Glaswegian;1338394 wrote: In the above you state: 'Our society moves on and people accept they are free and realise they have to accept the rights and lives of others as being of equal value whether we approve of them or not.'
Why do you persist in simpering this cultural relativist nonsense, gmc? Our society would not move on a single nano-moral-metre if we accepted ‘the rights and lives of others as being of equal value whether we approve of them or not’. It would remain locked in a state of perpetual moral paralysis.
In the real world - which is to say, the world outside of your cultural relativist fantasy - cultures make moral judgements about other cultures and find them wanting. One can deny it until one is blue in the face but the fact of the matter is this - certain forms of behaviour found in some cultures are just not good enough. This process of moral appraisal does not only occur between cultures. It occurs within them as well. It is this process - of appraising, judging and condemning - which makes moral progress possible.
The following article provides an example of this very process occurring within the culture of Scotland, gmc. Read it and disabuse yourself of your fantasy.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/crim ... -1.1058618
In the above article, Nicola Sturgeon, Deputy First Minister of Scotland states:
“Forced marriage has no place in 21st-century Scotland. We know people who refuse are often subjected to threats, assault, captivity or worse at the hands of their own family. This important bill will help confine this abusive behaviour to history, providing flexible legal support to allow victims to take control and get their lives back on track. Scotland is leading the way in ensuring that anyone who flouts a protection order – and anyone aiding or abetting them – will feel the full force of the law.
The message is as clear as an azure sky. Forced marriage - an institution which operates widely within primitive cultures such as the Islamic one - is not morally acceptable in present-day Scotland. The secular-humanist culture of Scotland has judged this particular form of cultural behaviour to be abusive and archaic, and this judgement has been made even though it might offend the moral sensibilties of members of certain subcultural groups who wish to practice it and, yes, even the moral sensibility of someone like yourself, gmc. This is what is called: ‘Taking a moral stand’. This is what is called: ‘Passing judgement without fear’. This is what is called: ‘Having a pair’.
~o0o~
Nicola Sturgeon: Deputy First Minister of Scotland
Better hung than gmc
(Photo courtesy of Alex Salmond Private Collection)
~o0o~
What are you blethering about glaswegian? I was talking about liberal values. We accept the principle accept the rights and lives of others as being of equal value whether we approve of them or not. That you should respect someone's culture and beliefs is a given, that you allow them to trample all over yours for fear of offending them is not. Especially in your own back yard. That means you stand by and let someone be treated as if they have no value when you can do something about it. In our culture forced marriage is no longer acceptable so we're not going to tolerate it in our own backyard. Do you really think I believe we should turn a blind eye? If they don;t like it they can sod off back to where they came from. It's the same with bigots, my readiness to accept they have a right to their own views does not mean I will allow them to overrule my own. We had the head of the catholic church in our own backyard right at the heart of the protestant reformation in scotland preaching the right to bigotry and demanding acknowledgement of his right to discriminate against people he objects to as being less than human. I'm not disposed to tolerate that either. As I said before we have the adherents of bronze age religion trying to drag us backward.
I don't approve of the taliban or saudi arabia either but I'm not going to support invading them to impose our values on them. The tide of history is such that they will eventually change of their own accord because extremism never lasts unless there is outside pressure to give it credibility. The only way for them not to change is to stay in the stone age and that isn't going to happen. The only reason the taliban hold sway is because of outside interference, the only reason saddam got and stayed in power was outside interference. the only reason musharif stayed in power was outside interference, the reason extremists are gaining in pakistan is outside interference. the list is endless.
You are not suggesting we go round imposing our superior cultural values on the world - we already did that it was called the British Empire. At least thanks to us they all swear at each other in a language most of them can understand.
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Glaswegian;1338394 wrote: It is this process - of appraising, judging and condemning - which makes moral progress possible.
Very well said. I absolutely agree. As a matter of fact, that's the best I've hard it stated.
And since this "stone age" prophet was the founder of a 21st century religion that is still tacitly, if not openly, approving pedophilia, repression, and violence...it IS relevant to apply 20th century mores to this discussion.
Very well said. I absolutely agree. As a matter of fact, that's the best I've hard it stated.
And since this "stone age" prophet was the founder of a 21st century religion that is still tacitly, if not openly, approving pedophilia, repression, and violence...it IS relevant to apply 20th century mores to this discussion.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Saint_;1338383 wrote: Well, whether or not Muhammad was a pedophile, there's little doubt he was a terrorist, highwayman, and thief. he says so himself many times.
I found this website fascinating as it describes his many crimes in the name of "peace." Any time mohammed wanted to rob, steal, or plunder, he got one of his "visions" it seems...
Prophet of Terror and the Religion of Peace--Part I
Since you are not shy about pushing your beliefs on God and Christianity in other threads, what do you think of Jesus telling his disciples:
Matthew 10 KJV
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
And I could add Yahweh's command to the Israelites to slaughter all of the Amalekites until the tribe is obliterated, or in Numbers, the commandment to kill all except for pre-pubescent girls that were suitable for concubinage...or sexual slavery as its know today. Seems a lot of Christians can find objectionable verses in the Quran but are blind to their equivalents in their own bibles!
I found this website fascinating as it describes his many crimes in the name of "peace." Any time mohammed wanted to rob, steal, or plunder, he got one of his "visions" it seems...
Prophet of Terror and the Religion of Peace--Part I
Since you are not shy about pushing your beliefs on God and Christianity in other threads, what do you think of Jesus telling his disciples:
Matthew 10 KJV
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
And I could add Yahweh's command to the Israelites to slaughter all of the Amalekites until the tribe is obliterated, or in Numbers, the commandment to kill all except for pre-pubescent girls that were suitable for concubinage...or sexual slavery as its know today. Seems a lot of Christians can find objectionable verses in the Quran but are blind to their equivalents in their own bibles!
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
gmc;1338409 wrote: What are you blethering about glaswegian? I was talking about liberal values. We accept the principle accept the rights and lives of others as being of equal value whether we approve of them or not. That you should respect someone's culture and beliefs is a given, that you allow them to trample all over yours for fear of offending them is not. Especially in your own back yard. That means you stand by and let someone be treated as if they have no value when you can do something about it.
There is no point trying to reason with some thick-headed lout about trying to make a distinction between tolerance and imposing foreign culture.
Where I live (Ontario), an attempt a few years ago to recognize private sharia tribunals in matters of civil law (there already existed Orthodox Jewish and Christian tribunals) was stopped -- not by anti-Islamic groups (we don't have anything equivalent to the EDL here...yet!) it was stopped by Muslim women's groups that did not like the way sharia is practiced in countries where they came from, and didn't want the door opened...even a little, to introducing it here in Canada. And that's how these issues are best handled.
Thickheaded clowns who want demonstrations and mosque-burnings are making this whole meme about radical Islam a self-fulfilling prophecy! When I was young (back in the early 70's) and just entering the workforce, I was meeting a lot of people who were emigrating out of England in search of jobs elsewhere. A couple of these guys that I worked with as a construction labourer, and who happened to be from Glasgow, were all full of stories about Pakis moving in and taking over their city. Just from the stories they told of going out bashing Pakis, it seemed pretty clear that South Asian immigrants to the British Isles were getting a worse reception than the cool indifference that was the norm where I lived. And this is the story that the anti-Islam Europeans don't mention today. They pretend that they are just focused on Islam, but that has provided a convenient avenue for practicing racism, since Islam is the religion of dark-skinned immigrants, not the natives.
The first Muslims that moved into my area were not noticeably religious -- I'm betting that a lot of the difference between how Muslim communities relate in North America vs. how they get along in Europe, is connected to the overt racism that they were met with when they arrived in England and elsewhere in Europe. None of the anti-Muslim talkers ever seem to get around to explaining why Muslims would be more radical or fundamentalist in Europe, as opposed to North America, even though they have come from the same places of origin.
I don't approve of the taliban or saudi arabia either but I'm not going to support invading them to impose our values on them. The tide of history is such that they will eventually change of their own accord because extremism never lasts unless there is outside pressure to give it credibility. The only way for them not to change is to stay in the stone age and that isn't going to happen. The only reason the taliban hold sway is because of outside interference, the only reason saddam got and stayed in power was outside interference. the only reason musharif stayed in power was outside interference, the reason extremists are gaining in pakistan is outside interference. the list is endless.
I remember Ron Paul making this point at a Republican debate two years ago, and causing a total uproar in the crowd. A lot of Americans are totally oblivious to the level of interference by their government because U.S. media never talks about what's going on outside of the country, except the occasional stories about the wars. But, if you want over a hundred foreign bases scattered around the world, along with the Carrier Fleets, and the economic interference from IMF and World Bank officials, it shouldn't come as a surprise that there will be some resentment. It's ironic that when the Bush Administration was too busy with Iraq to focus on Afghanistan - things were relatively quiet there. Then, along comes Obama, with a surge strategy for Afghanistan, and what do you know -- now we've got a full scale war with the Taliban. It should be simple -- just get out, and there won't be anything to fight about.
You are not suggesting we go round imposing our superior cultural values on the world - we already did that it was called the British Empire. At least thanks to us they all swear at each other in a language most of them can understand.
I think this is why a certain select group of atheists, such as Hitchens, Harris, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, get so much attention. The Neocons don't care as much about what they believe, as long as they are supporting the empire.
There is no point trying to reason with some thick-headed lout about trying to make a distinction between tolerance and imposing foreign culture.
Where I live (Ontario), an attempt a few years ago to recognize private sharia tribunals in matters of civil law (there already existed Orthodox Jewish and Christian tribunals) was stopped -- not by anti-Islamic groups (we don't have anything equivalent to the EDL here...yet!) it was stopped by Muslim women's groups that did not like the way sharia is practiced in countries where they came from, and didn't want the door opened...even a little, to introducing it here in Canada. And that's how these issues are best handled.
Thickheaded clowns who want demonstrations and mosque-burnings are making this whole meme about radical Islam a self-fulfilling prophecy! When I was young (back in the early 70's) and just entering the workforce, I was meeting a lot of people who were emigrating out of England in search of jobs elsewhere. A couple of these guys that I worked with as a construction labourer, and who happened to be from Glasgow, were all full of stories about Pakis moving in and taking over their city. Just from the stories they told of going out bashing Pakis, it seemed pretty clear that South Asian immigrants to the British Isles were getting a worse reception than the cool indifference that was the norm where I lived. And this is the story that the anti-Islam Europeans don't mention today. They pretend that they are just focused on Islam, but that has provided a convenient avenue for practicing racism, since Islam is the religion of dark-skinned immigrants, not the natives.
The first Muslims that moved into my area were not noticeably religious -- I'm betting that a lot of the difference between how Muslim communities relate in North America vs. how they get along in Europe, is connected to the overt racism that they were met with when they arrived in England and elsewhere in Europe. None of the anti-Muslim talkers ever seem to get around to explaining why Muslims would be more radical or fundamentalist in Europe, as opposed to North America, even though they have come from the same places of origin.
I don't approve of the taliban or saudi arabia either but I'm not going to support invading them to impose our values on them. The tide of history is such that they will eventually change of their own accord because extremism never lasts unless there is outside pressure to give it credibility. The only way for them not to change is to stay in the stone age and that isn't going to happen. The only reason the taliban hold sway is because of outside interference, the only reason saddam got and stayed in power was outside interference. the only reason musharif stayed in power was outside interference, the reason extremists are gaining in pakistan is outside interference. the list is endless.
I remember Ron Paul making this point at a Republican debate two years ago, and causing a total uproar in the crowd. A lot of Americans are totally oblivious to the level of interference by their government because U.S. media never talks about what's going on outside of the country, except the occasional stories about the wars. But, if you want over a hundred foreign bases scattered around the world, along with the Carrier Fleets, and the economic interference from IMF and World Bank officials, it shouldn't come as a surprise that there will be some resentment. It's ironic that when the Bush Administration was too busy with Iraq to focus on Afghanistan - things were relatively quiet there. Then, along comes Obama, with a surge strategy for Afghanistan, and what do you know -- now we've got a full scale war with the Taliban. It should be simple -- just get out, and there won't be anything to fight about.
You are not suggesting we go round imposing our superior cultural values on the world - we already did that it was called the British Empire. At least thanks to us they all swear at each other in a language most of them can understand.
I think this is why a certain select group of atheists, such as Hitchens, Harris, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, get so much attention. The Neocons don't care as much about what they believe, as long as they are supporting the empire.
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
recovering conservative;1338414 wrote: Since you are not shy about pushing your beliefs on God and Christianity in other threads, what do you think of Jesus telling his disciples:
Matthew 10 KJV
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
The sword was, of course, a message of damnation for those who did not believe. Jesus, himself, never carried a weapon or used one on anyone.
He often decried violence and even defended people being attacked without one.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Taken out of context, he is saying that those who believe will be at odds with those who don't believe. Just like you and I right now.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. continued from above.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
A great quote showing that the love of God, through Jesus, is more important any other attachment. How is that violent?
And I could add Yahweh's command to the Israelites to slaughter all of the Amalekites until the tribe is obliterated, or in Numbers, the commandment to kill all except for pre-pubescent girls that were suitable for concubinage...or sexual slavery as its know today. Seems a lot of Christians can find objectionable verses in the Quran but are blind to their equivalents in their own bibles!
of course, that would all be in the Old Testament, but since we are comparing Jesus with Mohammed, would you care to post a time when Jesus stole, robbed, had sex with underage girls or boys, or killed people? Or even when Jesus urged others to kill?:D
Matthew 10 KJV
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
The sword was, of course, a message of damnation for those who did not believe. Jesus, himself, never carried a weapon or used one on anyone.
He often decried violence and even defended people being attacked without one.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Taken out of context, he is saying that those who believe will be at odds with those who don't believe. Just like you and I right now.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. continued from above.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
A great quote showing that the love of God, through Jesus, is more important any other attachment. How is that violent?
