Anything wrong with the phrase "Radical Jihadists"?

[realibrad]

So you misspoke when you said anybody was "bastardizing" the text of the Koran? Now your argument is, but they do it too?

Bingo!

Londo, you clearly said that people were reading the scriptures wrong, but now you seem to admit that the scriptures have bad things in them. You are speaking out both sides of your mouth here. The scriptures have bad things and tell people to do bad things. Then you say that people that read the scripture that way are reading it wrong. Either you are lying or you don't realize the conflict.

The big difference here is that Christians for the most part just ignore that dumb shit. Nobody is stoning women for not yelling out loud enough when being raped. Christians are able to do this because the texts are seen more as a guide and are imperfect because they were directed by god but written by imperfect men. The Quran does not have this option.

Saying that the Quran got it wrong for cutting off someone's had for stealing is blasphemy which is punished by death.

 

[Blanky]

They are practicing Islam.

Obama and the libs are as bad as the climate change deniers on this subject.

Their actions are driven by religion, its stupid to ignore that.

Agreed.

Not discussing a topic as serious as this with candor is cowardly and ineffective.

These terrorists are "extremists". Extreme what? Fans of anime? Extreme carpenters?

Also these islamic terrorists are not perverting islam, they are simply interpreting it differently. Their motivations are found directly in islamic text. Why do we keep lying about that?

 

[Moonbeam]

I can hate the message, and disagree with who the author is.

Please think more about what you say. If I am not mistaken, you mean that you can hate God's message but disagree with Him, but what you wrote can as easily be read as hating a message but doubting the authenticity of who the claimed author is, that the real author is somebody else.

Assuming my first notion is correct, you still have a mouth full of mush. What kind of an airhead would not hate the author of a message that is evil, especially one that is believed by millions of people. I know, you hate Nazism, but when it comes to Hitler, you just disagree with him. I find you to be so abstracted from your feelings, so emotionally dishonest, that you have carried reasonableness into fantasy land. Get the fuck a little more in touch with what you feel so you can be more real.

I know, you fear that if you feel, you will be insane just like me. Hehehehehe. If what people call sane is what is sane, color me insane all day.

 

[realibrad]

Please think more about what you say. If I am not mistaken, you mean that you can hate God's message but disagree with Him, but what you wrote can as easily be read as hating a message but doubting the authenticity of who the claimed author is, that the real author is somebody else.

Assuming my first notion is correct, you still have a mouth full of mush. What kind of an airhead would not hate the author of a message that is evil, especially one that is believed by millions of people. I know, you hate Nazism, but when it comes to Hitler, you just disagree with him. I find you to be so abstracted from your feelings, so emotionally dishonest, that you have carried reasonableness into fantasy land. Get the fuck a little more in touch with what you feel so you can be more real.

I know, you fear that if you feel, you will be insane just like me. Hehehehehe. If what people call sane is what is sane, color me insane all day.

No, I said what I meant to say. I do not believe the message came from God. The message that is being attributed to him is a bad message. Therefor, I dislike the message and disagree with people who think the message came from a god. I do not like bad things.

If someone is saying that its okay to do bad things because of a god, I will speak against it. If someone wants to do something good because of a god, then I will speak against the existence of the god but support the good act.


Hitler passed animal rights laws, and that is a good thing. Hitler is still evil. I dont hate the acts or the message because of who did or said them, even if I hate the person.

Santa brings toys to children on Christmas. That is nice. Santa does not exist. I do not have feelings for Santa, but I do like what Santa represents.

 

[Moonbeam]

No, I said what I meant to say. I do not believe the message came from God. The message that is being attributed to him is a bad message. Therefor, I dislike the message and disagree with people who think the message came from a god. I do not like bad things.

If someone is saying that its okay to do bad things because of a god, I will speak against it. If someone wants to do something good because of a god, then I will speak against the existence of the god but support the good act.


Hitler passed animal rights laws, and that is a good thing. Hitler is still evil. I dont hate the acts or the message because of who did or said them, even if I hate the person.

Santa brings toys to children on Christmas. That is nice. Santa does not exist. I do not have feelings for Santa, but I do like what Santa represents.

