Beheadings

[CUDA]

Shouldn't Muslim scholars and thus the larger fold within the religion find beheadings and similar,in the name of Islam, blasphemous?

why would they. that is what the Koran teaches. it would seem to me that you would be committing blasphemy if you DON'T behead the infidel.

[callmeslick]

Shouldn't Muslim scholars and thus the larger fold within the religion find beheadings and similar,in the name of Islam, blasphemous?

why would they. that is what the Koran teaches. it would seem to me that you would be committing blasphemy if you DON'T behead the infidel.

and, why would you feel this way, when Muslim scholars point out otherwise. My friend Said's son studied the Koran INTENSIVELY to become an iman, at a small mosque up in Canada. I enjoyed a long chat about such matters one evening over dinner at his father's home, and he was very upset that anyone could read the Koran with any education and background and feel that way. He says that both extremists within his global community, and far too many American Christians cherry pick verses.
I presume, CUDA, that you have studied the Koran from front to back and pondered the nuances as you do the bible, based upon the certainty within your statement above, right?

[callmeslick]

oh, and before the usual suspects wonder if or why I would have such a conversation, know this about me: I'll latch onto and question the bejeepers out of any true scholar of anything. It's the key to learning throughout life, and keeping the brain young and the outlook bright. If you don't keep learning, you die, from the inside out.

[CUDA]

Shouldn't Muslim scholars and thus the larger fold within the religion find beheadings and similar,in the name of Islam, blasphemous?

why would they. that is what the Koran teaches. it would seem to me that you would be committing blasphemy if you DON'T behead the infidel.

and, why would you feel this way, when Muslim scholars point out otherwise. My friend Said's son studied the Koran INTENSIVELY to become an iman, at a small mosque up in Canada. I enjoyed a long chat about such matters one evening over dinner at his father's home, and he was very upset that anyone could read the Koran with any education and background and feel that way. He says that both extremists within his global community, and far too many American Christians cherry pick verses.
I presume, CUDA, that you have studied the Koran from front to back and pondered the nuances as you do the bible, based upon the certainty within your statement above, right?

so would you like me to quote you the verses from the Koran in context??

[callmeslick]

no, I would like you to study the whole thing, back to front, with accurate translation(not asking you to learn a new language), and then sit down, as you would in your Bible study classes, with Islamic scholars, and learn the cultural and historical subtleties involved and THEN get back with your assertions. CUDA, your comments re: Islamic teachings are akin to the goofuses on the web who want to 'tell' me all about Biochemistry or Human Physiology based on a few things they cherry picked along the way, when I spent 39 years studying, teaching and practicing those things. See comment about true lifetime learning.......

[Will Robinson]

slick you are constructing, once again, a flawed premise based on your anecdotal data.
I'll assume you are truthful in your characterization of a young man who studies the Koran in Canada and has a perfectly benign interpretation of it. In fact I'm pretty sure the vast majority of muslims in the west would have similar outlooks.

But there is a problem with cherry picking a scholar here or a mosque up there...

In Saudi Arabia, as only one example from the region, one example that represents 25,000 schools, 5 million students....the textbooks, AFTER the Saudi's 2006 promise to remove the radical-bait content, contain this:

1. “The Jews and the Christians are enemies of the believers, and they cannot approve of Muslims.”

2. “The struggle of this [Muslim] nation with the Jews and Christians has endured, and it will continue as long as God wills.”

3. “Do not kill what God has forbidden killing such as the Muslim or the infidel between whom and the Muslims there is a covenant or under protection, unless for just cause such as unbelief after belief, just punishment or adultery.”

4. “The apostate has two punishments; worldly and in the hereafter. Punishment in this life: Death if he does not repent.”

5. “Major polytheism is a reason to fight those that practice it.”

6. “Fighting the Infidels and the Polytheists has certain conditions and controls, including: That they be invited to Islam and they refuse to enter it and refuse to pay Jizya [a special tax] That Muslims have the power and the capacity to combat, That this be with the permission of the guardian and under his banner, That there be no guarantee between them and the Muslims not to combat.”

7. “The punishment of homosexuality is death. . . . Ibn Qudamah said: “The companions (of the Prophet) agreed unanimously on killing. Some of the Companions argued that he (a homosexual) is to be burned with fire. It has been said that he should be stoned, or thrown from a high place. Other things have also been said.”

8. “In Islamic law, (jihad) has two uses: 1. specific usage: which means: Exerting effort in fighting unbelievers and tyrants.”