And I could add Yahweh's command to the Israelites to slaughter all of the Amalekites until the tribe is obliterated, or in Numbers, the commandment to kill all except for pre-pubescent girls that were suitable for concubinage...or sexual slavery as its know today. Seems a lot of Christians can find objectionable verses in the Quran but are blind to their equivalents in their own bibles!
of course, that would all be in the Old Testament, but since we are comparing Jesus with Mohammed, would you care to post a time when Jesus stole, robbed, had sex with underage girls or boys, or killed people? Or even when Jesus urged others to kill?:D
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Possibly the greatest difference between Christianity and Islam is their founders. Mohammed urged violence and used violence. Jesus urged peace and used peaceful methods.
Regardless of how others interpreted their actions or what actions other took in their name...that is very significant.
Regardless of how others interpreted their actions or what actions other took in their name...that is very significant.
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
It is this process - of appraising, judging and condemning - which makes moral progress possible.
It's also what holds back moral progress - e.g how often has the call for the return to moral values really been a call to return to the days when single mothers were condemned by society and "loose women" moral degenerates such as homosexuals were pilloried by society and family values mean women shouldn't gp out to work and do as they are told by the head of the house. Look at all the appraising, judging and condemning that went on in Victorian times and how far we have come since then. Moral certitude does not make you right no matter how much you can quote from a religious text.
It's also what holds back moral progress - e.g how often has the call for the return to moral values really been a call to return to the days when single mothers were condemned by society and "loose women" moral degenerates such as homosexuals were pilloried by society and family values mean women shouldn't gp out to work and do as they are told by the head of the house. Look at all the appraising, judging and condemning that went on in Victorian times and how far we have come since then. Moral certitude does not make you right no matter how much you can quote from a religious text.
-
CinnamonBear
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 5:08 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Saint, what a pleasure to read your last two posts. May God bless you for defending Him and His word.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
gmc;1338409 wrote: What are you blethering about glaswegian? I was talking about liberal values. We accept the principle accept the rights and lives of others as being of equal value whether we approve of them or not. That you should respect someone's culture and beliefs is a given, that you allow them to trample all over yours for fear of offending them is not. Especially in your own back yard. That means you stand by and let someone be treated as if they have no value when you can do something about it. In our culture forced marriage is no longer acceptable so we're not going to tolerate it in our own backyard. Do you really think I believe we should turn a blind eye? If they don;t like it they can sod off back to where they came from. It's the same with bigots, my readiness to accept they have a right to their own views does not mean I will allow them to overrule my own. We had the head of the catholic church in our own backyard right at the heart of the protestant reformation in scotland preaching the right to bigotry and demanding acknowledgement of his right to discriminate against people he objects to as being less than human. I'm not disposed to tolerate that either. As I said before we have the adherents of bronze age religion trying to drag us backward.
Have I misunderstood you, gmc? I really don’t know.
gmc wrote: That you should respect someone's culture and beliefs is a given, that you allow them to trample all over yours for fear of offending them is not.
I find statements like this complex and ambiguous. Perhaps in a thousand years from now it will be held up as an oxymoronic masterpiece in Departments of English in all the great universities of the world.
Anyway, if I have misunderstood you then I apologise.
The discussion is afoot so let’s move on.
Have I misunderstood you, gmc? I really don’t know.
gmc wrote: That you should respect someone's culture and beliefs is a given, that you allow them to trample all over yours for fear of offending them is not.
I find statements like this complex and ambiguous. Perhaps in a thousand years from now it will be held up as an oxymoronic masterpiece in Departments of English in all the great universities of the world.
Anyway, if I have misunderstood you then I apologise.
The discussion is afoot so let’s move on.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
THE AHA FOUNDATION
AYAAN HIRSI ALI
‘In response to ongoing abuses of women's rights in the name of fundamentalist Islam, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her supporters established the AHA Foundation in 2007 to help protect and defend the rights of women in the West against militant Islam.
Through education, outreach and the dissemination of knowledge, the Foundation aims to combat several types of crimes against women, including female genital mutilation, forced marriages, honor violence, and honor killings.
The Foundation is opposed to the adoption of dual legal systems to adjudicate family disputes in religious families and supports the separation of all religions and the State.
The AHA Foundation works to reinforce the following basic rights: the rights of women and girls to security and control of their own bodies, the rights of women and girls to an education, the rights of women to work outside the home and to control their own income, the rights of women and girls to freedom of expression and association, and the rights of women and girls to other basic civil rights of citizens and residents defined under the laws of Western democracies and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, regardless of sexual identification.’
For more information about the AHA Foundation click here: The AHA Foundation
~o0o~
ISLAMIC OPPRESSION OF WOMEN AND GIRLS IN THE UNITED STATES
‘Following almost a year of information collection and analysis, the AHA Foundation has found that forced marriages, female genital mutilation, and acts of honor violence and honor killings take place in the United States more often and with a greater degree of severity than is commonly assumed. Acts of violence are often dismissed as isolated, unfortunate events even when they fit into a broader pattern of abuses of women’s rights in the name of fundamentalist Islam and tribal customs.’
To learn more about the suffering of females under Islam in the United States click here:
http://www.theahafoundation.org/system/ ... WeKnow.pdf
~o0o~
AYAAN HIRSI ALI
‘In response to ongoing abuses of women's rights in the name of fundamentalist Islam, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her supporters established the AHA Foundation in 2007 to help protect and defend the rights of women in the West against militant Islam.
Through education, outreach and the dissemination of knowledge, the Foundation aims to combat several types of crimes against women, including female genital mutilation, forced marriages, honor violence, and honor killings.
The Foundation is opposed to the adoption of dual legal systems to adjudicate family disputes in religious families and supports the separation of all religions and the State.
The AHA Foundation works to reinforce the following basic rights: the rights of women and girls to security and control of their own bodies, the rights of women and girls to an education, the rights of women to work outside the home and to control their own income, the rights of women and girls to freedom of expression and association, and the rights of women and girls to other basic civil rights of citizens and residents defined under the laws of Western democracies and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, regardless of sexual identification.’
For more information about the AHA Foundation click here: The AHA Foundation
~o0o~
ISLAMIC OPPRESSION OF WOMEN AND GIRLS IN THE UNITED STATES
‘Following almost a year of information collection and analysis, the AHA Foundation has found that forced marriages, female genital mutilation, and acts of honor violence and honor killings take place in the United States more often and with a greater degree of severity than is commonly assumed. Acts of violence are often dismissed as isolated, unfortunate events even when they fit into a broader pattern of abuses of women’s rights in the name of fundamentalist Islam and tribal customs.’
To learn more about the suffering of females under Islam in the United States click here:
http://www.theahafoundation.org/system/ ... WeKnow.pdf
~o0o~
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
‘HONOR KILLINGS' IN USA RAISE CONCERNS
‘Muslim immigrant men have been accused of six "honor killings" in the United States in the past two years, prompting concerns that the Muslim community and police need to do more to stop such crimes.
"There is broad support and acceptance of this idea in Islam, and we're going to see it more and more in the United States," says Robert Spencer, who has trained FBI and military authorities on Islam and founded Jihad Watch, which monitors radical Islam.
Honor killings are generally defined as murders of women by relatives who claim the victim brought shame to the family. Thousands of such killings have occurred in Muslim countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Palestinian territories, according to the World Health Organization.
Some clerics and even lawmakers in these countries have said families have the right to commit honor killings as a way of maintaining values, according to an analysis by Yotam Feldner in the journal Middle East Quarterly.' - USA TODAY (30 November 2009)
Full article can be read here: 'Honor killings' in USA raise concerns - USATODAY.com
‘Muslim immigrant men have been accused of six "honor killings" in the United States in the past two years, prompting concerns that the Muslim community and police need to do more to stop such crimes.
"There is broad support and acceptance of this idea in Islam, and we're going to see it more and more in the United States," says Robert Spencer, who has trained FBI and military authorities on Islam and founded Jihad Watch, which monitors radical Islam.
Honor killings are generally defined as murders of women by relatives who claim the victim brought shame to the family. Thousands of such killings have occurred in Muslim countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Palestinian territories, according to the World Health Organization.
Some clerics and even lawmakers in these countries have said families have the right to commit honor killings as a way of maintaining values, according to an analysis by Yotam Feldner in the journal Middle East Quarterly.' - USA TODAY (30 November 2009)
Full article can be read here: 'Honor killings' in USA raise concerns - USATODAY.com
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Saint_;1338420 wrote: The sword was, of course, a message of damnation for those who did not believe.
Stop here for a second! Because here you are using an allegory to explain a verse that doesn't fit your narrative. Keep that in mind when you quote-mine the Quran and demand that violent verses be understood literally, rather than using the interpretive method that many Muslims use today.
And, it's worth mentioning that even used as an allegory for damnation, this is actually more violent! The difference is that you see killing as violence, but condemning people to eternity in something called hell - is not violent :-2
Jesus, himself, never carried a weapon or used one on anyone.
He often decried violence and even defended people being attacked without one.
Could you explain this to me then -- taken from Luke Ch. 22: KJV
22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
22:38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
Now, what was the point of all this? Later, when one of his disciples uses his sword to cut off the ear of a servant of the high priest, Jesus performs a miracle by healing him....so what was the point of getting everyone to take up swords, and telling them to sell whatever they've got to buy a sword? Was Jesus and his disciples planning to fight, and then gave up in the face of superior numbers? Whatever way you slice it, the original command to take up swords was not a peaceful action.
Taken out of context, he is saying that those who believe will be at odds with those who don't believe. Just like you and I right now.
No, this isn't even equivalent to our disagreement, because there is nothing at stake in whether we agree or not. But Jesus is saying that his followers must cut off, or shun unbelieving family members, whether it's your mother, father, sister or brothers; you are to have nothing to do with them....no mixed marriages here! It's worth noting that this verse has been a touchstone for every religious sect or cult that practices shunning today. So much for family values.
A great quote showing that the love of God, through Jesus, is more important any other attachment. How is that violent?
YOu must love God so much that you are willing to disown your family if they do not share the belief in the new religion. It is an order to put the cult at the highest priority, above the interests of your own family. Keep in mind there are other verses in the NT where Jesus commanded his disciples to leave their families and follow him. Cults have a much easier time brainwashing new members when they have verses like these.
of course, that would all be in the Old Testament, but since we are comparing Jesus with Mohammed, would you care to post a time when Jesus stole, robbed, had sex with underage girls or boys, or killed people? Or even when Jesus urged others to kill?:D
So, was Yahweh an evil god, like the renegade 1st century church leader - Marcion declared? It's okay to rape, murder, and steal, as long as it's in the Old Testament? Why bother including it then?
Modern apologists usually excuse the carnage and brutality in the OT because it was necessary for the conquest of the holy land. Well, if you're thinking along those lines, Muslims can use the same argument for the cherrypicked quotes about how violent Muhammed was, since he was leading a conquest of Arabia. When he began his religious movement, he was attacked and driven out of Mecca, and had to flee to the safety of Medina. Even there the Meccans several times sent armies to kill him and stamp out his movement. When Mecca's allies abandoned the city in the face of a larger Muslim army, he offered an amnesty to the Meccans, not the kind of slaughter found in the OT -- so which is worse?
What this all boils down to is people sitting in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, and in a world where people of non-Christian religions are moving to the West, it's a good idea to do at least a little reading about them, before believing alarmist crap created by agitators who are trying to cause trouble.
Stop here for a second! Because here you are using an allegory to explain a verse that doesn't fit your narrative. Keep that in mind when you quote-mine the Quran and demand that violent verses be understood literally, rather than using the interpretive method that many Muslims use today.
And, it's worth mentioning that even used as an allegory for damnation, this is actually more violent! The difference is that you see killing as violence, but condemning people to eternity in something called hell - is not violent :-2
Jesus, himself, never carried a weapon or used one on anyone.
He often decried violence and even defended people being attacked without one.
Could you explain this to me then -- taken from Luke Ch. 22: KJV
22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
22:38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
Now, what was the point of all this? Later, when one of his disciples uses his sword to cut off the ear of a servant of the high priest, Jesus performs a miracle by healing him....so what was the point of getting everyone to take up swords, and telling them to sell whatever they've got to buy a sword? Was Jesus and his disciples planning to fight, and then gave up in the face of superior numbers? Whatever way you slice it, the original command to take up swords was not a peaceful action.
Taken out of context, he is saying that those who believe will be at odds with those who don't believe. Just like you and I right now.
No, this isn't even equivalent to our disagreement, because there is nothing at stake in whether we agree or not. But Jesus is saying that his followers must cut off, or shun unbelieving family members, whether it's your mother, father, sister or brothers; you are to have nothing to do with them....no mixed marriages here! It's worth noting that this verse has been a touchstone for every religious sect or cult that practices shunning today. So much for family values.
A great quote showing that the love of God, through Jesus, is more important any other attachment. How is that violent?
YOu must love God so much that you are willing to disown your family if they do not share the belief in the new religion. It is an order to put the cult at the highest priority, above the interests of your own family. Keep in mind there are other verses in the NT where Jesus commanded his disciples to leave their families and follow him. Cults have a much easier time brainwashing new members when they have verses like these.
of course, that would all be in the Old Testament, but since we are comparing Jesus with Mohammed, would you care to post a time when Jesus stole, robbed, had sex with underage girls or boys, or killed people? Or even when Jesus urged others to kill?:D
So, was Yahweh an evil god, like the renegade 1st century church leader - Marcion declared? It's okay to rape, murder, and steal, as long as it's in the Old Testament? Why bother including it then?
Modern apologists usually excuse the carnage and brutality in the OT because it was necessary for the conquest of the holy land. Well, if you're thinking along those lines, Muslims can use the same argument for the cherrypicked quotes about how violent Muhammed was, since he was leading a conquest of Arabia. When he began his religious movement, he was attacked and driven out of Mecca, and had to flee to the safety of Medina. Even there the Meccans several times sent armies to kill him and stamp out his movement. When Mecca's allies abandoned the city in the face of a larger Muslim army, he offered an amnesty to the Meccans, not the kind of slaughter found in the OT -- so which is worse?
What this all boils down to is people sitting in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, and in a world where people of non-Christian religions are moving to the West, it's a good idea to do at least a little reading about them, before believing alarmist crap created by agitators who are trying to cause trouble.