Jesus, could you stop this shit. You know perfectly well we are talking about the fact that if Santa came every Christmas to collect children for human sacrifice so the days would get longer and Santa were real, you, in your infinite capacity to deny being likewise, a real human being, would say that you don't like the sacrifice of children, but I don't hate Santa. Stop being a weasel. The argument was always that you hate an evil god if that god were real. You have no idea what you feel because you are terrified of what you feel. Stop with the God Damned denial and give yourself a chance to be real.

You don't believe God is real because the notion you have of God makes you hate Him. Are you fearful of damnation or something. The god you don't believe in, if he existed would be a monstrous piece of shit and if you didn't hate him you'd be mentally ill. You were born that way.

 

[realibrad]

Jesus, could you stop this shit. You know perfectly well we are talking about the fact that if Santa came every Christmas to collect children for human sacrifice so the days would get longer and Santa were real, you, in your infinite capacity to deny being likewise, a real human being, would say that you don't like the sacrifice of children, but I don't hate Santa. Stop being a weasel. The argument was always that you hate an evil god if that god were real. You have no idea what you feel because you are terrified of what you feel. Stop with the God Damned denial and give yourself a chance to be real.

You don't believe God is real because the notion you have of God makes you hate Him. Are you fearful of damnation or something. The god you don't believe in, if he existed would be a monstrous piece of shit and if you didn't hate him you'd be mentally ill. You were born that way.

If the Santa you purpose was real I would hate him as he would be a monster. Because that Santa is not real I don't hate it because it's not real.

I also lack belief in God because I done see valid evidence. Hitler was a real person but I wish he were not. Just because I don't like him does not make him any more or less real.

 

[HeXen]

Who is this them .

Didn't we cast terror into the unbelievers when we nuked Japan?

And isn't the very best way to kill a Jew is when a rock tells you one is hiding behind it? All that is saying is don't kill Jews.

I don't think the nuke was dropped in the name of religion. I think it was just dropped to end the war quickly and show Japan who the alpha with the fuzzy nuts is. aka: reality check.

 

[Moonbeam]

Just because I don't like him does not make him any more or less real.

Liar. You do not believe in the God you imagine others believe is real because such a god would to you be a monster so you simply refuse to believe that a monster god could exist. What you do not consider is from where such a morality has sprung. And that sense that you have that god can't be a monster existed in you long before you thought up your silly rationalizations about utility. You know that God isn't a monster because you know but don't know that you who God really is. You would also know this if you didn't think everything to death.

 

[Blue_Max]

Blue, I usually leave you alone and have been known to defend you when you have a good point.

You are stupid. This thread is not that long so go through is and see the argument I have been making. I'm on my phone so grabbing quotes from my posts is annoying.

Seriously, it should become very clear that I am not saying Christians are just as bad.

My mistake - it was Londo_Jowo making that assertion, trying to steer the conversation away from many icky bits in the quran by focusing on the handful to be found in the old testament. (I'd have gone with Samson as a better example, myself!) Also amusing is how the quran tried to integrate these same flawed characters as heroes in their own book as well.

 

[arsjum]

What is the real meaning of the following?

"When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads. So it shall be; and if God had willed, He would have avenged Himself upon them; but that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of God, He will not send their works astray. S. 47:4"

"In battle" isn't in the Arabic either.

I particularly find the highlighted part very interesting. It seems you've read Muslims explaining to you that this verse refers to battlefield but you are not accepting it. Is that the case? You see, the way you see how anything in the Qur'an should be interpreted is totally irrelevant. What matters is how Muslims understand it. All Qur'anic commentaries, from the ones written in medieval times and those published in the 21st century, have unanimously confirmed that this verse refers to battlefield and the instruction given apply to that battlefield and its likes.

So, answering your question, the real meaning of it is the following:

If you participate in subjecting a Muslim community for 13 years of oppression, torture, and humiliation, and eventually kick them out of their ancestral land and then decide to become a soldier facing them in the battlefield, then those Muslims can follow the instruction given in this Qur'anic verse.

 

[arsjum]

Those aren't general commands like we find in the Koran plus this doesn't support your assertion that some are bastardizing the Koran to say something it isn't really saying.

