treat a kafir (non-believer.) All a raging cleric needs to do to stir up a crowd is to quote these verses then tell his followers to go forth and do it, like in my video above and many thousands more just like it.

I'm happy to see that some (and I know some personally) that are good, kind people. This is in spite of what the religion teaches, not because of it.


I don't want to seem too adversarial here, I loved your above post regarding cheating, etc.

This explains a lot.

 

[1prophet]

Last is theft. A culture that has no problem with theft is a culture that does not care about future investment. If you thought that anything nice you bought would likely get stolen, you would either have to invest in protection of your goods or just not buy the nice thing. If you invest in protection, you are using resources that you would otherwise use to increase productivity. If you don't buy the nice thing, you are likely not increasing your productivity there either. No matter what you do, a theft society would be bad.

So, literally all of the things you just listed can be explained without religion. Do you have any more?

There is this country called China that our so called brilliant CEO's like Tim Cook love to throw, oops I mean invest, billions into,

and will give you the most rational logical reason to do so despite all the obvious theft and the rope a dope game the Chinese government is playing,

while having no problem suing your pants off in taxpayer funded US courts if they believe you have infringed on their intellectual property like rounded corners on their phones.

Rationality and logic require a firm foundation, without that they will shift like the soft ground beneath your feet while you rationalize it away by calling it being flexible as you are sinking into the ground and your house topples over.

 

[realibrad]

Suppose after cheating on a test you wind up succeeding anyway. The company isn't harmed and in fact you wind up doing a stellar job despite your dishonesty. Can you still claim that it was absolutely wrong to cheat on the test when society has benefited from it?

There will always be outliers in a distribution of life.

If someone cheats and gets ahead and does something productive but its is not the norm, then society will still pressure people to not cheat as it would be the better option. If your argument is that cheating is a net benefit, then society would not likely condemn. We dont live in a world where cheating benefits the overall population so I cant really go too much further into that. But, yes, cheating will benefit the individual if they are not caught, and harm the majority of people around. Sometimes that is not the case, but typically it is. So cheating is still immoral and still does not need religion to explain that.

Suppose your spouse cheated on you first. Suppose the marriage is already hopeless, but you haven't yet pursued the divorce. Do you still consider yourself bound by your wedding vows?

Yes. Say my spouse cheated on me, and I then cheat on her. Its likely to get around that I cheated too, which would dissuade other potential mates. Who wants to enter into a long term relationship with a cheater right? So again, culture would be benefited by condemning cheating.

You seem to be stuck on this idea that if it benefits the person, that society would not condemn it. Cheating, lying, stealing all benefit the individual in most cases, but hurt the society over all. Take Africa as an example. Most of Africa has enough people and resources to make life better. A big problem is nobody wants to invest if it will get destroyed or stolen. It is stuck in a violence and corruption trap. People tend to spend what little they have because they may not have it tomorrow.

 

[realibrad]

There is this country called China that our so called brilliant CEO's like Tim Cook love to throw, oops I mean invest, billions into,

and will give you the most rational logical reason to do so despite all the obvious theft and the rope a dope game the Chinese government is playing,

while having no problem suing your pants off in taxpayer funded US courts if they believe you have infringed on their intellectual property like rounded corners on their phones.

Rationality and logic require a firm foundation, without that they will shift like the soft ground beneath your feet while you rationalize it away by calling it being flexible as you are sinking into the ground and your house topples over.

I have no idea what you point is.

Apple is making lots of money by having its assembly done in China. That is logical. It sues competitors and protects their IP and makes money. That is logical. So long as the cost of doing business in China is less than doing business in the US, they will continue.

What is your point?

 

[realibrad]

5:51 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends: They are but friends to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.


To take the literal interpretation (like so many are doing today) one should not make friends or be friendly. There's thousands more verses on how poorly a muslim should treat a kafir (non-believer.) All a raging cleric needs to do to stir up a crowd is to quote these verses then tell his followers to go forth and do it, like in my video above and many thousands more just like it.