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Glaswegian;1338443 wrote: Have I misunderstood you, gmc? I really don’t know.
I find statements like this complex and ambiguous. Perhaps in a thousand years from now it will be held up as an oxymoronic masterpiece in Departments of English in all the great universities of the world.
Anyway, if I have misunderstood you then I apologise.
The discussion is afoot so let’s move on.
You have a bit, I thought I was being clear but clearly I'm not. I think perhaps you are too quick to put a label on someone. I had to look up cultural relativism to see what you were talking about. Put in it's time context it is a rejection of the rampant imperialism of it's day that most now would consider wrong.
posted by glaswegian
In the real world - which is to say, the world outside of your cultural relativist fantasy - cultures make moral judgements about other cultures and find them wanting. One can deny it until one is blue in the face but the fact of the matter is this - certain forms of behaviour found in some cultures are just not good enough. This process of moral appraisal does not only occur between cultures. It occurs within them as well. It is this process - of appraising, judging and condemning - which makes moral progress possible.
The argument you put, are you saying some cultures have a manifest destiny to extend the benefits of their culture around the world? In muslim countries where they do all these dreadful things are we justified in making them change by force? Apart from anything else that approach is impractical and just doesn't work. That essentially was the moral justification for imperialism. European culture was clearly superior to that of the fuzzy wuzzies and nig nogs therefore it was to their benefit to impose it on them. At the turn of the century we had G W Bush using different words but meaning the same thing when he talked about exporting freedom around the world. in reality he meant the freedom for big companies to go after resources wherever in the world they were without the locals having a say where the profits ended up going. Democracy is morally superior to socialism to most americans but you and I probably see it as aspects of the same thing rather than a label round which people can decide where they stand. argue. The mistake the iraquis and Iranians made was to elect democratically leaders that wanted to nationalise the natural resources of their country and make sure they were exploited for the benefit of their people. So for the sake of making sure that foolish notion was corrected they got saddam hussein and the shah put in place by the morally superior nations that had shown them how to extract the oil in the first place. Fidel castro wanted freedom for his people but that meant taking land and resources back off the ones who claimed them all for their own in the first place and the cubans have been paying for that temerity ever since. If we as an independent nation decide to confiscate all the estates and put them in to public ownership is that theft and morally reprehensible or redressing a wrong done centuries ago? What you can take you can keep has always been a truism throughout the ages, doesn't mean we should let the descendants of medieval warlords keep what they took now does it?
I respect your opinions and your right to express them and live out life according to your own lights that doesn't mean I will let you impose them on me. I can understand and perhaps even empathise with some little scroat that tries to steal my car because in his culture it is acceptable behaviour but I'm still going to make sure he understands that is not acceptable in mine. I don't approve of the culture in Afghanistan or saudi arabia but it's their culture they can sort there own problems but i don''t think we have a right to use force to make them change. If they live in my country they had better accept what we think is acceptable because tolerance and respect for others does not mean you let them walk all over you.
This process of moral appraisal does not only occur between cultures. It occurs within them as well. It is this process - of appraising, judging and condemning - which makes moral progress possible.
It also hinders moral progress. The pope when he came to scotland he clearly appraised modern society, judged it as in moral decline and condemns the liberal values of tolerance and freedom as being the cause. Divorce, the use of contraceptives and, god forbid, the tolerance of homosexuality and allowing women priests are just some of the reasons. If that's is his idea of moral progress I disagree. The fundamentalist Muslims you so disdain also appraise, judge, condemn and I don't think much of their moral progress either.
Are you trying to put a case that somehow western christian culture is somehow superior to everybody elses? Personally I take the best ideas from as many sources as possible,societies should do the same and morality is an ever moving debate. The most destructive forces are those that think and believe they are right with all the righteous anger their little souls can muster. appraise judge and condemn by all means but give me someone with an open mind any day because there is room for reason. People who think they and only they are right are dangerous.
You may think you have the moral high ground but there is always someone else on the next hill who thinks they have it - best to try and meet in the middle than throw bricks at each other. Fundamentalists if all stamps tend to think that those who want to live and let live and tolerate people different from them are weak and wishy washy with no moral backbone. The reality is very different fundamentalists sooner or later self destruct or the reasonable men round about eventually get pissed off and kick the **** out of them. We may live in a dog eat dog world but in reality while yappy dogs may get others joining in with their racket but it's not the yappy dogs that are dangerous.
I find statements like this complex and ambiguous. Perhaps in a thousand years from now it will be held up as an oxymoronic masterpiece in Departments of English in all the great universities of the world.
You may find it complex and ambiguous but what it means essentially is each to his own I will respect your views and reason with you but don't try and shove them down my throat especially if you live next door to me, don't assume I will do nothing if I see you doing something I consider morally wrong and I am in a position to do something about it, don't mistake tolerance for weakness, don't think you can find a label that fits, and most of all don't make me angry. You find it ambiguous because you want to see the world in black and white and be angry about it. It's not my problem you don't have colour.
I don't like the present religious revival that seems to be going on, the religious seem to be getting more assertive. As it happens I don't happen to think Islam is any worse than Christianity. Like you I could post screeds on the evil doings of Christianity and islam one is as bad as the other.
No need to apologise you are not likely to offend me. One of the reasons I like this forum is I find myself having to give real thought to what I think and believe and how best to express it, because if you can't make others understand the fault isn't always theirs, and even if it is it's not really constructive to just assume it is, if that makes sense or am I being ambiguous again:-3
I find statements like this complex and ambiguous. Perhaps in a thousand years from now it will be held up as an oxymoronic masterpiece in Departments of English in all the great universities of the world.
Anyway, if I have misunderstood you then I apologise.
The discussion is afoot so let’s move on.
You have a bit, I thought I was being clear but clearly I'm not. I think perhaps you are too quick to put a label on someone. I had to look up cultural relativism to see what you were talking about. Put in it's time context it is a rejection of the rampant imperialism of it's day that most now would consider wrong.
posted by glaswegian
In the real world - which is to say, the world outside of your cultural relativist fantasy - cultures make moral judgements about other cultures and find them wanting. One can deny it until one is blue in the face but the fact of the matter is this - certain forms of behaviour found in some cultures are just not good enough. This process of moral appraisal does not only occur between cultures. It occurs within them as well. It is this process - of appraising, judging and condemning - which makes moral progress possible.
The argument you put, are you saying some cultures have a manifest destiny to extend the benefits of their culture around the world? In muslim countries where they do all these dreadful things are we justified in making them change by force? Apart from anything else that approach is impractical and just doesn't work. That essentially was the moral justification for imperialism. European culture was clearly superior to that of the fuzzy wuzzies and nig nogs therefore it was to their benefit to impose it on them. At the turn of the century we had G W Bush using different words but meaning the same thing when he talked about exporting freedom around the world. in reality he meant the freedom for big companies to go after resources wherever in the world they were without the locals having a say where the profits ended up going. Democracy is morally superior to socialism to most americans but you and I probably see it as aspects of the same thing rather than a label round which people can decide where they stand. argue. The mistake the iraquis and Iranians made was to elect democratically leaders that wanted to nationalise the natural resources of their country and make sure they were exploited for the benefit of their people. So for the sake of making sure that foolish notion was corrected they got saddam hussein and the shah put in place by the morally superior nations that had shown them how to extract the oil in the first place. Fidel castro wanted freedom for his people but that meant taking land and resources back off the ones who claimed them all for their own in the first place and the cubans have been paying for that temerity ever since. If we as an independent nation decide to confiscate all the estates and put them in to public ownership is that theft and morally reprehensible or redressing a wrong done centuries ago? What you can take you can keep has always been a truism throughout the ages, doesn't mean we should let the descendants of medieval warlords keep what they took now does it?
I respect your opinions and your right to express them and live out life according to your own lights that doesn't mean I will let you impose them on me. I can understand and perhaps even empathise with some little scroat that tries to steal my car because in his culture it is acceptable behaviour but I'm still going to make sure he understands that is not acceptable in mine. I don't approve of the culture in Afghanistan or saudi arabia but it's their culture they can sort there own problems but i don''t think we have a right to use force to make them change. If they live in my country they had better accept what we think is acceptable because tolerance and respect for others does not mean you let them walk all over you.
This process of moral appraisal does not only occur between cultures. It occurs within them as well. It is this process - of appraising, judging and condemning - which makes moral progress possible.
It also hinders moral progress. The pope when he came to scotland he clearly appraised modern society, judged it as in moral decline and condemns the liberal values of tolerance and freedom as being the cause. Divorce, the use of contraceptives and, god forbid, the tolerance of homosexuality and allowing women priests are just some of the reasons. If that's is his idea of moral progress I disagree. The fundamentalist Muslims you so disdain also appraise, judge, condemn and I don't think much of their moral progress either.
Are you trying to put a case that somehow western christian culture is somehow superior to everybody elses? Personally I take the best ideas from as many sources as possible,societies should do the same and morality is an ever moving debate. The most destructive forces are those that think and believe they are right with all the righteous anger their little souls can muster. appraise judge and condemn by all means but give me someone with an open mind any day because there is room for reason. People who think they and only they are right are dangerous.
You may think you have the moral high ground but there is always someone else on the next hill who thinks they have it - best to try and meet in the middle than throw bricks at each other. Fundamentalists if all stamps tend to think that those who want to live and let live and tolerate people different from them are weak and wishy washy with no moral backbone. The reality is very different fundamentalists sooner or later self destruct or the reasonable men round about eventually get pissed off and kick the **** out of them. We may live in a dog eat dog world but in reality while yappy dogs may get others joining in with their racket but it's not the yappy dogs that are dangerous.
I find statements like this complex and ambiguous. Perhaps in a thousand years from now it will be held up as an oxymoronic masterpiece in Departments of English in all the great universities of the world.
You may find it complex and ambiguous but what it means essentially is each to his own I will respect your views and reason with you but don't try and shove them down my throat especially if you live next door to me, don't assume I will do nothing if I see you doing something I consider morally wrong and I am in a position to do something about it, don't mistake tolerance for weakness, don't think you can find a label that fits, and most of all don't make me angry. You find it ambiguous because you want to see the world in black and white and be angry about it. It's not my problem you don't have colour.
I don't like the present religious revival that seems to be going on, the religious seem to be getting more assertive. As it happens I don't happen to think Islam is any worse than Christianity. Like you I could post screeds on the evil doings of Christianity and islam one is as bad as the other.
No need to apologise you are not likely to offend me. One of the reasons I like this forum is I find myself having to give real thought to what I think and believe and how best to express it, because if you can't make others understand the fault isn't always theirs, and even if it is it's not really constructive to just assume it is, if that makes sense or am I being ambiguous again:-3
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Bryn Mawr;1336688 wrote: You insist that you do not regard a set of moral values as invariable but then you insist on judging other cultures by your set of moral values.
That’s right. I regard moral values as subject to change - my own set included. The set of moral values which I currently adhere to is the one I use as a basis to form moral judgements about other cultures. I think my moral values are generally better than those which prevail in the Islamic world. And I think yours are too. For example, we don’t treat women like chattel. Right? I’ve no doubt that in ten or twenty years from now my set of moral values will have changed somewhat, and hopefully this will be for the better. If so, then I will look back from that particular set of moral values at my present set and judge it as falling short.
Bryn Mawr wrote: If you truly believe that moral values are not invariable then the only possible answer to your question as to whether paedophilia is wrong in all places and at all times is no.
If an individual judges paedophilia to be morally wrong then the judgement he has made about this behaviour is universal in character. That is, in his view paedophilia is wrong from the moment he makes that judgement and all the way back through time before he made it. Likewise, for that individual the space in which paedophilia is wrong is not confined to the space behind his eyes, or the space behind his garden gate, or the space behind his city’s limits. It is wrong in every space - wrong throughout space in toto.
Bryn Mawr wrote: For example, amongst the Aztecs it was their firm religious belief that the Gods must be propitiated by human sacrifice. The chief priest of the Aztecs was involved in carrying out hundreds of such sacrifices.
Would you condemn him as immoral for not cutting the bonds of those sacrifices and releasing them? Do you imagine that he would have live for five minutes after the first time he tried?
We might condemn the culture as immoral according to our values but we can hardly condemn the chief priest for his actions.
Glaswegian wrote: There are certain conditions under which life is not worth living. This is something which the moral coward refuses to face up to for he wants to cling to life at any cost. Human beings are not simply at the mercy of cultural norms. In the last analysis, they are free to act. Which means they can choose to disobey cultural norms. It is possible to act nobly even with a gun placed against one’s head.
The chief priest in your example could have refused to cut out the hearts of his living victims even if this resulted in death for himself. But for you it was okay for him to continue doing what he was doing. And this particular religionist was killing thousands, wasn’t he? As I said, there are certain conditions under which life is not worth living. And that butcher's job fits the bill. For me, anyway.
Bryn Mawr wrote: If moral values are not invariable then why was the Chief Priest a moral coward for fulfilling the duties demanded by his post?.
It was within the power of the Chief Priest not to fulfil the duties demanded by his post, Bryn. There was nothing about these duties which transformed him into an automaton, there was nothing about them which rendered his will null and void, there was nothing about them which eliminated his capacity to act as a free agent. In the final analysis, the chief priest could have chosen not to fulfil the duties demanded by his post although this would have entailed certain death for him. Such a choice, I know, requires moral courage - great moral courage - and this is something that the priest in your example lacked.
Human beings are not at the mercy of social contexts or cultures. There is nothing about these external situations which can render human beings completely unfree. This is why it is possible for human beings to act nobly under the most adverse conditions.
That’s right. I regard moral values as subject to change - my own set included. The set of moral values which I currently adhere to is the one I use as a basis to form moral judgements about other cultures. I think my moral values are generally better than those which prevail in the Islamic world. And I think yours are too. For example, we don’t treat women like chattel. Right? I’ve no doubt that in ten or twenty years from now my set of moral values will have changed somewhat, and hopefully this will be for the better. If so, then I will look back from that particular set of moral values at my present set and judge it as falling short.
