Anonymous wrote:Why do you not google decapitation. Though historically decapitation has been used as the means to an end. Its pretty much the same wherever/whomever does it.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote: I recently stumbled on an excerpt of aTED talk by Lesley Hazleton: A "tourist" reads the Koran". I think it sums up very well most misunderstandings that people have about the Quran. I haven't watched the full talk yet which is about 90minutes but will definitely do so. I for one, appreciated the sincerity, and humor in her approach. Here's the excerpt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y2Or0LlO6g#t=560
Now, as far as Shariah law is concerned, it is fluid and decentralized.The Muslim scholar Hamza Yusuf commented that ‘reducing Shariah down to the punishments is like reducing the US judicial system down to the electric chair’. Any scholar with enough years of study can issue a fatwa (opinion) and it is not binding on anyone other than the one who chooses to follow it. Shariah considers context, time and place in its rulings. It is not uniform, what is considered an obligation/binding on one person may be prohibited for another. Rulings are made on a case-by-case basis. The principles behind Shariah remain the same but the applications are widely varied depending on a lot of different things including time, place, ect. The only people who attempted to formalize and codify shariah were the British with their colonies when they created the ‘Anglo-Muhammadan Law’ in an attempt to better control the law . Because of the very nature of Shariah law, a simplistic comparison to other legal systems will for the most part always be misleading. In fact, most Muslims have a very basic understanding of Shariah law, and that is another problem as well.....

This is so incredibly FALSE. What about Umdat al Salik, the official Sunni manual of Sharia law? It is certified by al-Azhar and is the official Sharia manual of the Muslim Brotherhood. It also includes the slight differences of Sharia interpretation of the different madh'habs. The English translation, Reliance of the Traveller, however, does not include the section on slavery.

Anonymous wrote:Religion makes me sick the more I learn about it.

Anonymous wrote:It means that they are following verses in the Qur'an and Hadiths that talk about beheading. Not sure why they don't bother to cut the fingers off also though.

for example:

8:12- “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite them above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off.”

47:4- “Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide Slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives”

When Muhammad conquered the Qurayza Jewish tribe, he had all the males, history books say somewhere between 600 and 800, beheaded and buried in trenches. The women and children were taken as slaves. He took Rayhana as his, but he released her from slavery and made her one of his wives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It means that they are following verses in the Qur'an and Hadiths that talk about beheading. Not sure why they don't bother to cut the fingers off also though.

for example:

8:12- “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite them above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off.”

47:4- “Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide Slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives”

When Muhammad conquered the Qurayza Jewish tribe, he had all the males, history books say somewhere between 600 and 800, beheaded and buried in trenches. The women and children were taken as slaves. He took Rayhana as his, but he released her from slavery and made her one of his wives.

Wait - Obama tells me Islam is a peaceful religion. Is he lying to me AGAIN!!!!?????

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote: I recently stumbled on an excerpt of aTED talk by Lesley Hazleton: A "tourist" reads the Koran". I think it sums up very well most misunderstandings that people have about the Quran. I haven't watched the full talk yet which is about 90minutes but will definitely do so. I for one, appreciated the sincerity, and humor in her approach. Here's the excerpt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y2Or0LlO6g#t=560
Now, as far as Shariah law is concerned, it is fluid and decentralized.The Muslim scholar Hamza Yusuf commented that ‘reducing Shariah down to the punishments is like reducing the US judicial system down to the electric chair’. Any scholar with enough years of study can issue a fatwa (opinion) and it is not binding on anyone other than the one who chooses to follow it. Shariah considers context, time and place in its rulings. It is not uniform, what is considered an obligation/binding on one person may be prohibited for another. Rulings are made on a case-by-case basis. The principles behind Shariah remain the same but the applications are widely varied depending on a lot of different things including time, place, ect. The only people who attempted to formalize and codify shariah were the British with their colonies when they created the ‘Anglo-Muhammadan Law’ in an attempt to better control the law . Because of the very nature of Shariah law, a simplistic comparison to other legal systems will for the most part always be misleading. In fact, most Muslims have a very basic understanding of Shariah law, and that is another problem as well.....

ISIS beheads their victims because they are following the Quran and Mohammed. They say it in the videos.

While Shariah law is left to interpretation, is not the Quran gods law, the unaltered and direct words of God, as written by Muhammed, a human being? at least it is supposed to be that until it is not convenient.

[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."

It is not hard to figure out what is going on, even though many on this board are stuck in a politically correct dc view.

The only solution is to follow the money, stop the Saudi funding of terrorist schools that preach Wahabism and hate. Expand our energy resources and tax the oil from SA to sky high levels. And confirm the fundamental separation of church and state and equal rights for women. Let the ME rot in never ending moslem on moslem violence. We need to stay out of there. Obama had it right but caved in. Bombing from the sky is lunacy. Stop all immigration from ME. Stop all travel from SA at american airports. We need to be smart and fight this cancer with economic warfare.

