Terror attacks by Islamist groups

[David]

The "Islam" practised by most Muslims in Australia is from the Koran of Mecca which Mohammad "wrote" when first starting his cult in Mecca, in a secular area where he and his followers were vastly outnumbered.

Even then, the foundations were clearly evident. The whole world was put into 2 categories, you were either a Muslim or you were Kaffir, irrespective of blood ties.

Mohammad set himself up as the last prophet of Islam and declared that the Koran was the absolute perfect word of god, thereby making it impossible for anyone to later modify, dilute or moderate his teachings. To do so means it's no longer Islam.

The Koran of Medina was written when Mohammad moved to Medina and started his conquest of the Arab world as he had numerical superiority and grew his power. This Koran is what is more typical of what is followed when Islam is dominant in an area.

Bits from each of these two areas frequently contradict each other which is how people are able to pull quotes out of context to say it's a religion of peace or a religion of conquest, when actually it's clear that it's a religion of conquest and subjugation.

Where two passages of the Koran contradict each other, Mohammad declared that whichever was latter is right. Problem is, the Koran isn't structured chronologically but the verses are in order from shortest to longest to aid memorisation so only Koranic scholars can properly interpret it with cross referencing the sira and the hadith.

So the Islam that's practised by most Muslims is not in fact compatible with western values at all. Where they exist in the minority they are taught to practice those things that will allow them to exist without confrontation but they are still taught fundamentally that Islam is the only true religion, Mohammad was the last prophet and that the Koran is the word of god, the foundation which makes radicalisation so comparatively easy.

You want to see how compatible it is, look at any of the areas where Islam is the dominant religion and tell me you'd like to live there.

That's a pretty facile representation. That bit about not changing a word of scripture is pretty much found in the Bible verbatim - "whosoever takes away from these words shall have the kingdom of heaven taken away from them" - so, you must either conclude that Christianity also permits no moderation, or recognise the practical reality that significant variations in interpretation and observance will always exist.

The theory about two Qurans (one of war and one of peace) is nice but likely a massive oversimplification. Either way, it's hardly relevant because the Bible also preaches war and peace in equal measure. To say Islam is "a religion of conquest and subjugation" is pretty much as meaningless as calling it "a religion of peace". It's neither and both. But I think I've argued that point at enough length elsewhere on here before, perhaps even in this very thread.

On your last point, I would be very happy to live in Albania, or Azerbaijan, or Tunisia, certainly as much as any country at their respective levels of socioeconomic development. I would also love to visit Iran or Morocco, or any number of places where Muslims make up the majority of the population. That's not to say that there aren't things that could be improved in some of these countries (dramatically, in many cases), but progress is inevitable, and it will happen while these countries remain majority Muslim. Professor Richard the Lionheart may not believe that, but he also thinks Islam is going to be finished by 2030, so perhaps he's not the most reliable source on these matters.

[watt price tully]

[What'sinaname]

Never realised til just recently that Muhammad married Aisha at 6 year of age and had sex with her at 9!!!!!

[think positive]

[stui magpie]

You're the one making facile representations.

I never said the different parts of the Koran were about war and peace, that's your way oversimplified interpretation of what I said.

As far as the bible goes, and I know you can't help making the comparisons so I'll indulge you, try to keep the comparisons between the new testament and the Koran, not the old testament.

By all means let irrelevant detail stop you in your tracks like a concrete roadblock from being able to see the bigger picture, I try not to.

Lets keep in mind that Mohammad was basically on par with Hitler and Genghis Khan as far as murderers and conquerors go, but he was smarter.

1. He created a cult to both justify and support his actions.
2. He decreed how the members of that cult would get their reward in the afterlife, meaning he had an insanely courageous army at his disposal who didn't need to be paid.
3. He decreed the rules he laid down to be inviolate and himself to be the last prophet, ensuring no successor could claim the title and change the message
4. And here's the kicker. He declared that when Muslims conquer a foe, the religious leader gets 20% of the booty. Great way to incentivate the religious leaders to keep the message the same and keep it spreading.

Also keep in mind I'm critiquing the base of the religion, not taking aim at those people who are Muslims, but once you start doing some research it becomes clearer that ISIS and other fundamentalists aren't just aberrant psychotics who've misinterpreted the Koran.

[stui magpie]

Never realised til just recently that Muhammad married Aisha at 6 year of age and had sex with her at 9!!!!!

Yep. Not that big a deal at the time when as soon as there was grass on the pitch it was game on.

[David]

Never realised til just recently that Muhammad married Aisha at 6 year of age and had sex with her at 9!!!!!

There's some conjecture on that; some put her age as 16, others somewhere in between. Not that it would be particularly surprising; child marriage was common in many cultures in those days.

[David]

You're the one making facile representations.

I never said the different parts of the Koran were about war and peace, that's your way oversimplified interpretation of what I said.

As far as the bible goes, and I know you can't help making the comparisons so I'll indulge you, try to keep the comparisons between the new testament and the Koran, not the old testament.

By all means let irrelevant detail stop you in your tracks like a concrete roadblock from being able to see the bigger picture, I try not to.