Bryn Mawr wrote: If you truly believe that moral values are not invariable then the only possible answer to your question as to whether paedophilia is wrong in all places and at all times is no.
If an individual judges paedophilia to be morally wrong then the judgement he has made about this behaviour is universal in character. That is, in his view paedophilia is wrong from the moment he makes that judgement and all the way back through time before he made it. Likewise, for that individual the space in which paedophilia is wrong is not confined to the space behind his eyes, or the space behind his garden gate, or the space behind his city’s limits. It is wrong in every space - wrong throughout space in toto.
Bryn Mawr wrote: For example, amongst the Aztecs it was their firm religious belief that the Gods must be propitiated by human sacrifice. The chief priest of the Aztecs was involved in carrying out hundreds of such sacrifices.
Would you condemn him as immoral for not cutting the bonds of those sacrifices and releasing them? Do you imagine that he would have live for five minutes after the first time he tried?
We might condemn the culture as immoral according to our values but we can hardly condemn the chief priest for his actions.
Glaswegian wrote: There are certain conditions under which life is not worth living. This is something which the moral coward refuses to face up to for he wants to cling to life at any cost. Human beings are not simply at the mercy of cultural norms. In the last analysis, they are free to act. Which means they can choose to disobey cultural norms. It is possible to act nobly even with a gun placed against one’s head.
The chief priest in your example could have refused to cut out the hearts of his living victims even if this resulted in death for himself. But for you it was okay for him to continue doing what he was doing. And this particular religionist was killing thousands, wasn’t he? As I said, there are certain conditions under which life is not worth living. And that butcher's job fits the bill. For me, anyway.
Bryn Mawr wrote: If moral values are not invariable then why was the Chief Priest a moral coward for fulfilling the duties demanded by his post?.
It was within the power of the Chief Priest not to fulfil the duties demanded by his post, Bryn. There was nothing about these duties which transformed him into an automaton, there was nothing about them which rendered his will null and void, there was nothing about them which eliminated his capacity to act as a free agent. In the final analysis, the chief priest could have chosen not to fulfil the duties demanded by his post although this would have entailed certain death for him. Such a choice, I know, requires moral courage - great moral courage - and this is something that the priest in your example lacked.
Human beings are not at the mercy of social contexts or cultures. There is nothing about these external situations which can render human beings completely unfree. This is why it is possible for human beings to act nobly under the most adverse conditions.
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Glaswegian;1338502 wrote: That’s right. I regard moral values as subject to change - my own set included. The set of moral values which I currently adhere to is the one I use as a basis to form moral judgements about other cultures. I think my moral values are generally better than those which prevail in the Islamic world. And I think yours are too. For example, we don’t treat women like chattel. Right? I’ve no doubt that in ten or twenty years from now my set of moral values will have changed somewhat, and hopefully this will be for the better. If so, then I will look back from that particular set of moral values at my present set and judge it as falling short.
If an individual judges paedophilia to be morally wrong then the judgement he has made about this behaviour is universal in character. That is, in his view paedophilia is wrong from the moment he makes that judgement and all the way back through time before he made it. Likewise, for that individual the space in which paedophilia is wrong is not confined to the space behind his eyes, or the space behind his garden gate, or the space behind his city’s limits. It is wrong in every space - wrong throughout space in toto.
It was within the power of the Chief Priest not to fulfil the duties demanded by his post, Bryn. There was nothing about these duties which transformed him into an automaton, there was nothing about them which rendered his will null and void, there was nothing about them which eliminated his capacity to act as a free agent. In the final analysis, the chief priest could have chosen not to fulfil the duties demanded by his post although this would have entailed certain death for him. Such a choice, I know, requires moral courage - great moral courage - and this is something that the priest in your example lacked.
Human beings are not at the mercy of social contexts or cultures. There is nothing about these external situations which can render human beings completely unfree. This is why it is possible for human beings to act nobly under the most adverse conditions.Why should they?
If an individual judges paedophilia to be morally wrong then the judgement he has made about this behaviour is universal in character. That is, in his view paedophilia is wrong from the moment he makes that judgement and all the way back through time before he made it. Likewise, for that individual the space in which paedophilia is wrong is not confined to the space behind his eyes, or the space behind his garden gate, or the space behind his city’s limits. It is wrong in every space - wrong throughout space in toto.
It was within the power of the Chief Priest not to fulfil the duties demanded by his post, Bryn. There was nothing about these duties which transformed him into an automaton, there was nothing about them which rendered his will null and void, there was nothing about them which eliminated his capacity to act as a free agent. In the final analysis, the chief priest could have chosen not to fulfil the duties demanded by his post although this would have entailed certain death for him. Such a choice, I know, requires moral courage - great moral courage - and this is something that the priest in your example lacked.
Human beings are not at the mercy of social contexts or cultures. There is nothing about these external situations which can render human beings completely unfree. This is why it is possible for human beings to act nobly under the most adverse conditions.Why should they?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Glaswegian wrote: This is why it is possible for human beings to act nobly under the most adverse conditions.
Ahso!;1338503 wrote: Why should they?
Perhaps some human beings just want to act nobly, Ahso. Perhaps they prefer to do that rather than wake up screaming at night.
What’s your view?
Ahso!;1338503 wrote: Why should they?
Perhaps some human beings just want to act nobly, Ahso. Perhaps they prefer to do that rather than wake up screaming at night.
What’s your view?
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
I think survival will in most cases trump morality.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
ahso!;1338522 wrote: i think survival will in most cases trump morality.
i declare new thread!!!!:d
i declare new thread!!!!:d
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Ahso!;1338522 wrote: I think survival will in most cases trump morality.
Here's a case which bears on this...
In the Nazi death camps the vast majority of prisoners complied with the SS in order to maximise their chances of survival. Some of these prisoners did not merely comply with the SS but went so far as to identify with them, wearing parts of SS uniforms and adopting the opinions of their captors. These individuals stole food from their fellow-prisoners and informed on them as a means of ingratiating themselves with the SS. Other prisoners did not do these things. Some were even prepared to disobey those in power, at times openly, but more often surreptitiously.
All of these prisoners were condemned to the same hellish situation and yet it was met by them in quite different ways. Why is it that some of them behaved nobly while others behaved despicably? Surely in order to understand the differences in behaviour here it is more informative to look within these individuals and not at the external situation they faced. In other words, it is necessary to look at individual qualities like courage, compassion, selflessness, docility, cravenness, and so on. And perhaps it is even necessary to look at the genes of individuals, and the molecules which make up those genes, and the atoms and particles which make up those molecules¦Ahso?
Here's a case which bears on this...
In the Nazi death camps the vast majority of prisoners complied with the SS in order to maximise their chances of survival. Some of these prisoners did not merely comply with the SS but went so far as to identify with them, wearing parts of SS uniforms and adopting the opinions of their captors. These individuals stole food from their fellow-prisoners and informed on them as a means of ingratiating themselves with the SS. Other prisoners did not do these things. Some were even prepared to disobey those in power, at times openly, but more often surreptitiously.
All of these prisoners were condemned to the same hellish situation and yet it was met by them in quite different ways. Why is it that some of them behaved nobly while others behaved despicably? Surely in order to understand the differences in behaviour here it is more informative to look within these individuals and not at the external situation they faced. In other words, it is necessary to look at individual qualities like courage, compassion, selflessness, docility, cravenness, and so on. And perhaps it is even necessary to look at the genes of individuals, and the molecules which make up those genes, and the atoms and particles which make up those molecules¦Ahso?
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Glaswegian;1338540 wrote: Here's a case which bears on this...
In the Nazi death camps the vast majority of prisoners complied with the SS in order to maximise their chances of survival. Some of these prisoners did not merely comply with the SS but went so far as to identify with them, wearing parts of SS uniforms and adopting the opinions of their captors. These individuals stole food from their fellow-prisoners and informed on them as a means of ingratiating themselves with the SS. Other prisoners did not do these things. Some were even prepared to disobey those in power, at times openly, but more often surreptitiously.
All of these prisoners were condemned to the same hellish situation and yet it was met by them in quite different ways. Why is it that some of them behaved nobly while others behaved despicably? Surely in order to understand the differences in behaviour here it is more informative to look within these individuals and not at the external situation they faced. In other words, it is necessary to look at individual qualities like courage, compassion, selflessness, docility, cravenness, and so on. And perhaps it is even necessary to look at the genes of individuals, and the molecules which make up those genes, and the atoms and particles which make up those molecules…Ahso?Where does nobility fit into that? Both groups were doing what they thought would ensure their survival.
In the Nazi death camps the vast majority of prisoners complied with the SS in order to maximise their chances of survival. Some of these prisoners did not merely comply with the SS but went so far as to identify with them, wearing parts of SS uniforms and adopting the opinions of their captors. These individuals stole food from their fellow-prisoners and informed on them as a means of ingratiating themselves with the SS. Other prisoners did not do these things. Some were even prepared to disobey those in power, at times openly, but more often surreptitiously.
All of these prisoners were condemned to the same hellish situation and yet it was met by them in quite different ways. Why is it that some of them behaved nobly while others behaved despicably? Surely in order to understand the differences in behaviour here it is more informative to look within these individuals and not at the external situation they faced. In other words, it is necessary to look at individual qualities like courage, compassion, selflessness, docility, cravenness, and so on. And perhaps it is even necessary to look at the genes of individuals, and the molecules which make up those genes, and the atoms and particles which make up those molecules…Ahso?Where does nobility fit into that? Both groups were doing what they thought would ensure their survival.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Glaswegian;1338470 wrote: ‘HONOR KILLINGS' IN USA RAISE CONCERNS
‘Muslim immigrant men have been accused of six "honor killings" in the United States in the past two years, prompting concerns that the Muslim community and police need to do more to stop such crimes.
"There is broad support and acceptance of this idea in Islam, and we're going to see it more and more in the United States," says Robert Spencer, who has trained FBI and military authorities on Islam and founded Jihad Watch, which monitors radical Islam.
Honor killings are generally defined as murders of women by relatives who claim the victim brought shame to the family. Thousands of such killings have occurred in Muslim countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Palestinian territories, according to the World Health Organization.
Some clerics and even lawmakers in these countries have said families have the right to commit honor killings as a way of maintaining values, according to an analysis by Yotam Feldner in the journal Middle East Quarterly.' - USA TODAY (30 November 2009)
Full article can be read here: 'Honor killings' in USA raise concerns - USATODAY.com
Might I ask, at this point, how many WASPs have killed their wives in the same period for having an affair and "bringing shame to the family?
‘Muslim immigrant men have been accused of six "honor killings" in the United States in the past two years, prompting concerns that the Muslim community and police need to do more to stop such crimes.
"There is broad support and acceptance of this idea in Islam, and we're going to see it more and more in the United States," says Robert Spencer, who has trained FBI and military authorities on Islam and founded Jihad Watch, which monitors radical Islam.
Honor killings are generally defined as murders of women by relatives who claim the victim brought shame to the family. Thousands of such killings have occurred in Muslim countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Palestinian territories, according to the World Health Organization.
Some clerics and even lawmakers in these countries have said families have the right to commit honor killings as a way of maintaining values, according to an analysis by Yotam Feldner in the journal Middle East Quarterly.' - USA TODAY (30 November 2009)
Full article can be read here: 'Honor killings' in USA raise concerns - USATODAY.com
Might I ask, at this point, how many WASPs have killed their wives in the same period for having an affair and "bringing shame to the family?
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Ahso!;1338542 wrote: Where does nobility fit into that? Both groups were doing what they thought would ensure their survival.If survival is the ultimate goal then how does one go about explaining Stockholm Syndrome and how some of these people have clear cut chances to get away with utmost ease yet stay? This wholeheartedly argues against "survival" and argues in favor of morality in which is etched into the people as being a purpose worth their effort, whether from their own logic or outside influence they've still demonstrated quite clearly how they can effect society as a whole.
Divinity exists with or without a god, the truth of it is just forever going to be opinionated due to everyone having their own perspective, one of right and obligation. Some call it science, others call it religion, while others still call it an illusion. Science discredits the past, religion discredits the future, and the concept of an illusion discredits the present(Which is ultimately impossible to conceive naturally but none the less)
Divinity exists with or without a god, the truth of it is just forever going to be opinionated due to everyone having their own perspective, one of right and obligation. Some call it science, others call it religion, while others still call it an illusion. Science discredits the past, religion discredits the future, and the concept of an illusion discredits the present(Which is ultimately impossible to conceive naturally but none the less)
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Glaswegian;1338470 wrote: ‘HONOR KILLINGS' IN USA RAISE CONCERNS
‘Muslim immigrant men have been accused of six "honor killings" in the United States in the past two years, prompting concerns that the Muslim community and police need to do more to stop such crimes.
"There is broad support and acceptance of this idea in Islam, and we're going to see it more and more in the United States," says Robert Spencer, who has trained FBI and military authorities on Islam and founded Jihad Watch, which monitors radical Islam.
Honor killings are generally defined as murders of women by relatives who claim the victim brought shame to the family. Thousands of such killings have occurred in Muslim countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Palestinian territories, according to the World Health Organization.
Some clerics and even lawmakers in these countries have said families have the right to commit honor killings as a way of maintaining values, according to an analysis by Yotam Feldner in the journal Middle East Quarterly.' - USA TODAY (30 November 2009)
Full article can be read here: 'Honor killings' in USA raise concerns - USATODAY.com
Bryn Mawr wrote: Might I ask, at this point, how many WASPs have killed their wives in the same period for having an affair and "bringing shame to the family?
I don’t know how many. But whatever the number might be, it is unacceptably large - even if it only amounted to one.
When a WASP kills his wife for having an affair this act is unanimously condemned within Western culture. When a Muslim kills his wife for having an affair this act is not unanimously condemned within Islamic culture: rather, it is frequently endorsed therein.
There is a difference.
~o0o~
When you, Bryn, put this…
Bryn Mawr wrote: and "bringing shame to the family?
…at the end of this:
Bryn Mawr wrote: Might I ask, at this point, how many WASPs have killed their wives in the same period for having an affair
…to make this:
Bryn Mawr wrote: Might I ask, at this point, how many WASPs have killed their wives in the same period for having an affair and "bringing shame to the family?