I'm happy to see that some (and I know some personally) that are good, kind people. This is in spite of what the religion teaches, not because of it.


I don't want to seem too adversarial here, I loved your above post regarding cheating, etc.

That verse deals with political alliances. In Islam, Jews and Christians are people of the book and as such are not supposed to be targeted unless they are at war.

I will admit that the texts could be read the way you just read it, and that is a problem with all religions. The Quran is showing a divide there and it does nothing but hurt the relations it has, but the context seems to be more political.

 

[buckshot24]

Yeah no... The Quran is pretty clear in matters regarding the following of God. Being an Abrahamic religion, Islam shares the same god with Christianity and Judaism. Thus strictly speaking even at a fundamentalist level they shouldn't be targeting Christianity.

How about some citations from the Koran then? I can provide many where the exact opposite is the case. And the Koran doesn't describe the same God, at all.

 

[buckshot24]

You do realize Muslim's follow the Old Testament too correct? Muslims call it The Old Book (I think).

No they don't.

 

[Matthiasa]

How about some citations from the Koran then? I can provide many where the exact opposite is the case. And the Koran doesn't describe the same God, at all.

This basically sums it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book

If you care for actual citations you can google references to the people of the book in the Quran.
They without a doubt share the same God.

 

[buckshot24]

This basically sums it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book

If you care for actual citations you can google references to the people of the book in the Quran.
They without a doubt share the same God.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

If you're going to be lazy, I may as well be. Oh, and no way Allah is the same God as found in "The Book".

 

[Matthiasa]

Well you can chose to be wrong if you want to be no one is forcing you to accept the truth.
I also never said they weren't against those that don't believe in the Abrahamic God, but that applies to Judaism and Christianity as well.

One can find all kinds of nice quotes like those in the Torah but I don't see you speaking out against Judaism and Christianity in the same light.

Also being less lazy a response to 5:51 can be seen in 5:82-8. Noting that there more than a bit of conflict during the era in which Islam formed.

 

[Blue_Max]

This basically sums it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book

If you care for actual citations you can google references to the people of the book in the Quran.
They without a doubt share the same God.

Theoretically, yes. In practice, not really. These 'gods' all seem to want the same world domination but have very, VERY different methods of going about it. Even the new testament's J-god says that the end (and heaven) won't happen until the whole world knows god is real, etc. :\

...at least that one preaches the "love thy enemy" and "turn the cheek" rather than hate.

 

[buckshot24]

Well you can chose to be wrong if you want to be no one is forcing you to accept the truth.

When all I have to base it on is your assertion I see no reason to be persuaded by your arguments. And I'm not wrong.

I also never said they weren't against those that don't believe in the Abrahamic God, but that applies to Judaism and Christianity as well.

There are many quotes from the Koran that contradicts your assertions.

One can find all kinds of nice quotes like those in the Torah but I don't see you speaking out against Judaism and Christianity in the same light.

Because those aren't general commands.

 

[MongGrel]

When all I have to base it on is your assertion I see no reason to be persuaded by your arguments. And I'm not wrong.

I doubt anyone feels a reason to be persuaded by any of yours, but you keep putting them forth.

Because "You're not wrong" no matter what it appears in your mind.

Blunder on.

 

[woolfe9998]

How about some citations from the Koran then? I can provide many where the exact opposite is the case. And the Koran doesn't describe the same God, at all.

Neither do the old and new testaments. Islam is part of the Abrahamic tradition of religions. Nominally, it's all the same deity. However, the personality of this deity varies depending on who did the writing.

 

[buckshot24]

Neither do the old and new testaments. Islam is part of the Abrahamic tradition of religions.

Yeah, fuzzy feel good Jesus, right? The Jesus who in Revelation 19 wipes out so many people that His robe is stained with blood? I'd suggest that you're wrong.