9. “In the general usage, Jihad is divided into the following categories: . . . Wrestling with the unbelievers by calling them (to the faith) and fighting them.”

10. “As was cited in Ibn Abbas, and was said: The Apes are the people of the Sabbath, the Jews; and the Swine are the infidels of the communion of Jesus, the Christians.”

So you may know some young muslims that are getting a reasonable education. But your little anecdotes are just smoke in the wind...millions shy of any counter to empirically supported reality....

And based on that little puff in the breeze you are making ridiculous arguments in an attempt to shout down people who would like to point out that the culture they thrive in creates a large population of muslims who might never strap on a suicide bomb or even spit on an infidel but they ENABLE the radicals.
It's time for you to recognize the damage your kind of dogmatic loyalty to that politically correct ideology purely for ideology's sake is doing.

[callmeslick]

you are citing Wahabism(likely spelled wrong), a branch sect of modern origin popular with some in the Saudi moneyed elite. They are nuts, most mainstream Sunnis accept that. Now, having said that, where they are dangerous is in the fact that THEY are the ones with the money to build 'Islamic' schools worldwide, frequently in Western, non-muslim nations or very poor areas in the muslim world. For instance, the last I heard, they ran 5 or 6 such schools in the US alone, one in DC area. Of course, given that we have been key allies with the House of Saud for decades, no one dares question that. It is not accident, nor coincidental that most of the Saudis responsible for 9/11 were the product of those schools.

In no way does any of this really relate to Woody's original point.

[Will Robinson]

you are citing Wahabism(likely spelled wrong), a branch sect of modern origin popular with some in the Saudi moneyed elite. They are nuts, most mainstream Sunnis accept that. Now, having said that, where they are dangerous is in the fact that THEY are the ones with the money to build 'Islamic' schools worldwide, frequently in Western, non-muslim nations or very poor areas in the muslim world. For instance, the last I heard, they ran 5 or 6 such schools in the US alone, one in DC area. Of course, given that we have been key allies with the House of Saud for decades, no one dares question that. It is not accident, nor coincidental that most of the Saudis responsible for 9/11 were the product of those schools.

In no way does any of this really relate to Woody's original point.

I hope everyone reads your denial of reality and lets it soak in really well.

In a post that asks 'are the islamo-terrorists blaspheming the prophet'...a thread where you cited the fear of mainstream muslims for reprisal from radicals...etc. ...you say this has no relevance!

How do those radicals escape being purged by all the muslims that you suggest are just like the reasonable ones you talk to in your world? They are taught by their culture that the radicals aren't exactly radical that's how. They are taught that if the leaders say someone should be killed it is gods will, that is how.

I show you Saudi textbooks that the U.S. government challenged the Saudis to clean the hate out of ....they said they did....and you read the post-cleansing content....obviously full of hate.
So, do the math slick. 25,000+ schools, 5 million students you dismissed as some cult of the "Saudi moneyed elite" and you imply they are just a small group by saying "They are nuts, most mainstream Sunnis accept that."

Most mainstream Sunni's in Saudi Arabia send their kids to those schools

So here is a little fun fact to help you with the math: Roughly 22 million people live in Saudi Arabia. 5 million of them are NOT a SMALL group!! And that is just one country!

You are constantly proven to be wrong and then you try to move the goal posts by declaring things that are extremely relevant to be irrelevant. You characterize the facts as something completely counter to what they are in an attempt to escape the debate you then complain was interrupted because someone decides to challenge your bullcrap.
You are amazingly pompous and naive or extremely pompous and dishonest.

If the Westboro Baptist Church was teaching "god hates fags" every year to over 20% of the american population and held for itself the right to issue death sentences for blasphemers.....teaching those kids that they were the voice of god and the law of the land comes from god....etc
Would you say they are just some backwoods Texas oil millionaire cult and most Americans know they are crazy. Would you be making excuses for them too?

Lol!
You are really lost in your allegiance to your party. No matter how pathetically ridiculous you have to be to do it you relentlessly rise to the occasion to prop up stupid and salute it.

[callmeslick]

once again, a bunch of assertions from Will, with the idea of attacking me, rather than addressing the subject, with something tossed in about US political parties which has NOTHING to do with anything here. What's the point of reply past these observations? I'll await someone with a functional thought process(CUDA will do just fine), but until that point, EOT for me!