…you were being naughty, weren’t you? For you are deliberately seeking to confuse WASP adultery killings with Muslim ones by imputing a standard Islamic motive to the former. Forget it. When a WASP kills his wife for having an affair jealousy is the typical motive. That is all the motive he needs. And you know it.
‘Muslim immigrant men have been accused of six "honor killings" in the United States in the past two years, prompting concerns that the Muslim community and police need to do more to stop such crimes.
"There is broad support and acceptance of this idea in Islam, and we're going to see it more and more in the United States," says Robert Spencer, who has trained FBI and military authorities on Islam and founded Jihad Watch, which monitors radical Islam.
Honor killings are generally defined as murders of women by relatives who claim the victim brought shame to the family. Thousands of such killings have occurred in Muslim countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Palestinian territories, according to the World Health Organization.
Some clerics and even lawmakers in these countries have said families have the right to commit honor killings as a way of maintaining values, according to an analysis by Yotam Feldner in the journal Middle East Quarterly.' - USA TODAY (30 November 2009)
Full article can be read here: 'Honor killings' in USA raise concerns - USATODAY.com
Bryn Mawr wrote: Might I ask, at this point, how many WASPs have killed their wives in the same period for having an affair and "bringing shame to the family?
I don’t know how many. But whatever the number might be, it is unacceptably large - even if it only amounted to one.
When a WASP kills his wife for having an affair this act is unanimously condemned within Western culture. When a Muslim kills his wife for having an affair this act is not unanimously condemned within Islamic culture: rather, it is frequently endorsed therein.
There is a difference.
~o0o~
When you, Bryn, put this…
Bryn Mawr wrote: and "bringing shame to the family?
…at the end of this:
Bryn Mawr wrote: Might I ask, at this point, how many WASPs have killed their wives in the same period for having an affair
…to make this:
Bryn Mawr wrote: Might I ask, at this point, how many WASPs have killed their wives in the same period for having an affair and "bringing shame to the family?
…you were being naughty, weren’t you? For you are deliberately seeking to confuse WASP adultery killings with Muslim ones by imputing a standard Islamic motive to the former. Forget it. When a WASP kills his wife for having an affair jealousy is the typical motive. That is all the motive he needs. And you know it.
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
K.Snyder;1338633 wrote: If survival is the ultimate goal then how does one go about explaining Stockholm Syndrome and how some of these people have clear cut chances to get away with utmost ease yet stay? This wholeheartedly argues against "survival" and argues in favor of morality in which is etched into the people as being a purpose worth their effort, whether from their own logic or outside influence they've still demonstrated quite clearly how they can effect society as a whole.
Ya know, sometimes I guess it breaks down as basic as: thats all I know right now, thats all I care to think about. Also, Its important to understand that personal survival is important only because it in turn enhances species survival.
Ya know, sometimes I guess it breaks down as basic as: thats all I know right now, thats all I care to think about. Also, Its important to understand that personal survival is important only because it in turn enhances species survival.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
posted by glaswegian
you were being naughty, weren’t you? For you are deliberately seeking to confuse WASP adultery killings with Muslim ones by imputing a standard Islamic motive to the former. Forget it. When a WASP kills his wife for having an affair jealousy is the typical motive. That is all the motive he needs. And you know it.
We have progressed on from honour killings and the days when women and children were the possessions of the senior male in the family to the point where their rights are protected by law but that moral progress was no thanks to the christian religion. It was only in 1991 that it finally became an offence for a man to rape his wife up until then he was just claiming his due. We still have people who would drag us back in time. The honour killing thing is a cultural affair as much as it is a religious one.
Tell me how many couples do you know are estranged from their parents because it was a mixed religion marriage, catholic and protestant. How dangerous is it still for a protestant man to go out with a catholic girl in northern Ireland? I know one couple that had to flee for their own safety and when a teenager there were always couple being split up by one or the other of the parents who objected to their sons and daughters going out with someone of the wrong faith. We barely accept mixed race marriages.
posted buy glaswegian
When a WASP kills his wife for having an affair this act is unanimously condemned within Western culture. When a Muslim kills his wife for having an affair this act is not unanimously condemned within Islamic culture: rather, it is frequently endorsed therein.
I would put it to you that while it might be condemned in our culture there are many here who would consider the act understandable if a little extreme. There are still plenty who think it justified to belt a wife if she does something wrong and think the law should not interfere.
In the states I would imagine a girl wanting to break away from a fundamentalist christian family would be out under considerable pressure to know her place.
Worry not, an army of the lord will defend us from the muslim horde.
YouTube - God's Next Army 1 of 2 [Quick Documentary - 16 mins]
These kind of Christians are just as worrying as any fundamentalist muslim.
you were being naughty, weren’t you? For you are deliberately seeking to confuse WASP adultery killings with Muslim ones by imputing a standard Islamic motive to the former. Forget it. When a WASP kills his wife for having an affair jealousy is the typical motive. That is all the motive he needs. And you know it.
We have progressed on from honour killings and the days when women and children were the possessions of the senior male in the family to the point where their rights are protected by law but that moral progress was no thanks to the christian religion. It was only in 1991 that it finally became an offence for a man to rape his wife up until then he was just claiming his due. We still have people who would drag us back in time. The honour killing thing is a cultural affair as much as it is a religious one.
Tell me how many couples do you know are estranged from their parents because it was a mixed religion marriage, catholic and protestant. How dangerous is it still for a protestant man to go out with a catholic girl in northern Ireland? I know one couple that had to flee for their own safety and when a teenager there were always couple being split up by one or the other of the parents who objected to their sons and daughters going out with someone of the wrong faith. We barely accept mixed race marriages.
posted buy glaswegian
When a WASP kills his wife for having an affair this act is unanimously condemned within Western culture. When a Muslim kills his wife for having an affair this act is not unanimously condemned within Islamic culture: rather, it is frequently endorsed therein.
I would put it to you that while it might be condemned in our culture there are many here who would consider the act understandable if a little extreme. There are still plenty who think it justified to belt a wife if she does something wrong and think the law should not interfere.
In the states I would imagine a girl wanting to break away from a fundamentalist christian family would be out under considerable pressure to know her place.
Worry not, an army of the lord will defend us from the muslim horde.
YouTube - God's Next Army 1 of 2 [Quick Documentary - 16 mins]
These kind of Christians are just as worrying as any fundamentalist muslim.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
‘A culture that celebrates femininity and considers women to be the masters of their own lives is better than a culture that mutilates girls’ genitals and confines them behind walls and veils or flogs or stones them for falling in love.’ - Excerpted from Nomad: A Personal Journey Through The Clash Of Civilizations by Ayaan Hirsi Ali
recovering conservative wrote: Where exactly is this culture?
If you take your head out of your bum, rc, then you will see it. It is the one which surrounds you - the culture of the West.
recovering conservative wrote: A lot of women don't seem to consider western pop culture as celebrating femininity, but instead seeks to exploit women for the value of their sexuality.
Yes. A lot of women consider ‘western pop culture’ as not celebrating femininity and as seeking instead to exploit them for the value of their sexuality. But even these women would not dream of exchanging this form of oppression for that suffered by women in the culture of Islam. You know very well that the oppression of women under Islam is on a scale greatly exceeding anything generally suffered by women in the West. So stop deceiving yourself.
recovering conservative;1338363 wrote: Ayaan Hirsi Ali cannot speak with authority about how Islam is practiced outside of the community that she was raised in -- and that's my biggest objection to her and your smearing of a complex collection of religious traditions that fall under the category of Islam.
The community that she was raised in? Ayaan Hirsi Ali was raised in several Islamic communities - for example, ones in Somalia, Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia. Therefore, she can certainly speak with authority about how Islam is practiced in those communities. According to you, Hirsi Ali’s criticisms of Islam and its abusive practices are patronizing and illegitimate because she makes her criticisms from outside the Islamic communities in which these abusive practices occur. Don’t tell me that this isn’t multiculturist bleating on your part. Because it is. It does not matter one iota where Hirsi Ali criticises Islam from. She can do it from Glasgow, Washington DC, Ontario or even the Moon and this would not bear in the slightest on what she has to say. What matters is whether or not her criticisms are warranted: that is, are they sound? are they evidence-based? do they correspond to anything in reality?
You've described an excerpt from Hirsi Ali’s book Nomad as ‘drivel’. I don’t know if you’ve read this book. But if you have then let me ask you this: from amongst the numerous criticisms of Islam and its abusive practices Hirsi Ali makes in that book, are there any on which you agree with her? Or do you find her criticisms unwarranted in their entirety? Do you find the whole book drivel?
In Nomad, Hirsi Ali describes many forms of oppression and brutality suffered by females under Islam, and condemns them strongly. The following is the sort of Islamic brutality against women which she condemns. It comes from an Islamic culture she can speak about with some authority: namely, the one in her homeland - Somalia...
'An Islamist rebel administration in Somalia has had a thirteen year old girl stoned to death for adultery after the child's father reported that she was raped by three men...A lorry load of stones was brought for the killing...Nurses were instructed to check whether Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was still alive when buried in the ground. They removed her from the ground, declared that she was, and she was replaced in the hole where she had been buried for the stoning to continue.' The Guardian newspaper, 3rd November 2008
'Aisha was crying when dragged to the hole to be buried with only her head protruding...As the stoning proceeded, her face and head were bleeding copiously. "It is the command of Allah", said a man.' Testimony of an anonymous eyewitness, Today, BBC Radio 4, 4th November 2008
~o0o~
Instead of condemning Ayaan Hirsi Ali for criticising Islam, start acting like you’ve got a pair, and condemn Islamic infamies like the one you’ve just read.
recovering conservative wrote: Where exactly is this culture?
If you take your head out of your bum, rc, then you will see it. It is the one which surrounds you - the culture of the West.
recovering conservative wrote: A lot of women don't seem to consider western pop culture as celebrating femininity, but instead seeks to exploit women for the value of their sexuality.
Yes. A lot of women consider ‘western pop culture’ as not celebrating femininity and as seeking instead to exploit them for the value of their sexuality. But even these women would not dream of exchanging this form of oppression for that suffered by women in the culture of Islam. You know very well that the oppression of women under Islam is on a scale greatly exceeding anything generally suffered by women in the West. So stop deceiving yourself.
recovering conservative;1338363 wrote: Ayaan Hirsi Ali cannot speak with authority about how Islam is practiced outside of the community that she was raised in -- and that's my biggest objection to her and your smearing of a complex collection of religious traditions that fall under the category of Islam.
The community that she was raised in? Ayaan Hirsi Ali was raised in several Islamic communities - for example, ones in Somalia, Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia. Therefore, she can certainly speak with authority about how Islam is practiced in those communities. According to you, Hirsi Ali’s criticisms of Islam and its abusive practices are patronizing and illegitimate because she makes her criticisms from outside the Islamic communities in which these abusive practices occur. Don’t tell me that this isn’t multiculturist bleating on your part. Because it is. It does not matter one iota where Hirsi Ali criticises Islam from. She can do it from Glasgow, Washington DC, Ontario or even the Moon and this would not bear in the slightest on what she has to say. What matters is whether or not her criticisms are warranted: that is, are they sound? are they evidence-based? do they correspond to anything in reality?
You've described an excerpt from Hirsi Ali’s book Nomad as ‘drivel’. I don’t know if you’ve read this book. But if you have then let me ask you this: from amongst the numerous criticisms of Islam and its abusive practices Hirsi Ali makes in that book, are there any on which you agree with her? Or do you find her criticisms unwarranted in their entirety? Do you find the whole book drivel?
In Nomad, Hirsi Ali describes many forms of oppression and brutality suffered by females under Islam, and condemns them strongly. The following is the sort of Islamic brutality against women which she condemns. It comes from an Islamic culture she can speak about with some authority: namely, the one in her homeland - Somalia...
'An Islamist rebel administration in Somalia has had a thirteen year old girl stoned to death for adultery after the child's father reported that she was raped by three men...A lorry load of stones was brought for the killing...Nurses were instructed to check whether Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was still alive when buried in the ground. They removed her from the ground, declared that she was, and she was replaced in the hole where she had been buried for the stoning to continue.' The Guardian newspaper, 3rd November 2008
'Aisha was crying when dragged to the hole to be buried with only her head protruding...As the stoning proceeded, her face and head were bleeding copiously. "It is the command of Allah", said a man.' Testimony of an anonymous eyewitness, Today, BBC Radio 4, 4th November 2008
~o0o~
Instead of condemning Ayaan Hirsi Ali for criticising Islam, start acting like you’ve got a pair, and condemn Islamic infamies like the one you’ve just read.
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
In an interview with the Swiss magazine Das Magazin in September 2006, she said she lost her faith while sitting in an Italian restaurant in May 2002, drinking a glass of wine:
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Additionally:
She sympathized with the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, and wore a hijab together with her school uniform, which was unusual at the time but gradually became more common. She agreed with the fatwa against British writer Salman Rushdie that was declared in reaction to the publication of his controversial novel The Satanic Verses. After completing secondary school, she attended a secretarial course at Valley Secretarial College in Nairobi for one year. At this time, Hirsi Ali read English adventure stories such as the Nancy Drew series, containing modern heroine archetypes which overstepped the limits traditionally imposed by religion and society.
If she really wants to fight Islam she should set up a black market distributing Nancy Drew novels to all the young Islamic girls. That seems to have been her true turning point.
She sympathized with the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, and wore a hijab together with her school uniform, which was unusual at the time but gradually became more common. She agreed with the fatwa against British writer Salman Rushdie that was declared in reaction to the publication of his controversial novel The Satanic Verses. After completing secondary school, she attended a secretarial course at Valley Secretarial College in Nairobi for one year. At this time, Hirsi Ali read English adventure stories such as the Nancy Drew series, containing modern heroine archetypes which overstepped the limits traditionally imposed by religion and society.
If she really wants to fight Islam she should set up a black market distributing Nancy Drew novels to all the young Islamic girls. That seems to have been her true turning point.