And how exactly did you figure out that any commands in the Qur'an are general commands? Which type of Qur'anic exegesis methodology did you use to come to that conclusion?

Here is a hint, every command given in the bible isn't a command to all people for all time. Again though, this doesn't help your assertion at all.[/QUOTE]

And here is a hint: every command given in the Qur'an isn't a command to all people for all time.

 

[MongGrel]

I thought this thread had been baked all ready, but I guess it will go into the usual circular arguments.

 

[realibrad]

Liar. You do not believe in the God you imagine others believe is real because such a god would to you be a monster so you simply refuse to believe that a monster god could exist. What you do not consider is from where such a morality has sprung. And that sense that you have that god can't be a monster existed in you long before you thought up your silly rationalizations about utility. You know that God isn't a monster because you know but don't know that you who God really is. You would also know this if you didn't think everything to death.

You are free to think I'm a liar. Again, Hitler is a monster, yet I believe he existed. There have been many bad people in history, and I do not lack belief because I do not like them.

Your version of God is apparently nice and loving. I still lack belief because there is still a lack of evidence. I lack belief in nice and mean gods, because all of them lack evidence.

 

[buckshot24]

I particularly find the highlighted part very interesting. It seems you've read Muslims explaining to you that this verse refers to battlefield but you are not accepting it. Is that the case? You see, the way you see how anything in the Qur'an should be interpreted is totally irrelevant. What matters is how Muslims understand it. All Qur'anic commentaries, from the ones written in medieval times and those published in the 21st century, have unanimously confirmed that this verse refers to battlefield and the instruction given apply to that battlefield and its likes.

So, answering your question, the real meaning of it is the following:

If you participate in subjecting a Muslim community for 13 years of oppression, torture, and humiliation, and eventually kick them out of their ancestral land and then decide to become a soldier facing them in the battlefield, then those Muslims can follow the instruction given in this Qur'anic verse.

So, is "in battle" in the Arabic or not?

 

[buckshot24]

And how exactly did you figure out that any commands in the Qur'an are general commands? Which type of Qur'anic exegesis methodology did you use to come to that conclusion?

You provide the context, FROM THE TEXT, and I'll listen. Telling me how Muslims have interpreted it isn't helpful. I realize many Muslims don't take these command seriously, thankfully, but the text is the text.

And here is a hint: every command given in the Qur'an isn't a command to all people for all time.

What about that one about striking your wife? Is that a command for all Muslim men?

 

[Moonbeam]

You are free to think I'm a liar. Again, Hitler is a monster, yet I believe he existed. There have been many bad people in history, and I do not lack belief because I do not like them.

Your version of God is apparently nice and loving. I still lack belief because there is still a lack of evidence. I lack belief in nice and mean gods, because all of them lack evidence.

Well aren't you the special snowflake. You don't believe in gods because there's no evidence. The first thing you would think to yourself if I told you that Hitler was God incarnate is that I have no evidence, not that the idea that Hitler could be God is preposterous on the face of it.

In the fact of all the misery and insanity caused by religious belief down the ages that you became aware of in your education, it was the fact that there's no evidence for the existence of God, not the mass insanity of believing in hideous notions justified by belief that turned you off to it. What happened to you. What makes you so afraid to feel. Do you know that children believe that what they feel causes things to happen in the world which they then blame themselves for. Are you guilty of some horrible feeling crime? Feeling is what makes us real.

 

[arsjum]

buckshot24,

No, "in battle" is not in the Arabic, if you nitpick for literal word for word, but, as I explained to you, that's irrelevant. What matters is how it is unanimously understood by all Muslim scholars. And how is it that telling how Muslims interpret it in a specific way isn't helpful? What are you talking about? Whenever ordinary Muslims encounter something they don't understand in matters of religion, whether about the Qur'an or other issues, they defer to the authorities in that specific branch of knowledge.

And no, the fortunate thing is not that most Muslims don't follow these commands. The fortunate thing is most Muslims don't interpret those verses the way you assume they should be doing.