[woodchip]

I enjoyed a long chat about such matters one evening over dinner at his father's home, and he was very upset that anyone could read the Koran with any education and background and feel that way. He says that both extremists within his global community, and far too many American Christians cherry pick verses.

the problem is slick is the term "any education". As is oft the case you have uneducated teachers educating by rote repetition in schools called Madrasa's only cherry picked verses that promote violence. And no, these schools are not in Saudi Arabia.

[callmeslick]

that, Woody(and thanks for helping me steer back to real discourse here) is a VERY real problem and concern. And, yes, the Islamic world shoulders much of the blame, partly for allowing themselves to remain isolated in the Middle Ages so that the only source of education is from outside groups with a longer term agenda. Also, partly to blame(and illustrating my frustration at Will trying to make this a one-party issue), EVERY US government and Congress since I can recall, kisses the behinds of the House of Saud. Witness Obama, who completely rearranged a vital India trip about trade and nuclear proliferation so that he could hold the hands of the royal family when they saw the shocking, surprising, sudden death of a 90 year old man. Hell, we are still reluctant, on an official level to blame the Saudis for 9/11, when they funded it, their citizens planned it, and they were allowed by the Bush administration to hide half of the people with inside knowledge that were living in New York and DC when it happened.

[Will Robinson]

once again, a bunch of assertions from Will, with the idea of attacking me, rather than addressing the subject, with something tossed in about US political parties which has NOTHING to do with anything here. What's the point of reply past these observations? I'll await someone with a functional thought process(CUDA will do just fine), but until that point, EOT for me!

No, not 'a bunch of assertions'. A number of relevant facts.

No, not offered with the goal of attacking 'you' instead of talking about the subject. I challenged your weak arguments with data and reality that cut right to the core of the topic.
You characterize it as 'an attack' because you needed a reason to dodge it.

I never suggested a single party was the problem. I pointed out the biggest reason the radicals are not under more pressure by moderate muslims. It is because too many of them have been brought up to be less moderate and more fearful than the canadian muslim scholar you had dinner with.

So those "observations" you made are deeply flawed, more a complete denial of reality and certainly not anything close to an objective analysis.

[callmeslick]

hopefully, you all will solve this world problem by the time I return from New England on Monday afternoon. I have a Super Bowl weekend party to attend. GO PATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(that was plural, CUDA )

[flip]

I'm normally for diplomacy but when a thuggish group starts flexing it's muscle by be-headings and setting someone to fire I say scorched earth.

Islam= To submit
muslim= submitted one.

[sigma]

Can you explain why insult blacks called racism, insult Jews called anti-Semitism, while insulting Muslims called "freedom of speech"?!

[woodchip]

Can you even cognitively explain what you are talking about sigma and what it has to do with this thread.

[Will Robinson]

Can you explain why insult blacks called racism, insult Jews called anti-Semitism, while insulting Muslims called "freedom of speech"?!

Easy. I'll play along.
In America it is freedom of speech that allows us to insult anyone.
Maybe the difference you are seeing is caused by Muslims not doing a good enough job to give people a reason to try to stand up for them when the insults are unleashed.

[vision]

In America it is freedom of speech that allows us to insult anyone.

Sigma, please ignore Will. He doesn't know the laws in our country.

The principal of "Freedom of Speech" in the US applies to our ability to speak openly about the government, to criticize it, and to organize and protest against it. Freedom of Speech does not grant citizens the right to insult anyone. We actually have rules against insulting others and people are sometimes taken to court for hate speech or libel (I don't know if libel is a word that translates well, but it means spreading harmful lies about a person).

However, Americans are very protective of their right to Free Speech and, culturally, not legally, we extend that freedom to criticism of each other. We try to let everyone's voice be heard. Regarding those who insult Muslims, we actually do have a word for them: Islamophobes. There are other words too and you can read about them on Wikipedia. Also, there is a slight gray area where criticism of Muslims is political in nature and that speech would be protected under our laws, but a lot of anti-Islamic speech would be classified as hate speech.

I hope this helps you understand us a little better, Sigma.

[Will Robinson]

in spite of visions attempt to say otherwise it is precisely the 1st amendment that protects us from prosecution and/or civil penalty for saying offensive things, insulting things, about each other.
I think vision is purposely wrong, willfully dishonest in fact, in his comments. Either that or he just doesn't know what the heck he is talking about.