"The belief that the Quran is the unquestionable word of God is fundamental to the Islamic faith, and held by the vast majority of Muslims worldwide, fundamentalist or progressive. Many of you believe that letting it go is as good as calling yourself non-Muslim. I get that. But does it have to be that way?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/an-open-letter-to-moderat_b_5930764.html

Correction: Muslims do not believe that the Quran was written by Mohamed saw. We believe that it is the Word of God revealed to the Prophet saw through the angel Gabriel. Fun fact, Prophet Mohamed saw was actually illiterate, he couldn't read nor write, so yeh he didn't write the Quran, moving on.....Those verses that you cited have been debated over and over again on this forum, explanations have been provided, context has been provided, no need to rehash them over and over.

And the article that you quoted is from a self-proclaimed Atheist Muslim who is advising Muslims to disassociate "Islamic identity from Muslim identity by coming together on a sense of community, not ideology". The inference from such a statement is that the Islamic Identity is attributable to those few verses of the Noble Quran that seems to call for violence against all nonMuslims. Out of more than 6,000 verses in the Quran, he cited the verses the so called radical Muslims act upon and he used a simplified rhetoric to give the notion that these verses sum up the entire Islamic identity. What he and so many fail to understand, is that for the Muslims who embrace and understand this religion, Islam has never been wrong, we do not need to drift away from this ideology, from our Islamic identities to be decent citizens. The problem is, people who do not have a sound understanding of the religion itself, its scripture, or half/selective understanding and interpretations. That is the real danger!

Now, as for you, saying "ISIS beheads their victims because they are following the Quran and Mohammed", ISIS have successfully beaten you, their attempt at spreading fear has worked. You now think that they're greater in numbers than they are, and are a greater threat than they actually are. They have successfully "beheaded" you. Congratulations ISIS!

Anonymous wrote:all this ranting and pseudo-intellectual babble...the quotation and interpretation of any religious scripture is meaningless. take a look at what is actually happening around the world and who is involved.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:all this ranting and pseudo-intellectual babble...the quotation and interpretation of any religious scripture is meaningless. take a look at what is actually happening around the world and who is involved.

This is not bad strategy. I would only stress the importance of accuracy when describing "who is involved." One could argue quite accurately that humans are involved in what is "actually happening." Similarly, it would be correct to say that what "is actually happening" exclusively involves mammals. However, being more specific can increase understanding. Many will lazily turn to "Arab" or "Muslim" as adjectives. However, those groups are so broad and heterogeneous as to be only marginally better than "human" and "mammal." Because such laziness stretches to most of our media, the average person may be ill-equipped to be more specific. However, that is a problem that needs to be addressed rather than an excuse to continue being misleading.

The most controversial thing I said was: “We have to be able to criticize bad ideas, and Islam is the Mother lode of bad ideas.” This statement has been met with countless charges of “bigotry” and “racism” online and in the media. But imagine that the year is 1970, and I said: “Communism is the Mother lode of bad ideas.” How reasonable would it be to attack me as a “racist” or as someone who harbors an irrational hatred of Russians, Ukrainians, Chinese, etc. This is precisely the situation I am in. My criticism of Islam is a criticism of beliefs and their consequences—but my fellow liberals reflexively view it as an expression of intolerance toward people.

On the basis of their life experiences, they believe that the success of a group like ISIS, despite its ability to recruit people by the thousands from free societies, says nothing about the role that Islamic doctrines play in inspiring global jihad. Rather, they imagine that ISIS is functioning like a bug light for psychopaths—attracting “disaffected young men” who would do terrible things to someone, somewhere, in any case. For some strange reason these disturbed individuals can’t resist an invitation to travel to a foreign desert for the privilege of decapitating journalists and aid workers. I await an entry in the DSM-VI that describes this troubling condition.

Contrary to what many liberals believe, those bad boys who are getting off the bus in Syria at this moment to join ISIS are not all psychopaths, nor are they simply depressed people who have gone to the desert to die. Most of them are profoundly motivated by their beliefs. Many surely feel like spiritual James Bonds, fighting a cosmic war against evil. After all, they are spreading the one true faith to the ends of the earth—or they will die trying, and be martyred, and then spend eternity in Paradise. Secular liberals seem unable to grasp how psychologically rewarding this worldview must be.

Whatever the prospects are for moving Islam out of the Middle Ages, hope lies not with obscurantists like Reza Aslan but with reformers like Maajid Nawaz. The litmus test for intellectual honesty on this point—which so many liberals fail—is to admit that one can draw a straight line from specific doctrines in Islam to the intolerance and violence we see in the Muslim world.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:all this ranting and pseudo-intellectual babble...the quotation and interpretation of any religious scripture is meaningless. take a look at what is actually happening around the world and who is involved.

This is not bad strategy. I would only stress the importance of accuracy when describing "who is involved." One could argue quite accurately that humans are involved in what is "actually happening." Similarly, it would be correct to say that what "is actually happening" exclusively involves mammals. However, being more specific can increase understanding. Many will lazily turn to "Arab" or "Muslim" as adjectives. However, those groups are so broad and heterogeneous as to be only marginally better than "human" and "mammal." Because such laziness stretches to most of our media, the average person may be ill-equipped to be more specific. However, that is a problem that needs to be addressed rather than an excuse to continue being misleading.