It is clear that you took the Surah 47:4 as an example, took your personal interpretation as the basis, and went on to assume that Muslims should interpret it the same. No, you actually went one step further, reminding that the word "in battle" is not in Arabic, as if that changes the meaning of it. Do you realize what you are doing? Basically, you are telling Muslims who interject the word "in battle" in that Qur'anic verse (and do so rightly): "No, you Muslims are interpretating your Qur'anic verse wrong" and then holding them responsible for your interpretation, not theirs.

If you are willing to listen to the context, that's exactly what I provided to you regarding 47:4. What additional context do you need?

So, again, how did you come to the conclusion that all Qur'anic commands are for all people and for all time? Or was that just another assumption on your part for which you sought no proof? Answer that and I'll gladly answer your last question.

 

[Blue_Max]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s

This woman answers the question beautifully.

 

[Moonbeam]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s

This woman answers the question beautifully.

About how four Americans dies and what the US government is doing about it?

Most Americans are peaceful people and wouldn't bomb their neighbors, but a small number of Neocons conned us into a war that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. There are nut cases in the Iraq, I bet, who hold you responsible for that and would have our heads if they could get them. After all, it doesn't matter at all that everybody isn't responsible for the acts of a few when you are suffering anger and rage at being harmed.

 

[Moonbeam]

buckshot24,

No, "in battle" is not in the Arabic, if you nitpick for literal word for word, but, as I explained to you, that's irrelevant. What matters is how it is unanimously understood by all Muslim scholars. And how is it that telling how Muslims interpret it in a specific way isn't helpful? What are you talking about? Whenever ordinary Muslims encounter something they don't understand in matters of religion, whether about the Qur'an or other issues, they defer to the authorities in that specific branch of knowledge.

And no, the fortunate thing is not that most Muslims don't follow these commands. The fortunate thing is most Muslims don't interpret those verses the way you assume they should be doing.

It is clear that you took the Surah 47:4 as an example, took your personal interpretation as the basis, and went on to assume that Muslims should interpret it the same. No, you actually went one step further, reminding that the word "in battle" is not in Arabic, as if that changes the meaning of it. Do you realize what you are doing? Basically, you are telling Muslims who interject the word "in battle" in that Qur'anic verse (and do so rightly): "No, you Muslims are interpretating your Qur'anic verse wrong" and then holding them responsible for your interpretation, not theirs.

If you are willing to listen to the context, that's exactly what I provided to you regarding 47:4. What additional context do you need?

So, again, how did you come to the conclusion that all Qur'anic commands are for all people and for all time? Or was that just another assumption on your part for which you sought no proof? Answer that and I'll gladly answer your last question.

I am very glad you have made an effort to post. I am an ignorant person who knows little about religion generally and find some of the stuff I hear is part of the Koran somewhat troubling, as well as the seeming willingness of some who practice some sort of what they call Islam to hold people who have no direct involvement in attacking them responsible and accountable for those attacks. That violates my basic sense of justice.

I especially find your statement that those at a loss as to the meaning of verses in the Koran should seek the guidance of scholars.

As far as buckshot24 is concerned, people here find him to be a difficult case. I find people often to see their own problems in others and he has suggested to me that I'm an idolater. Perhaps the reason for that is because the logic that there is only one God is imminently more logically rational then that Jesus was a living God and not just a Prophet of God. He may in fact be trying to defend an idolaters faith, Christianity, against a more rational religion, at least in that one respect. Just an outsider's view, you understand.

As a personal note, I once had a conversation with someone of the Islamic faith and she said that basically I believed in some list of things she knew about that because I agreed with them I could technically qualify as a Muslim too. That there is only one God was one of them but I remain curious as to what the others were as I never got very clear on them. Then again, maybe she had a special idea of what is required to be of the Muslim faith, not shared by other. I don't know.

 

[buckshot24]

buckshot24,

No, "in battle" is not in the Arabic, if you nitpick for literal word for word, but, as I explained to you, that's irrelevant. What matters is how it is unanimously understood by all Muslim scholars.

So the text isn't what is important then? Just how people have taken it? You've basically said that the text is irrelevant. You can put "in battle" into the text when it isn't there if the actual words seem to be over the top.