I suppose he or others might find that insulting....but there is nothing they can do to me legally for having said this about him and it is my freedom of speech, speech about a person, not a government, that protects me from them.

My freedom to speak isn't limited to only speech about government.
It is the government that is limited in its authority to limit speech from an individual citizen, regardless of the subject they speak about.

[vision]

...but there is nothing they can do to me legally for having said this about him...

Actually, depending on what you say, you could be under legal scrutiny. As I said above, our freedom to criticize each other is part of a cultural understanding and no where in the law does it say we have the freedom to insult others. Learn. The. Law.

[Ferno]

in spite of visions attempt to say otherwise it is precisely the 1st amendment that protects us from prosecution and/or civil penalty for saying offensive things, insulting things, about each other.
I think vision is purposely wrong, willfully dishonest in fact, in his comments. Either that or he just doesn't know what the heck he is talking about.

Not when it goes into hate-speech.

Exhibit #1: KKK.

[Tunnelcat]

Can you explain why insult blacks called racism, insult Jews called anti-Semitism, while insulting Muslims called "freedom of speech"?!

Easy. I'll play along.
In America it is freedom of speech that allows us to insult anyone.
Maybe the difference you are seeing is caused by Muslims not doing a good enough job to give people a reason to try to stand up for them when the insults are unleashed.

Most blacks will still get pissed off, violently sometimes, when racial insults and slurs are thrown their way, so I guess freedom of speech still causes violent responses to those who the targets of such insults, no matter what their religion or race or creed. Why, because they're human. The moral is, freedom of speech doesn't always mean people will put up with it laying down when they are the target of that speech, especially if it morphs into even one person's definition of hate speech.

[Will Robinson]

"Learn the law"

Maybe you shouldn't cite the Bill of Rights in an attempt to illustrate 'the law'.
The Bill of Rights is a list of examples of the kind if repressive things the government might attempt to make into law that the law is not allowed to contain.

And there is no list of things that are legal. Our system doesn't rely on such stupid premise as the one you imply is at work.

Many times the law has attempted to be used to stop people from speaking in an insulting manner and the law was struck down as unconstitutional and the insulting speech was upheld as legal.
Learn indeed

[Will Robinson]

in spite of visions attempt to say otherwise it is precisely the 1st amendment that protects us from prosecution and/or civil penalty for saying offensive things, insulting things, about each other.
I think vision is purposely wrong, willfully dishonest in fact, in his comments. Either that or he just doesn't know what the heck he is talking about.

Not when it goes into hate-speech.

Exhibit #1: KKK.

That would fall into the 'limited authority' I mentioned...

[Tunnelcat]

"Learn the law"

Maybe you shouldn't cite the Bill of Rights in an attempt to illustrate 'the law'.
The Bill of Rights is a list of examples of the kind if repressive things the government might attempt to make into law that the law is not allowed to contain.

And there is no list of things that are legal. Our system doesn't rely on such stupid premise as the one you imply is at work.

Many times the law has attempted to be used to stop people from speaking in an insulting manner and the law was struck down as unconstitutional and the insulting speech was upheld as legal.
Learn indeed

I didn't say we needed a law, did I? What people need is to use some common sense and have some respect or courtesy, especially if they know that something they're saying or doing is derogatory or insulting to a whole group of people, or even one individual. When people are intentionally being hateful jerks, they should expect to get some of that hate thrown right back at them and then not whine about it. It's a 2-way street.

[Spidey]

Libel and slander are illegal because they contain lies that can harm someone's reputation, hate speech is illegal because PC has gone berserk.

There is no law against insulting someone, I can walk up to you on the street and say “god loves you” and you could get insulted.

NOTE….those are in context to the “legal” definition of libel and slander.

[vision]

There is no law against insulting someone, I can walk up to you on the street and say “god loves you” and you could get insulted.

Right. Will seems to think the 1st Amendment gives him this right. It doesn't. There is no law granting the right to insult, but we do have laws restricting speech when it encites hate and violence.

[Foil]

There is no law granting the right to insult...

Are you suggesting that because a right is not specifically legally enumerated, it does not exist? (If that is the case, I'd suggest looking up the 9th amendment.)

Laws against hate speech restrict only certain types of speech. They do not restrict insults in general.

[Will Robinson]

TC, sorry, I was talking to vision I should have quoted him. He is the one who said " Learn the law" after showing us how little he understands about it.

The 1st amendment doesn't give me a right to say anything in particular, focused on government as vision implied or otherwise. it simply prohibits government from oppressively restricting my speech even if I use it to insult.