Nominally, it's all the same deity. However, the personality of this deity varies depending on who did the writing.

Its like saying the Mormons believe in the same deity because theirs is "based on" the God of the bible. It is not even close.

 

[realibrad]

Yeah, fuzzy feel good Jesus, right? The Jesus who in Revelation 19 wipes out so many people that His robe is stained with blood? I'd suggest that you're wrong.
Its like saying the Mormons believe in the same deity because theirs is "based on" the God of the bible. It is not even close.

You mean the story from a guy who had a vision right? Not something that has happened, but what "John" said he saw was going to happen. The part written when the Romans were starting emperor worship and it was feared that Christianity was going to fail unless they had a reason to fear Jesus coming back and killing them all.

 

[kage69]

This basically sums it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book

If you care for actual citations you can google references to the people of the book in the Quran.
They without a doubt share the same God.

lol

Have fun trying to play chess with that pigeon...

 

[Moonbeam]

Well, ask yourself this.

As people become more fundamentalist, do they become better for society?

In my opinion, the answer is no. The 3 big monotheistic religions, as people become more religious, they start to find justification for being assholes. Its not a 100% of the time that fundamentalist are assholes, but it sure seems like the vast majority are.

You answer no because you have no idea what becoming more religious means. You equate religious with fanatical when they are opposite things. Fanatics have no faith, which is why they are fanatics. Fanaticism is a form of compensation.

 

[werepossum]

Morality cannot be explained on rational grounds alone.

A perfectly rational argument can be made towards cheating on a test, or cheating on one's spouse, or theft, or any number of things we consider to be "wrong." Being logical and rational is no guarantee that you'll end up doing what is right.

But that is also true of religion. Fanatical Muslims who murder Christians and Jews (and ofttimes other Muslims) do so because they are commanded to do so. Same thing with fanatical Christians who murder people at abortion clinics. Any morality can be morphed at will.

You do realize Muslim's follow the Old Testament too correct? Muslims call it The Old Book (I think).

This is incorrect. The tenant of Islam is that Moses and Jesus were false prophets, well meaning but not correctly relaying Allah's commandments. And even though the early parts of the Quran command the Muslim to honor fellow "people of the Book", the latter parts remove this. The official accepted rationale for the conflict is that Allah changed His mind, Muhammad being infallible.

Neither do the old and new testaments. Islam is part of the Abrahamic tradition of religions. Nominally, it's all the same deity. However, the personality of this deity varies depending on who did the writing.

Only very, very nominally. If one argues that everyone before Muhammad got Allah's instruction completely wrong, AND specifically reject Christians and especially Jews, one can hardly be said to be following the same religion or even worshiping the same god.

 

[buckshot24]

This is incorrect. The tenant of Islam is that Moses and Jesus were false prophets, well meaning but not correctly relaying Allah's commandments.

No, this is incorrect. Muslims believe Jesus was a true prophet but his message was corrupted by others.

And even though the early parts of the Quran command the Muslim to honor fellow "people of the Book", the latter parts remove this. The official accepted rationale for the conflict is that Allah changed His mind, Muhammad being infallible.

This is the doctrine of abrogation. Earlier revelation gets invalidated by later revelation if it contradicts the earlier stuff. Just so happens that all the real bad violent stuff came last.

 

[buckshot24]

But that is also true of religion. Fanatical Muslims who murder Christians and Jews (and ofttimes other Muslims) do so because they are commanded to do so. Same thing with fanatical Christians who murder people at abortion clinics. Any morality can be morphed at will.

Who is commanding Christians to attack abortion clinics?

 

[realibrad]

You answer no because you have no idea what becoming more religious means. You equate religious with fanatical when they are opposite things. Fanatics have no faith, which is why they are fanatics. Fanaticism is a form of compensation.

So not a true Scotsman eh.