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Glaswegian;1338700 wrote: I don’t know how many. But whatever the number might be, it is unacceptably large - even if it only amounted to one.
When a WASP kills his wife for having an affair this act is unanimously condemned within Western culture. When a Muslim kills his wife for having an affair this act is not unanimously condemned within Islamic culture: rather, it is frequently endorsed therein.
There is a difference.
~o0o~
When you, Bryn, put this…
…at the end of this:
…to make this:
…you were being naughty, weren’t you? For you are deliberately seeking to confuse WASP adultery killings with Muslim ones by imputing a standard Islamic motive to the former. Forget it. When a WASP kills his wife for having an affair jealousy is the typical motive. That is all the motive he needs. And you know it.
Naughty? I was asking the question, what is the difference between a Christian killing a woman for having an affair and a Muslim killing a woman for having an affair. Both are totally wrong, both are against the normal belief of the religion. Pointing to six killings in two years and using that to condemn a religion as the article you linked does cannot stand the light of day when compared to the number killed by members of other religions for similar reasons.
Besides which, Honour killing is a regional aberration, not a religious one and is practised by Hindus just as often as by Muslims.
When a WASP kills his wife for having an affair this act is unanimously condemned within Western culture. When a Muslim kills his wife for having an affair this act is not unanimously condemned within Islamic culture: rather, it is frequently endorsed therein.
There is a difference.
~o0o~
When you, Bryn, put this…
…at the end of this:
…to make this:
…you were being naughty, weren’t you? For you are deliberately seeking to confuse WASP adultery killings with Muslim ones by imputing a standard Islamic motive to the former. Forget it. When a WASP kills his wife for having an affair jealousy is the typical motive. That is all the motive he needs. And you know it.
Naughty? I was asking the question, what is the difference between a Christian killing a woman for having an affair and a Muslim killing a woman for having an affair. Both are totally wrong, both are against the normal belief of the religion. Pointing to six killings in two years and using that to condemn a religion as the article you linked does cannot stand the light of day when compared to the number killed by members of other religions for similar reasons.
Besides which, Honour killing is a regional aberration, not a religious one and is practised by Hindus just as often as by Muslims.
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Glaswegian;1338502 wrote: That’s right. I regard moral values as subject to change - my own set included. The set of moral values which I currently adhere to is the one I use as a basis to form moral judgements about other cultures. I think my moral values are generally better than those which prevail in the Islamic world. And I think yours are too. For example, we don’t treat women like chattel. Right? I’ve no doubt that in ten or twenty years from now my set of moral values will have changed somewhat, and hopefully this will be for the better. If so, then I will look back from that particular set of moral values at my present set and judge it as falling short.
If an individual judges paedophilia to be morally wrong then the judgement he has made about this behaviour is universal in character. That is, in his view paedophilia is wrong from the moment he makes that judgement and all the way back through time before he made it. Likewise, for that individual the space in which paedophilia is wrong is not confined to the space behind his eyes, or the space behind his garden gate, or the space behind his city’s limits. It is wrong in every space - wrong throughout space in toto.
It was within the power of the Chief Priest not to fulfil the duties demanded by his post, Bryn. There was nothing about these duties which transformed him into an automaton, there was nothing about them which rendered his will null and void, there was nothing about them which eliminated his capacity to act as a free agent. In the final analysis, the chief priest could have chosen not to fulfil the duties demanded by his post although this would have entailed certain death for him. Such a choice, I know, requires moral courage - great moral courage - and this is something that the priest in your example lacked.
Human beings are not at the mercy of social contexts or cultures. There is nothing about these external situations which can render human beings completely unfree. This is why it is possible for human beings to act nobly under the most adverse conditions.
Given that you accept that moral values are subject to change I'd like to examine the implications of that belief.
If moral values can change over time, over a great deal of time they can change a great deal. What is morally acceptable now might well have been considered immoral at some time in the past and what was considered to be moral then might be considered to be unacceptable now. This can be demonstrated over many times and cultures.
An individual's moral code reflects the moral code of the society in which he lives. I'd go further than that, a person's moral code is taught to him by the society in which he grows up. If he is a thinker it can then evolve but moral values change by evolution, not revolution and it will continue to be based on the society's moral code.
Each person believes that his set of moral values is the best set available - by definition, if he believed that a change to the moral code would make it better then his moral code has changed. To continue to use the previous code is to knowingly act in an immoral way under those circumstances.
The moral code of a society evolves as the leading thinkers within that society introduce new ideas. Those ideas are either accepted by the society and become part of the code or not as the case may be.
A person can act according to the precepts of his moral code or he can act outside of it. If he does the former then he is acting in a moral fashion, if the latter then he is acting immorally.
Given the above, I hold that you can use your current moral code to decide whether you think a given society was moral in your eyes and you can use the society's moral code to decide whether an individual acted morally or not.
You, however, want to judge an individual by your moral code with no reference to the moral code that obtained at the time and place in which he lived and I maintain that it is not possible - your moral values are not invariant and the individual was not aware of or acting according to your moral code.
Taking the Aztec Chief Priest as an example, not only is there no reason why he should release the captive, had he done so he would have acted immorally because he held to the moral code of the society in which he lived, firmly believing it to be the best moral code available, and under that code the Gods had to be appeased for the good of the many.
It is only if you believe *your* moral code to be absolute and invariant that you can claim the priest to be a moral coward and, as I said before, the only way you can claim that is to claim it is God given. Anything less is arrogance beyond measure.
If an individual judges paedophilia to be morally wrong then the judgement he has made about this behaviour is universal in character. That is, in his view paedophilia is wrong from the moment he makes that judgement and all the way back through time before he made it. Likewise, for that individual the space in which paedophilia is wrong is not confined to the space behind his eyes, or the space behind his garden gate, or the space behind his city’s limits. It is wrong in every space - wrong throughout space in toto.
It was within the power of the Chief Priest not to fulfil the duties demanded by his post, Bryn. There was nothing about these duties which transformed him into an automaton, there was nothing about them which rendered his will null and void, there was nothing about them which eliminated his capacity to act as a free agent. In the final analysis, the chief priest could have chosen not to fulfil the duties demanded by his post although this would have entailed certain death for him. Such a choice, I know, requires moral courage - great moral courage - and this is something that the priest in your example lacked.
Human beings are not at the mercy of social contexts or cultures. There is nothing about these external situations which can render human beings completely unfree. This is why it is possible for human beings to act nobly under the most adverse conditions.
Given that you accept that moral values are subject to change I'd like to examine the implications of that belief.
If moral values can change over time, over a great deal of time they can change a great deal. What is morally acceptable now might well have been considered immoral at some time in the past and what was considered to be moral then might be considered to be unacceptable now. This can be demonstrated over many times and cultures.
An individual's moral code reflects the moral code of the society in which he lives. I'd go further than that, a person's moral code is taught to him by the society in which he grows up. If he is a thinker it can then evolve but moral values change by evolution, not revolution and it will continue to be based on the society's moral code.
Each person believes that his set of moral values is the best set available - by definition, if he believed that a change to the moral code would make it better then his moral code has changed. To continue to use the previous code is to knowingly act in an immoral way under those circumstances.
The moral code of a society evolves as the leading thinkers within that society introduce new ideas. Those ideas are either accepted by the society and become part of the code or not as the case may be.
A person can act according to the precepts of his moral code or he can act outside of it. If he does the former then he is acting in a moral fashion, if the latter then he is acting immorally.
Given the above, I hold that you can use your current moral code to decide whether you think a given society was moral in your eyes and you can use the society's moral code to decide whether an individual acted morally or not.
You, however, want to judge an individual by your moral code with no reference to the moral code that obtained at the time and place in which he lived and I maintain that it is not possible - your moral values are not invariant and the individual was not aware of or acting according to your moral code.
Taking the Aztec Chief Priest as an example, not only is there no reason why he should release the captive, had he done so he would have acted immorally because he held to the moral code of the society in which he lived, firmly believing it to be the best moral code available, and under that code the Gods had to be appeased for the good of the many.
It is only if you believe *your* moral code to be absolute and invariant that you can claim the priest to be a moral coward and, as I said before, the only way you can claim that is to claim it is God given. Anything less is arrogance beyond measure.
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
You all have been working pretty hard on this discussion. I for one have been enjoying it lately. Thanks.
Morality is certainly an interesting subject. Is this where you had hoped it would lead to, Glaswegian?
Morality is certainly an interesting subject. Is this where you had hoped it would lead to, Glaswegian?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Perhaps the conclusion that if you need to have a holy book or someone interpreting it for you to tell you what is moral or not there is something wrong and perhaps you need to think things through for yourself.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Glaswegian;1338792 wrote: ‘A culture that celebrates femininity and considers women to be the masters of their own lives is better than a culture that mutilates girls’ genitals and confines them behind walls and veils or flogs or stones them for falling in love.’ - Excerpted from Nomad: A Personal Journey Through The Clash Of Civilizations by Ayaan Hirsi Ali
If you take your head out of your bum, rc, then you will see it. It is the one which surrounds you - the culture of the West.
More bullshit propaganda from you! But I guess I can expect this since you butchered my quotes and ignored my objections. If you won't respond to legitimate objections to paid Neocon propagandists, I'm not going to be steered into your simple-minded and simplistic portrayal of world affairs as "culture that celebrates femininity" vs. culture that mutilates girls' genitals!"
Instead of condemning Ayaan Hirsi Ali for criticising Islam, start acting like you’ve got a pair, and condemn Islamic infamies like the one you’ve just read.
And that's all you got when it's all said and done! You think you're a real man because you proclaim your hatred of 1.5 billion Muslims anonymously from a discussion forum!
The haters are the cowards who are motivated by fear -- not the people who are taking the time to learn how people from different cultures see the world. It's the people who are too afraid to think for themselves and look to leaders who shout inflammatory rhetoric who are destroying the West.
The cowards are the ones who want their governments to imprison foreigners without charges or trials, or send computerized drones to bomb Afghan and Pakistani villages because of rumours that terrorists are hiding out there. And the supporters of wars of occupation and remote bombings are the ones who are creating the next generation of terrorists. At some point all of this bullshit agitating may become a self-fulfilling prophecy!
If you take your head out of your bum, rc, then you will see it. It is the one which surrounds you - the culture of the West.
More bullshit propaganda from you! But I guess I can expect this since you butchered my quotes and ignored my objections. If you won't respond to legitimate objections to paid Neocon propagandists, I'm not going to be steered into your simple-minded and simplistic portrayal of world affairs as "culture that celebrates femininity" vs. culture that mutilates girls' genitals!"
Instead of condemning Ayaan Hirsi Ali for criticising Islam, start acting like you’ve got a pair, and condemn Islamic infamies like the one you’ve just read.
And that's all you got when it's all said and done! You think you're a real man because you proclaim your hatred of 1.5 billion Muslims anonymously from a discussion forum!
The haters are the cowards who are motivated by fear -- not the people who are taking the time to learn how people from different cultures see the world. It's the people who are too afraid to think for themselves and look to leaders who shout inflammatory rhetoric who are destroying the West.
The cowards are the ones who want their governments to imprison foreigners without charges or trials, or send computerized drones to bomb Afghan and Pakistani villages because of rumours that terrorists are hiding out there. And the supporters of wars of occupation and remote bombings are the ones who are creating the next generation of terrorists. At some point all of this bullshit agitating may become a self-fulfilling prophecy!
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
gmc;1338872 wrote: Perhaps the conclusion that if you need to have a holy book or someone interpreting it for you to tell you what is moral or not there is something wrong and perhaps you need to think things through for yourself.
The holy books are full of contradictory verses, so the interpreters are the ones who create the conclusions. The holy books just serve as justification for whatever way they think people should act, or a religion should be practiced.
The holy books are full of contradictory verses, so the interpreters are the ones who create the conclusions. The holy books just serve as justification for whatever way they think people should act, or a religion should be practiced.
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Ahso!;1338703 wrote: Ya know, sometimes I guess it breaks down as basic as: thats all I know right now, thats all I care to think about. Also, Its important to understand that personal survival is important only because it in turn enhances species survival.Morality is the motivator within everyone so "survival" then becomes a matter of personal morality. The difference is in how the majority defines that morality. Those that are defined as "evil" will only be "evil" by the perspectives of said majority because those themselves feel they're doing "right" in their own mind which is derived from the concept of morality.
Personal survival just appears as species survival because everyone molds their virtue around it, everyone.
What this means is that marrying a 9 year old can and does only exits when the one marrying the 9 year old wishes to fulfill their personal pleasures derived from the either concious or subconcsious desire to survive. Personal greed and equally as sick.
The real question is how one can compare the ease of today's society to find a mate with the difficulty of being assured one would connect with a partner in the historical society referenced in this thread and how easily we can ignore the fact we've grown up in a society that, by default, has wired into our brains that everyone should have a choice in how they live their lives and whether or not the freedom to do so is appropriate in that historical society. The obvious point in the OP is how this lack of freedom can be a direct result of this historical society which implies the lack of moral ability to abstain from being equally as narrow minded to not accept other ideas.
The entire sentiment of the OP is "The lack of culture is not by the outsider placing judgment, it's the fact the society in question refuses to change their outlook on life in the exact same manner in which that outsider places judgment ending in a lack of logic" and I agree.
What's entirely a horrendous mistake is using the title "Was the founder of Islam a Paedophile?" because it's a horrible inaccuracy compared to the facts having been presented along with it. Unless of course I'm missing the blatant proof Muhammed had sex with this girl, can someone point this out?
"Paedophile?", come now, you can do better than that, Glas
Personal survival just appears as species survival because everyone molds their virtue around it, everyone.
What this means is that marrying a 9 year old can and does only exits when the one marrying the 9 year old wishes to fulfill their personal pleasures derived from the either concious or subconcsious desire to survive. Personal greed and equally as sick.
The real question is how one can compare the ease of today's society to find a mate with the difficulty of being assured one would connect with a partner in the historical society referenced in this thread and how easily we can ignore the fact we've grown up in a society that, by default, has wired into our brains that everyone should have a choice in how they live their lives and whether or not the freedom to do so is appropriate in that historical society. The obvious point in the OP is how this lack of freedom can be a direct result of this historical society which implies the lack of moral ability to abstain from being equally as narrow minded to not accept other ideas.