Basically vision jumped in wanting to find fault in my comments only he based it on a flawed understanding of law and the freedom of speech that is protected by the 1st amendment.
He still doesn't get it. The "right" is isn't permission to speak a certain way based on topic or subject...The 'right to speak' is inalienable...it came from our creator before the law and supercedes it in almost any case.

[vision]

Are you suggesting that because a right is not specifically legally enumerated, it does not exist? (If that is the case, I'd suggest looking up the 9th amendment.)

Nope, never suggested that. But it is also helpful to point out the confusion that arises when a person says the phrase "freedom of speech," which is generally associated with a nod to the first amendment, versus "the right to speak freely," which is a human right we assume culturally. This distinction might seem pedantic, but there are a fair number of Neanderthals in the US who have no idea there is a complex framework for what can or cannot be said in this country. None of those Neanderthals should be explaining to a foreigner how some criticism of Muslims falls under free speech or hate speech.

...it came from our creator ...

Instantly discredited.

[Spidey]

Yes, we should leave that sort of thing to the experts.

[woodchip]

Vision, your last comment is way above your pay grade

[Will Robinson]

...

...it came from our creator ...

Instantly discredited.

vision, that is the exact source cited by the authors. The premise being that citizens of this country will have certain rights that are above the law. The Bill of Rights was a list of examples of how the law SHALL NOT BE used to infringe on those 'god given rights'.

You dont have to believe in god to understand that was the authority cited by the people that actually wrote the Bill of Rights, that was who they said bestowed those inalienable rights, ....you just have to be smart enough to know what you are talking about.

You can try to hide behind your little 'he-said-god' excuse but we all see you back there...and you look really foolish...

[vision]

vision, that is the exact source cited by the authors. The premise being that citizens of this country will have certain rights that are above the law. The Bill of Rights was a list of examples of how the law SHALL NOT BE used to infringe on those 'god given rights'.

You are conflating the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, you moron.

[callmeslick]

vision, that is the exact source cited by the authors. The premise being that citizens of this country will have certain rights that are above the law. The Bill of Rights was a list of examples of how the law SHALL NOT BE used to infringe on those 'god given rights'.

You are conflating the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, you moron.

<facepalm> correct you are, vision.

[Spidey]

Yea, because everyone knows the government is the source of our rights.

[Will Robinson]

Not confusing them. They aren't mutually exclusive for the point I'm making, or ever for that matter the documents are obviously inseparable. The same people created them all and always had a common founding principle for doing so. To stake out and preserve liberty that is above the whims of men at the helm of government. They designed rules to keep government from becoming tyrannical by asserting a supreme right is held by all men and it comes from a higher authority than that granted to government.

That premise of a 'supreme authority' was cited numerous times during the creation of the Declaration...the Constitution....the Bill of Rights. All by the same authors.
What I have done is not confuse anything. I have relied on their works to support my assertion. I have not tried to parse out a single line and twist it to suit my agenda as you guys are fond of doing.

I'm very confident that if you study the history you will find what I'm saying is extremely obvious.
For you to suggest my referencing that premise is somehow a disqualification for discussing the topic is ridiculous.
But then ridiculous is what you do isn't it?

[vision]

Nice attempt at a comeback from your gaffe. Every day you sound more and more like the politicians you despise, but with less personality.

[Will Robinson]

Nice attempt at a comeback from your gaffe. Every day you sound more and more like the politicians you despise, but with less personality.

You are just being obtuse out of desperation. I have cited the founders premise that we have fundamental 'rights' that come from a higher authority. That was the point relevant to the conversation.
You had nothing to counter that reality so decided to react like child...'oooohh he said god'.

The fact is they often cited mans faith as a glue that holds together the morality that their representative government experiment depends on so much.
You were losing the debate so you try to make it about god and now about which document they mention god...
Here, have some:

James Madison-
The belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities to be impressed with it.
Letter to Rev. Frederick Beasley (1825-11-20)

You are just being ridiculous. They were religious in nature and it showed up in their commentary. big deal. You dont have to believe in god to understand what they meant. And you are not that stupid that you didn't follow my point, you just grasp at every straw to avoid it.

Now stay in character and go stomp your feet, cover your eyes and chant 'nyaa nyaa nyaaanyaaa I cant read that'

[vision]

Just digging yourself deeper man. Getting funnier.