If a Muslim decides that I'm right, how do you tell him he's wrong? Don't listen to the actual words but how they have been interpreted by lots of Muslims, not all of them, mind you?

And how is it that telling how Muslims interpret it in a specific way isn't helpful?

Because I I'm arguing about what the text actually says, not how people have twisted it.

 

[arsjum]

So the text isn't what is important then? Just how people have taken it? You've basically said that the text is irrelevant. You can put "in battle" into the text when it isn't there if the actual words seem to be over the top.

If a Muslim decides that I'm right, how do you tell him he's wrong? Don't listen to the actual words but how they have been interpreted by lots of Muslims, not all of them, mind you?

Because I I'm arguing about what the text actually says, not how people have twisted it.

You misunderstood me. I am not saying text is irrelevant, it is. I am saying what ultimately matters is the actual meaning derived from the text, by authorities, in this case actual interpreters of the Qur'an called mufassirun (singular mufassir, and the interpretation is called Tafsir), who've used rigorous methodology that has been in place for all of Islam's history.

Inserting the word "in battle" in interpreting 47:4 is not arbitrary. It must be there to convey its original meaning, as all authoritative interpreters of the Qur'an have agreed throughout history, dating back to the early period of Islam's history. And of course, that's not the only addition to the literal word-for-word meaning, as some Qur'an commentaries dedicate several pages to an explanation of one Qur'anic verse.

It's not simply a matter of picking up a word-for-word translation of the Qur'an and acting upon it. Most Muslims don't approach the Qur'an that way at all.

 

[Moonbeam]

So the text isn't what is important then? Just how people have taken it? You've basically said that the text is irrelevant. You can put "in battle" into the text when it isn't there if the actual words seem to be over the top.

If a Muslim decides that I'm right, how do you tell him he's wrong? Don't listen to the actual words but how they have been interpreted by lots of Muslims, not all of them, mind you?

Because I I'm arguing about what the text actually says, not how people have twisted it.

How can you argue about what the actual text says. He would sever a thread with a sword doesn't mean that there is a person somewhere who tried to cut a thread with a sword rather than scissors, it refers to some idiot who would make a huge effort to state the obvious.

You don't read Arabic, you haven't spent years studying the Koran, nor are you a friendly and unbiased seeker, I suspect. Could it be that you know is nothing and yet you think it's everything. But all indications are, at least in my opinion, that you are a very literal person and probably believe every word in the Bible according to your opinion of what you are reading. Everybody can read the Bible and think it says a million different things. Most people, I think, believe that some people's opinions are better than others.

 

[buckshot24]

You misunderstood me. I am not saying text is irrelevant, it is. I am saying what ultimately matters is the actual meaning derived from the text, by authorities, in this case actual interpreters of the Qur'an called mufassirun (singular mufassir, and the interpretation is called Tafsir), who've used rigorous methodology that has been in place for all of Islam's history.

You're saying the text itself is subject to the interpreters. "In battle" isn't in the text, period. It seems as if Allah should be able to communicate his message more effectively.

What do you think about a man striking his wife if she gets out of line? Is that "interpreted" to mean something other than what the Koran clearly says?

Also, how do you talk to a Muslim who reads this passage and thinks attacking non-believers is justified by the text? You can't point to the text to prove him wrong, you have to go to people talking about the text. The text is secondary in this kind of system.

Inserting the word "in battle" in interpreting 47:4 is not arbitrary. It must be there to convey its original meaning, as all authoritative interpreters of the Qur'an have agreed throughout history, dating back to the early period of Islam's history. And of course, that's not the only addition to the literal word-for-word meaning, as some Qur'an commentaries dedicate several pages to an explanation of one Qur'anic verse.

It's not simply a matter of picking up a word-for-word translation of the Qur'an and acting upon it. Most Muslims don't approach the Qur'an that way at all.

Thankfully but the text doesn't limit this to warfare, which is my point.

I have no problem with commentaries as I use them myself but I go to the text to see if what they are saying is legitimate or not. You seem to go the other ways round.

 

[buckshot24]

How can you argue about what the actual text says.

There is no argument. "In battle" isn't in the text. Nobody disagrees with that.