The entire sentiment of the OP is "The lack of culture is not by the outsider placing judgment, it's the fact the society in question refuses to change their outlook on life in the exact same manner in which that outsider places judgment ending in a lack of logic" and I agree.
What's entirely a horrendous mistake is using the title "Was the founder of Islam a Paedophile?" because it's a horrible inaccuracy compared to the facts having been presented along with it. Unless of course I'm missing the blatant proof Muhammed had sex with this girl, can someone point this out?
"Paedophile?", come now, you can do better than that, Glas
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
K.Snyder;1338925 wrote:
What's entirely a horrendous mistake is using the title "Was the founder of Islam a Paedophile?" because it's a horrible inaccuracy compared to the facts having been presented along with it. Unless of course I'm missing the blatant proof Muhammed had sex with this girl, can someone point this out?
"Paedophile?", come now, you can do better than that, Glas
The question in the OP was already stated years ago by such pillars of the community as Jerry Falwell -- nuff said! What I want to know is if modern Muslims, especially those living in Canada or other Western nations, believe that it is okay to marry a 9 year old girl. I don't know of any Muslims who sanction this, and I've come across several who challenge the legitimacy of the question, since according to the Quran, the marriage with Aisha wasn't consumated for several years afterwards. And what relevance does whatever Muhammed did or didn't do in 7th century Arabia, have to do with us today? It's all about denigrating the religion of dark skinned newcomers, and using the mask of opposing oppression of women, to hide thinly disguised racism.
What's entirely a horrendous mistake is using the title "Was the founder of Islam a Paedophile?" because it's a horrible inaccuracy compared to the facts having been presented along with it. Unless of course I'm missing the blatant proof Muhammed had sex with this girl, can someone point this out?
"Paedophile?", come now, you can do better than that, Glas
The question in the OP was already stated years ago by such pillars of the community as Jerry Falwell -- nuff said! What I want to know is if modern Muslims, especially those living in Canada or other Western nations, believe that it is okay to marry a 9 year old girl. I don't know of any Muslims who sanction this, and I've come across several who challenge the legitimacy of the question, since according to the Quran, the marriage with Aisha wasn't consumated for several years afterwards. And what relevance does whatever Muhammed did or didn't do in 7th century Arabia, have to do with us today? It's all about denigrating the religion of dark skinned newcomers, and using the mask of opposing oppression of women, to hide thinly disguised racism.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Ahso!;1338813 wrote: You all have been working pretty hard on this discussion. I for one have been enjoying it lately. Thanks.
Morality is certainly an interesting subject. Is this where you had hoped it would lead to, Glaswegian?
No. I didn't know where the discussion would lead, Ahso. But I did hope that it would be interesting. Glad you’re enjoying it.
Morality is certainly an interesting subject. Is this where you had hoped it would lead to, Glaswegian?
No. I didn't know where the discussion would lead, Ahso. But I did hope that it would be interesting. Glad you’re enjoying it.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
gmc;1338493 wrote: The argument you put, are you saying some cultures have a manifest destiny to extend the benefits of their culture around the world?
No. I don’t believe in the concept of ‘destiny’ - whether it is applied to individuals, cultures or anything else.
But I do think the benefits of Western culture should be extended around the world - and by ‘extended‘ I mean ‘made available’. In order for this to happen though it is necessary for cultures to be amenable to them, to be open to taking them on board, especially when it can be demonstrated that these benefits are exactly that - of benefit. However, within the culture of Islam there are many Islamists who are not amenable to the benefits of Western culture. This, of course, is putting it mildly for these Islamists are violently opposed to anything Western at all. For them, Western culture is abhorrent and profane in toto.
Islamists hate Western culture because it constantly reminds them of the inferiority of their own culture - of the fact that theirs is a culture which has been stagnating for centuries, of the fact that it has been overtaken at every key level by the West: viz. economically, technologically, militarily and epistemologically. Islamic cultural inferiority is made all the more painful for the Islamist by the fact that it has been rendered by a Western culture which he views as ‘Godless’ and ‘sinful’. The West is a perpetual affront to the Islamist.
This state of affairs places a great psychological burden on the Islamist for he must explain to himself why it has come to be. More precisely, he must explain why 'God' has permitted it to happen. After all, is his culture not the one which received the 'Final Revelation of the Truth' from 'God' Himself, the one specially chosen from amongst all other cultures to receive it, the culture of the 'True Believers'? Therefore, the Islamist is compelled to ask himself - why is the position of his own culture so abject? Why has 'God' allowed an 'infidel' culture - the West - to gain ascendancy over it?
Given the fact that it is unthinkable for the Islamist to blame 'God' for the inferiority of his culture vis-Ã -vis the West, and given the equally obvious fact that he is extremely averse to blaming his religion, his people or himself for it, he is driven to seek out scapegoats on which to lay the blame. And one of the scapegoats he selects for this purpose is the Jew. In many Islamic communities, the pernicious doctrine that the Jews are the chief enemy and conspirators against Islam is systematically inculcated in Muslims. In her book Nomad, Ayaan Hirsi Ali describes her own experience of being subjected to this anti-Semitic brainwashing, and of espousing it mindlessly. She writes:
‘When I was a pious Muslim in my teens I made my regular ablutions. In those days with every splash of water I cursed the Jews. I covered my body, spread a prayer mat, faced Mecca and asked Allah to protect me from the evil that is spread by the Jews. I hurried to a local mosque and joined the crowds in prayer. We lined up in the women-only section and followed the instructions of the male Imam who was invisible to us. We cried in unison, “Amin [Amen] to all his supplications to Allah, and when he called Allah to destroy the Jews I also fervently said “Amin.
When I was in secondary school I poured over magazines published in Iran and Saudi Arabia that contained graphic photographs of men and women covered in blood. The captions always identified the dead as victims of the Jews. Even though I was a curious child, and as a teenager was an even more curious student, I never questioned the veracity of the pictures, the captions under them, or the stories of how the Jews killed and maimed Muslims like me.
In Nairobi, after school I attended the classes in Islamic centers¦I listened to one teacher after another talk about how the Jews had declared war on Islam. I learned that the Prophet Muhammad, the holiest of all holy men, in whose footsteps we Muslims all aspire to follow, had warned of the treacherous and evil ways of the Jews. They had betrayed him and tried to kill him. For wherever there is a Jew he plots and plans to destroy Islam. He smiles at the Muslim but deep inside he hates him. He extends his hand to the Muslim in pretended peace all the while enticing him toward a trap of death, debauchery and sin. I swallowed all this propaganda as the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.’
~o0o~
No. I don’t believe in the concept of ‘destiny’ - whether it is applied to individuals, cultures or anything else.
But I do think the benefits of Western culture should be extended around the world - and by ‘extended‘ I mean ‘made available’. In order for this to happen though it is necessary for cultures to be amenable to them, to be open to taking them on board, especially when it can be demonstrated that these benefits are exactly that - of benefit. However, within the culture of Islam there are many Islamists who are not amenable to the benefits of Western culture. This, of course, is putting it mildly for these Islamists are violently opposed to anything Western at all. For them, Western culture is abhorrent and profane in toto.
Islamists hate Western culture because it constantly reminds them of the inferiority of their own culture - of the fact that theirs is a culture which has been stagnating for centuries, of the fact that it has been overtaken at every key level by the West: viz. economically, technologically, militarily and epistemologically. Islamic cultural inferiority is made all the more painful for the Islamist by the fact that it has been rendered by a Western culture which he views as ‘Godless’ and ‘sinful’. The West is a perpetual affront to the Islamist.
This state of affairs places a great psychological burden on the Islamist for he must explain to himself why it has come to be. More precisely, he must explain why 'God' has permitted it to happen. After all, is his culture not the one which received the 'Final Revelation of the Truth' from 'God' Himself, the one specially chosen from amongst all other cultures to receive it, the culture of the 'True Believers'? Therefore, the Islamist is compelled to ask himself - why is the position of his own culture so abject? Why has 'God' allowed an 'infidel' culture - the West - to gain ascendancy over it?
Given the fact that it is unthinkable for the Islamist to blame 'God' for the inferiority of his culture vis-Ã -vis the West, and given the equally obvious fact that he is extremely averse to blaming his religion, his people or himself for it, he is driven to seek out scapegoats on which to lay the blame. And one of the scapegoats he selects for this purpose is the Jew. In many Islamic communities, the pernicious doctrine that the Jews are the chief enemy and conspirators against Islam is systematically inculcated in Muslims. In her book Nomad, Ayaan Hirsi Ali describes her own experience of being subjected to this anti-Semitic brainwashing, and of espousing it mindlessly. She writes:
‘When I was a pious Muslim in my teens I made my regular ablutions. In those days with every splash of water I cursed the Jews. I covered my body, spread a prayer mat, faced Mecca and asked Allah to protect me from the evil that is spread by the Jews. I hurried to a local mosque and joined the crowds in prayer. We lined up in the women-only section and followed the instructions of the male Imam who was invisible to us. We cried in unison, “Amin [Amen] to all his supplications to Allah, and when he called Allah to destroy the Jews I also fervently said “Amin.
When I was in secondary school I poured over magazines published in Iran and Saudi Arabia that contained graphic photographs of men and women covered in blood. The captions always identified the dead as victims of the Jews. Even though I was a curious child, and as a teenager was an even more curious student, I never questioned the veracity of the pictures, the captions under them, or the stories of how the Jews killed and maimed Muslims like me.
In Nairobi, after school I attended the classes in Islamic centers¦I listened to one teacher after another talk about how the Jews had declared war on Islam. I learned that the Prophet Muhammad, the holiest of all holy men, in whose footsteps we Muslims all aspire to follow, had warned of the treacherous and evil ways of the Jews. They had betrayed him and tried to kill him. For wherever there is a Jew he plots and plans to destroy Islam. He smiles at the Muslim but deep inside he hates him. He extends his hand to the Muslim in pretended peace all the while enticing him toward a trap of death, debauchery and sin. I swallowed all this propaganda as the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.’
~o0o~
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Actually, it's only religious fundamentalists who hate Western culture. Fundamentalists of all religions hate it because they fear Atheists. They fear Atheists and probably polytheists as well.... Because they fear God and God doesn't like Atheists or polytheists. He used to smite them a lot :p
Lots of religious people of all religions don't hate Western culture. They may, however, hate Glaswegian if they ever bothered to read his threads... which is pretty darn difficult to do sometimes. I'm not particularly religious yet I find myself oddly hating this thread. So, see ya.
Lots of religious people of all religions don't hate Western culture. They may, however, hate Glaswegian if they ever bothered to read his threads... which is pretty darn difficult to do sometimes. I'm not particularly religious yet I find myself oddly hating this thread. So, see ya.
-
littleCJelkton
- Posts: 1215
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:57 pm
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
cool so now were going to stereotyping cultures
so we can say;
inner city black culture hates those white eliteist rich folk
we could say how many people the white ultra-conservative white male hates but this would be a list to long for my post.
Christians hate gays, atheist and muslims, I wonder what a christian's outlook on the marriage between a gay muslim, and gay atheist would be
oh and kids hate vegetables.
and all yooks hate all zooks for they do not butter the top of the bread
good thing I am a buddhist the only thing to hate buddhist has been the chinese government though the chinese government has come to hate a lot of things as wel.
so we can say;
inner city black culture hates those white eliteist rich folk
we could say how many people the white ultra-conservative white male hates but this would be a list to long for my post.
Christians hate gays, atheist and muslims, I wonder what a christian's outlook on the marriage between a gay muslim, and gay atheist would be
oh and kids hate vegetables.
and all yooks hate all zooks for they do not butter the top of the bread
good thing I am a buddhist the only thing to hate buddhist has been the chinese government though the chinese government has come to hate a lot of things as wel.
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Glaswegian;1339115 wrote: No. I don’t believe in the concept of ‘destiny’ - whether it is applied to individuals, cultures or anything else.
But I do think the benefits of Western culture should be extended around the world - and by ‘extended‘ I mean ‘made available’. In order for this to happen though it is necessary for cultures to be amenable to them, to be open to taking them on board, especially when it can be demonstrated that these benefits are exactly that - of benefit. However, within the culture of Islam there are many Islamists who are not amenable to the benefits of Western culture. This, of course, is putting it mildly for these Islamists are violently opposed to anything Western at all. For them, Western culture is abhorrent and profane in toto.
Islamists hate Western culture because it constantly reminds them of the inferiority of their own culture - of the fact that theirs is a culture which has been stagnating for centuries, of the fact that it has been overtaken at every key level by the West: viz. economically, technologically, militarily and epistemologically. Islamic cultural inferiority is made all the more painful for the Islamist by the fact that it has been rendered by a Western culture which he views as ‘Godless’ and ‘sinful’. The West is a perpetual affront to the Islamist.
Do you not think that Islamic Fundamentalists, indeed, nowadays, a goodly proportion of the Muslim world, hate western culture because we have a habit of invading their countries and causing the deaths of millions of their people?
Especially when the major leader who ordered the most recent of those invasions openly talked about it being a holy war against them.
Never mind whether they see their culture as inferior to ours (their infrastructure yes and you might think it so but I doubt that they see their culture as inferior to ours), they have more pragmatic reasons to hate us.
But I do think the benefits of Western culture should be extended around the world - and by ‘extended‘ I mean ‘made available’. In order for this to happen though it is necessary for cultures to be amenable to them, to be open to taking them on board, especially when it can be demonstrated that these benefits are exactly that - of benefit. However, within the culture of Islam there are many Islamists who are not amenable to the benefits of Western culture. This, of course, is putting it mildly for these Islamists are violently opposed to anything Western at all. For them, Western culture is abhorrent and profane in toto.
Islamists hate Western culture because it constantly reminds them of the inferiority of their own culture - of the fact that theirs is a culture which has been stagnating for centuries, of the fact that it has been overtaken at every key level by the West: viz. economically, technologically, militarily and epistemologically. Islamic cultural inferiority is made all the more painful for the Islamist by the fact that it has been rendered by a Western culture which he views as ‘Godless’ and ‘sinful’. The West is a perpetual affront to the Islamist.