It really is sad and pathetic how liberals such as yourself use variation in the individuals who identify themselves as Muslims to ignore the things that Islam painly says and the effect those things have on people's behavior. Here is an article written with people like you in mind:

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/10/can-liberalism-be-saved-from-itself/

The most controversial thing I said was: “We have to be able to criticize bad ideas, and Islam is the Mother lode of bad ideas.” This statement has been met with countless charges of “bigotry” and “racism” online and in the media. But imagine that the year is 1970, and I said: “Communism is the Mother lode of bad ideas.” How reasonable would it be to attack me as a “racist” or as someone who harbors an irrational hatred of Russians, Ukrainians, Chinese, etc. This is precisely the situation I am in. My criticism of Islam is a criticism of beliefs and their consequences—but my fellow liberals reflexively view it as an expression of intolerance toward people.

On the basis of their life experiences, they believe that the success of a group like ISIS, despite its ability to recruit people by the thousands from free societies, says nothing about the role that Islamic doctrines play in inspiring global jihad. Rather, they imagine that ISIS is functioning like a bug light for psychopaths—attracting “disaffected young men” who would do terrible things to someone, somewhere, in any case. For some strange reason these disturbed individuals can’t resist an invitation to travel to a foreign desert for the privilege of decapitating journalists and aid workers. I await an entry in the DSM-VI that describes this troubling condition.

Contrary to what many liberals believe, those bad boys who are getting off the bus in Syria at this moment to join ISIS are not all psychopaths, nor are they simply depressed people who have gone to the desert to die. Most of them are profoundly motivated by their beliefs. Many surely feel like spiritual James Bonds, fighting a cosmic war against evil. After all, they are spreading the one true faith to the ends of the earth—or they will die trying, and be martyred, and then spend eternity in Paradise. Secular liberals seem unable to grasp how psychologically rewarding this worldview must be.

Whatever the prospects are for moving Islam out of the Middle Ages, hope lies not with obscurantists like Reza Aslan but with reformers like Maajid Nawaz. The litmus test for intellectual honesty on this point—which so many liberals fail—is to admit that one can draw a straight line from specific doctrines in Islam to the intolerance and violence we see in the Muslim world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:all this ranting and pseudo-intellectual babble...the quotation and interpretation of any religious scripture is meaningless. take a look at what is actually happening around the world and who is involved.

This is not bad strategy. I would only stress the importance of accuracy when describing "who is involved." One could argue quite accurately that humans are involved in what is "actually happening." Similarly, it would be correct to say that what "is actually happening" exclusively involves mammals. However, being more specific can increase understanding. Many will lazily turn to "Arab" or "Muslim" as adjectives. However, those groups are so broad and heterogeneous as to be only marginally better than "human" and "mammal." Because such laziness stretches to most of our media, the average person may be ill-equipped to be more specific. However, that is a problem that needs to be addressed rather than an excuse to continue being misleading.

It really is sad and pathetic how liberals such as yourself use variation in the individuals who identify themselves as Muslims to ignore the things that Islam painly says and the effect those things have on people's behavior. Here is an article written with people like you in mind:

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/10/can-liberalism-be-saved-from-itself/

The most controversial thing I said was: “We have to be able to criticize bad ideas, and Islam is the Mother lode of bad ideas.” This statement has been met with countless charges of “bigotry” and “racism” online and in the media. But imagine that the year is 1970, and I said: “Communism is the Mother lode of bad ideas.” How reasonable would it be to attack me as a “racist” or as someone who harbors an irrational hatred of Russians, Ukrainians, Chinese, etc. This is precisely the situation I am in. My criticism of Islam is a criticism of beliefs and their consequences—but my fellow liberals reflexively view it as an expression of intolerance toward people.

On the basis of their life experiences, they believe that the success of a group like ISIS, despite its ability to recruit people by the thousands from free societies, says nothing about the role that Islamic doctrines play in inspiring global jihad. Rather, they imagine that ISIS is functioning like a bug light for psychopaths—attracting “disaffected young men” who would do terrible things to someone, somewhere, in any case. For some strange reason these disturbed individuals can’t resist an invitation to travel to a foreign desert for the privilege of decapitating journalists and aid workers. I await an entry in the DSM-VI that describes this troubling condition.

Contrary to what many liberals believe, those bad boys who are getting off the bus in Syria at this moment to join ISIS are not all psychopaths, nor are they simply depressed people who have gone to the desert to die. Most of them are profoundly motivated by their beliefs. Many surely feel like spiritual James Bonds, fighting a cosmic war against evil. After all, they are spreading the one true faith to the ends of the earth—or they will die trying, and be martyred, and then spend eternity in Paradise. Secular liberals seem unable to grasp how psychologically rewarding this worldview must be.

Whatever the prospects are for moving Islam out of the Middle Ages, hope lies not with obscurantists like Reza Aslan but with reformers like Maajid Nawaz. The litmus test for intellectual honesty on this point—which so many liberals fail—is to admit that one can draw a straight line from specific doctrines in Islam to the intolerance and violence we see in the Muslim world.

Uh, did you actually cite Richard Dawkins' expertise on the subject of religion? Jesus just went poof.