I also don't think you understand the meaning of the word religious. It means "relating to or believing in a religion". I think you are trying to make an argument for belief and or spirituality. If the religion says to do x, and you know x is wrong, then you are not adhering to the religion unless you do x. When people follow the tenants of the major religions, they do asshole things like not letting gays get married, or stoning women for showing too much skin.

You are usually better than this, so maybe you are busy and did not realize what you were saying.

 

[werepossum]

No, this is incorrect. Muslims believe Jesus was a true prophet but his message was corrupted by others.
This is the doctrine of abrogation. Earlier revelation gets invalidated by later revelation if it contradicts the earlier stuff. Just so happens that all the real bad violent stuff came last.

Yep. I'm just saying that the official universal interpretation is this way because it is required for Muhammad to be perfect. Thus it is almost impossible to change because to do so requires that Muhammad be wrong.

Who is commanding Christians to attack abortion clinics?

No one. But just as some Muslims interpret their religion to require the murder of infidels, so too some Christians interpret their religion to require the murder of those engaged in the business of abortion. And some, like Anders Breivik, are without religion and yet their logic leads them to do something as horrific as anything ever perpetrated in the name of religion.

It's easy to blame Islam for terrorism, and it does have some facets that make terrorism more attractive to more of its followers. But we must also recognize that every religion has its own nuts, and the absence of religion doesn't eliminate evil from men's hearts.

So not a true Scotsman eh.

I also don't think you understand the meaning of the word religious. It means "relating to or believing in a religion". I think you are trying to make an argument for belief and or spirituality. If the religion says to do x, and you know x is wrong, then you are not adhering to the religion unless you do x. When people follow the tenants of the major religions, they do asshole things like not letting gays get married, or stoning women for showing too much skin.

You are usually better than this, so maybe you are busy and did not realize what you were saying.

Well said. Christianity and even Buddhism and Hinduism have things which can be interpreted to require evil acts. They aren't so blatant as in Islam, but they are there, and if we don't also follow our own innate sense of morality, we too can do evil in the name of good.

If one really looked, one could probably even find some murder and mayhem in the name of Jainism. No religion can completely tame men's hearts.

 

[buckshot24]

Yep. I'm just saying that the official universal interpretation is this way because it is required for Muhammad to be perfect. Thus it is almost impossible to change because to do so requires that Muhammad be wrong.

But they don't think Jesus was a false prophet. They believe Allah took Jesus before the crucifixion directly to himself.

No one. But just as some Muslims interpret their religion to require the murder of infidels, so too some Christians interpret their religion to require the murder of those engaged in the business of abortion. And some, like Anders Breivik, are without religion and yet their logic leads them to do something as horrific as anything ever perpetrated in the name of religion.

The Koran explicitly commands Muslims to attack and kill non-Muslims. The two situations aren't similar at all.

It's easy to blame Islam for terrorism, and it does have some facets that make terrorism more attractive to more of its followers. But we must also recognize that every religion has its own nuts, and the absence of religion doesn't eliminate evil from men's hearts.

The Koran is the problem, there are many commands of violence in it. When your holy book says to strike the necks of the infidels wherever you find them, you're not a "nut" for following that command. Thankfully most Muslims don't take these commands seriously but a large enough portion of them do.

The commands in the bible to violence are for a specific purpose at a specific time to a specific people, not like the general blanket commands we find in the Koran.

 

[realibrad]

But they don't think Jesus was a false prophet. They believe Allah took Jesus before the crucifixion directly to himself.
The Koran explicitly commands Muslims to attack and kill non-Muslims. The two situations aren't similar at all.

The Koran is the problem, there are many commands of violence in it. When your holy book says to strike the necks of the infidels wherever you find them, you're not a "nut" for following that command. Thankfully most Muslims don't take these commands seriously but a large enough portion of them do.

The commands in the bible to violence are for a specific purpose at a specific time to a specific people, not like the general blanket commands we find in the Koran.

The Koran says to kill non-Muslims where you find them, but that is rules for holy war. It does not say to kill non-Muslims during your walk to the bathroom.