Do you not think that Islamic Fundamentalists, indeed, nowadays, a goodly proportion of the Muslim world, hate western culture because we have a habit of invading their countries and causing the deaths of millions of their people?
Especially when the major leader who ordered the most recent of those invasions openly talked about it being a holy war against them.
Never mind whether they see their culture as inferior to ours (their infrastructure yes and you might think it so but I doubt that they see their culture as inferior to ours), they have more pragmatic reasons to hate us.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
K.Snyder;1338925 wrote: What's entirely a horrendous mistake is using the title "Was the founder of Islam a Paedophile?" because it's a horrible inaccuracy compared to the facts having been presented along with it. Unless of course I'm missing the blatant proof Muhammed had sex with this girl, can someone point this out?
AISHA
Married at Six Years , and Deflowered at Nine Years, by Muhammad
'Sahih al-Bukhari (Arabic: صحيح البخاري), as it is commonly referred to, is one of the six canonical hadith collections of Sunni Islam. These prophetic traditions, or hadith, were collected by the Persian Muslim scholar Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhari (810–870 AD) (about 200 years after Muhammad died) and compiled during his lifetime. Most Muslims view this as their most trusted collection of hadith and it is considered the most authentic book after the Qur'an. Sahih translates as authentic or correct.' - Wikipedia
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64
Narrated Aisha:
'that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).'
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88
Narrated Ursa:
'The Prophet wrote the marriage contract with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old, and she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).'
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65
Narrated Aisha:
'that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e., till his death).'
Sahih Bukhari 9.140
Narrated Aisha:
'Allah's Apostle said to me, "You were shown to me twice in my dream before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, 'Uncover her,' and behold, it was you. I said to myself, 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.'"
Sahih Bukhari 5.236.
Narrated Hisham's father:
'Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.'
~o0o~
Make of the above what you will, K.
AISHA
Married at Six Years , and Deflowered at Nine Years, by Muhammad
'Sahih al-Bukhari (Arabic: صحيح البخاري), as it is commonly referred to, is one of the six canonical hadith collections of Sunni Islam. These prophetic traditions, or hadith, were collected by the Persian Muslim scholar Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhari (810–870 AD) (about 200 years after Muhammad died) and compiled during his lifetime. Most Muslims view this as their most trusted collection of hadith and it is considered the most authentic book after the Qur'an. Sahih translates as authentic or correct.' - Wikipedia
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64
Narrated Aisha:
'that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).'
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88
Narrated Ursa:
'The Prophet wrote the marriage contract with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old, and she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).'
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65
Narrated Aisha:
'that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e., till his death).'
Sahih Bukhari 9.140
Narrated Aisha:
'Allah's Apostle said to me, "You were shown to me twice in my dream before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, 'Uncover her,' and behold, it was you. I said to myself, 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.'"
Sahih Bukhari 5.236.
Narrated Hisham's father:
'Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.'
~o0o~
Make of the above what you will, K.
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Glaswegian;1339087 wrote: No. I didn't know where the discussion would lead, Ahso. But I did hope that it would be interesting. Glad you’re enjoying it.It was interesting when the discussion was focusing on morality itself, but I guess that was too difficult a subject to stay with.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Ahso!;1339149 wrote: It was interesting when the discussion was focusing on morality itself, but I guess that was too difficult a subject to stay with.
I tried but I cannot hold a conversation with myself
I guess it's easier to make judgmental statements than to justify them - either that or discussing moral philosophy doesn't get the angry responses Glaswegian appears to aim for.
I tried but I cannot hold a conversation with myself
I guess it's easier to make judgmental statements than to justify them - either that or discussing moral philosophy doesn't get the angry responses Glaswegian appears to aim for.
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Bryn Mawr;1339136 wrote: Do you not think that Islamic Fundamentalists, indeed, nowadays, a goodly proportion of the Muslim world, hate western culture because we have a habit of invading their countries and causing the deaths of millions of their people?
You're putting the cart before the horse. We didn't invade iraq until they invaded Kuwait. We didn't invade Afghanistan until they attacked us. If they wanted to be left alone, they might have tried a more peaceful approach to us.
You're putting the cart before the horse. We didn't invade iraq until they invaded Kuwait. We didn't invade Afghanistan until they attacked us. If they wanted to be left alone, they might have tried a more peaceful approach to us.
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
recovering conservative;1338974 wrote: what relevance does whatever Muhammed did or didn't do in 7th century Arabia, have to do with us today?
Yeah right. What relevance does a murderer, pedophile, robber, thief, and general low-life have to us today who have to deal with an entire culture that worships him as a God on Earth and uses everything he did and said to justify similar actions?
Oh COME ON! A child could see the relevance!
Yeah right. What relevance does a murderer, pedophile, robber, thief, and general low-life have to us today who have to deal with an entire culture that worships him as a God on Earth and uses everything he did and said to justify similar actions?
Oh COME ON! A child could see the relevance!
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Saint_;1339187 wrote: You're putting the cart before the horse. We didn't invade iraq until they invaded Kuwait. We didn't invade Afghanistan until they attacked us. If they wanted to be left alone, they might have tried a more peaceful approach to us.
No, sorry, do not think so.
Look at the timeline :-
The first invasion of Iraq was not the problem and was supported by several Muslim countries - no real negative backlash after that one.
Then, a bunch of fanatic Saudis commit a criminal act which had almost everyone, including most Muslims, condemning their actions.
Within three weeks we had invaded Afghanistan, putting forth no evidence and giving the Afghan government no time to try to deal with the situation. At this point support amongst moderate Muslims starts to drop off. As the war in Afghanistan moves away from catching Osama Bin Laden to forcing regime change the radicalising of Muslims in the region begins.
Then, on the back of "The War Against Terror", (note, not as a reaction to the invasion of Kuwait) we invade Iraq which had no part in 9/11 and was not harbouring or supporting terrorists. The radicalising of Muslims worldwide now begins.
Not cart before horse - radical Islam as a major world force is a reaction to Western aggression, not the cause of it.
No, sorry, do not think so.
Look at the timeline :-
The first invasion of Iraq was not the problem and was supported by several Muslim countries - no real negative backlash after that one.
Then, a bunch of fanatic Saudis commit a criminal act which had almost everyone, including most Muslims, condemning their actions.
Within three weeks we had invaded Afghanistan, putting forth no evidence and giving the Afghan government no time to try to deal with the situation. At this point support amongst moderate Muslims starts to drop off. As the war in Afghanistan moves away from catching Osama Bin Laden to forcing regime change the radicalising of Muslims in the region begins.
Then, on the back of "The War Against Terror", (note, not as a reaction to the invasion of Kuwait) we invade Iraq which had no part in 9/11 and was not harbouring or supporting terrorists. The radicalising of Muslims worldwide now begins.
Not cart before horse - radical Islam as a major world force is a reaction to Western aggression, not the cause of it.
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Bryn Mawr;1339228 wrote:
The first invasion of Iraq was not the problem and was supported by several Muslim countries - no real negative backlash after that one.
Point for me.
Then, a bunch of fanatic Saudis commit a criminal act which had almost everyone, including most Muslims, condemning their actions.
Within three weeks we had invaded Afghanistan, putting forth no evidence and giving the Afghan government no time to try to deal with the situation.
Evidence? You mean other than the Taliban / Al Queda training sites that were photographed by satellite and the public admission by Afghanistan that they trained the terrorists? And "deal with the situation?!" After watching for years as Afghanistan welcomed terrorist and extremist organizations, brutally repressed their own countrymen and women, and destroyed precious art treasures? They not only had NO intention of "dealing with 9/11" and they actually danced in the streets about it. Come on.
At this point support amongst moderate Muslims starts to drop off. As the war in Afghanistan moves away from catching Osama Bin Laden to forcing regime change the radicalising of Muslims in the region begins.
They have been radical since time began. Mohammed, who they worship, is a robber, thief, murderer, and pedophile. How radical can you get?
Then, on the back of "The War Against Terror", (note, not as a reaction to the invasion of Kuwait) we invade Iraq which had no part in 9/11 and was not harbouring or supporting terrorists. The radicalising of Muslims worldwide now begins.
You got me there. Bush was a disgrace to our country.
Not cart before horse - radical Islam as a major world force is a reaction to Western aggression, not the cause of it.
Not true, they hated us long before any of that.
The first invasion of Iraq was not the problem and was supported by several Muslim countries - no real negative backlash after that one.
Point for me.
Then, a bunch of fanatic Saudis commit a criminal act which had almost everyone, including most Muslims, condemning their actions.
Within three weeks we had invaded Afghanistan, putting forth no evidence and giving the Afghan government no time to try to deal with the situation.
Evidence? You mean other than the Taliban / Al Queda training sites that were photographed by satellite and the public admission by Afghanistan that they trained the terrorists? And "deal with the situation?!" After watching for years as Afghanistan welcomed terrorist and extremist organizations, brutally repressed their own countrymen and women, and destroyed precious art treasures? They not only had NO intention of "dealing with 9/11" and they actually danced in the streets about it. Come on.
At this point support amongst moderate Muslims starts to drop off. As the war in Afghanistan moves away from catching Osama Bin Laden to forcing regime change the radicalising of Muslims in the region begins.
They have been radical since time began. Mohammed, who they worship, is a robber, thief, murderer, and pedophile. How radical can you get?
Then, on the back of "The War Against Terror", (note, not as a reaction to the invasion of Kuwait) we invade Iraq which had no part in 9/11 and was not harbouring or supporting terrorists. The radicalising of Muslims worldwide now begins.
You got me there. Bush was a disgrace to our country.
Not cart before horse - radical Islam as a major world force is a reaction to Western aggression, not the cause of it.
Not true, they hated us long before any of that.
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Saint_;1339231 wrote: Point for me.
Why a point for you? It was just to show that "we only invaded Iraq after they invaded Kuwait" was not the meaning of my statement - we invaded Iraq as part of the war on terror without due cause and a million plus have died as a result. Indeed, the first invasion supports my thoery in that it was seen as necessary and supported by the Mulsims - no fanaticism or hated in evidence. Your claim that Muslims in general have been radical since time began needs to explain why there was no radical reaction to Desert Storm.
Saint_;1339231 wrote:
Evidence? You mean other than the Taliban / Al Queda training sites that were photographed by satellite and the public admission by Afghanistan that they trained the terrorists? And "deal with the situation?!" After watching for years as Afghanistan welcomed terrorist and extremist organizations, brutally repressed their own countrymen and women, and destroyed precious art treasures? They not only had NO intention of "dealing with 9/11" and they actually danced in the streets about it. Come on.
This all came after the invasion. Remember, for the whole of the '80s they were fighting the Russians and we were sending the terrorists there and funding them. In the '90s Afghanistan was mostly ruled by our puppet government and women's emancipation was, we are told, flourishing.
BTW, the dancing in the streets was next door, our good friend and ally Pakistan.
Saint_;1339231 wrote:
They have been radical since time began. Mohammed, who they worship, is a robber, thief, murderer, and pedophile. How radical can you get?
So, let us take a period where we were not stirring up trouble out there. Say the '60 and '70s - after we engineered the coup in Iran in the '50s and before we persuaded Sadam Hussein to invade them in the '80s after the counter-coup. Could you show me any evidence of them being radical during that period?
Saint_;1339231 wrote:
You got me there. Bush was a disgrace to our country.
Not true, they hated us long before any of that.
Without cause? I think not.
Throughout all of this you talk as though every Muslim is of the same opinion - that's like saying every Christian is of the same mould as Jerry Falwell, Michael Evans and Terry Jones.
Why a point for you? It was just to show that "we only invaded Iraq after they invaded Kuwait" was not the meaning of my statement - we invaded Iraq as part of the war on terror without due cause and a million plus have died as a result. Indeed, the first invasion supports my thoery in that it was seen as necessary and supported by the Mulsims - no fanaticism or hated in evidence. Your claim that Muslims in general have been radical since time began needs to explain why there was no radical reaction to Desert Storm.
Saint_;1339231 wrote:
Evidence? You mean other than the Taliban / Al Queda training sites that were photographed by satellite and the public admission by Afghanistan that they trained the terrorists? And "deal with the situation?!" After watching for years as Afghanistan welcomed terrorist and extremist organizations, brutally repressed their own countrymen and women, and destroyed precious art treasures? They not only had NO intention of "dealing with 9/11" and they actually danced in the streets about it. Come on.
This all came after the invasion. Remember, for the whole of the '80s they were fighting the Russians and we were sending the terrorists there and funding them. In the '90s Afghanistan was mostly ruled by our puppet government and women's emancipation was, we are told, flourishing.
BTW, the dancing in the streets was next door, our good friend and ally Pakistan.
Saint_;1339231 wrote:
They have been radical since time began. Mohammed, who they worship, is a robber, thief, murderer, and pedophile. How radical can you get?
So, let us take a period where we were not stirring up trouble out there. Say the '60 and '70s - after we engineered the coup in Iran in the '50s and before we persuaded Sadam Hussein to invade them in the '80s after the counter-coup. Could you show me any evidence of them being radical during that period?
Saint_;1339231 wrote:
You got me there. Bush was a disgrace to our country.
Not true, they hated us long before any of that.
Without cause? I think not.
Throughout all of this you talk as though every Muslim is of the same opinion - that's like saying every Christian is of the same mould as Jerry Falwell, Michael Evans and Terry Jones.
-
librtyhead
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:32 pm
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
The fact that there are no Christians chopping off heads, stoning or subjecting women to what amounts to slavery only reinforces my belief that Islam is a not a religion of peace. Why are there not more non-radical forms of Islam bashing the use of force to expand religious motivated hatred and truly evil intent towards others. I believe that even the non-violent forms are somewhat blind to the truth. At least the bible thumpers do not put people to death in the center of town for marrying an un-believer. It is a barbaric primitive religion that would rather keep people un-educated and ignorant than allow them to move forward into the 21st century, and they will never stop. Another Alexander the Great is needed to push these people back into their caves.