Lets keep in mind that Mohammad was basically on par with Hitler and Genghis Khan as far as murderers and conquerors go, but he was smarter.

1. He created a cult to both justify and support his actions.
2. He decreed how the members of that cult would get their reward in the afterlife, meaning he had an insanely courageous army at his disposal who didn't need to be paid.
3. He decreed the rules he laid down to be inviolate and himself to be the last prophet, ensuring no successor could claim the title and change the message
4. And here's the kicker. He declared that when Muslims conquer a foe, the religious leader gets 20% of the booty. Great way to incentivate the religious leaders to keep the message the same and keep it spreading.

Also keep in mind I'm critiquing the base of the religion, not taking aim at those people who are Muslims, but once you start doing some research it becomes clearer that ISIS and other fundamentalists aren't just aberrant psychotics who've misinterpreted the Koran.

Christianity isn't just the New Testament, you know. There's a reason they get packaged together, and it's not for aesthetic purposes. Not only does the NT repeatedly refer to the OT and refer to it as an authority, its validity is affirmed throughout Jesus' teachings. And in practice, Christianity has used much of the OT as a core part of its teachings - from Adam and Eve and original sin to the Ten Commandments to the later prophets as defence of Jewish disinheritance. You can't simply pick and choose these things any more than you can throw away the Talmud when discussing contemporary Judaism.

I've never denied that ISIS is comprised of Muslims who derive their belief from their specific interpretation of Islam (I think it is foolish to argue otherwise). But the same goes for the Muslims of Albania who sheltered Jews during the second world war, and every other (mostly peaceful) variant on the planet. To argue that one is a 'true Muslim' and one isn't is a profoundly silly exercise that really belongs to adherents and dogmatists, not secular observers.

I'm all for doing research, but the guy you're reading right now is hardly an authority on the topic. He's basically Geert Wilders with glasses and a vanity publishing contract. If you're curious about Islam, why not seek out a respected source as opposed to someone with a clear militant anti-Islam agenda?

[stui magpie]

The new testament is about the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Koran is about the teachings of Mohammed. Yeah the old testament is relevant to Christianity but is/was also relevant to Jews and Muslims so if you want to compare apples with apples, do it properly.

When I'm finished reading the crackpots work, I will read some other stuff too to round out the education but like I said in another thread, you don't need to agree with all the conclusions someone draws but you can learn facts from the content.

Consider http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/viewtopic.php?t=78784

[think positive]

Never realised til just recently that Muhammad married Aisha at 6 year of age and had sex with her at 9!!!!!

Yep. Not that big a deal at the time when as soon as there was grass on the pitch it was game on.

thats really ewww but i laughed!!

[What'sinaname]

Never realised til just recently that Muhammad married Aisha at 6 year of age and had sex with her at 9!!!!!

Yep. Not that big a deal at the time when as soon as there was grass on the pitch it was game on.

I wouldn't be sure there was any grass anywhere to be seen in Arabia.

[HAL]

I am sorry to hear that you are not big a deal at the time when as as there was grass on the pitch it was game on.

[David]

The new testament is about the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Koran is about the teachings of Mohammed. Yeah the old testament is relevant to Christianity but is/was also relevant to Jews and Muslims so if you want to compare apples with apples, do it properly.

When I'm finished reading the crackpots work, I will read some other stuff too to round out the education but like I said in another thread, you don't need to agree with all the conclusions someone draws but you can learn facts from the content.

Consider http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/viewtopic.php?t=78784

This doesn't quite fit the bill because your argument is that Islam is at core incompatible with Western society in a way that other religions aren't. As such, to compare and contrast Christianity is actually relevant to the discussion.

In the Bible, Jesus is God and the OT is the word of God. That is what the vast majority of Christians believe. They may put a spin on it and say that various laws and teachings no longer apply, but they generally don't dispute that the OT is divinely inspired. In the same way, Mohammed is merely a conduit for Allah.

Muslims do not accept the Old Testament in the same way at all; it is not a sacred book in Islam, as it would be if they believed it was divinely inspired. There's no getting away from the fact that the Bible, both testaments of it, is roughly analogous to the Quran and that both hold a more or less equally sacred role in each religion.

[stui magpie]

Dog with a bone.

Mohammed started his career claiming to be a Jewish prophet and based the early bits of the Mecca Koran on the old testament until he ran afoul of some Jewish scholars in Medina and from then on there's more hate speech in the Koran against Jews than there is in Mein Kampf.

I'll repeat what you clearly can't process, the new testament is the teachings of Jesus and the Koran is the teachings of Mohammed. Yes the old testament has relevance to christianity but not to compare the philosophies of the two prophets.

You want to bring the old testament into it, find me an equivilent to the 10 commandments in the Koran.

[Morrigu]

On your last point, I would be very happy to live in Albania, or Azerbaijan, or Tunisia.

That's cause you have never actually been there - if you had trust me you most certainly would not be !!

And Morroco is a great place to visit but would be a shite place to live if you are female - and that was from not a fleeting " tour" but many weeks of wandering with the good hubby - you have uninformed delusions of tolerance that do not in reality exist!