Can Muslims improve the image of themselves?

[insane_alien]

i've never actually asked them but we have ahd conversations about various terrorist attacks as i imagine many people have which lead to conversations about islam.

 

just because i know a fact about someone doesn't mean that i just went up to my friend and went 'oi! towelhead! do you think we're going to be sent to hell for not believing in your god?'

 

that would be polictically incorrect. not that i hold polictical correctness highly at all.

[ajb]

just because i know a fact about someone doesn't mean that i just went up to my friend and went 'oi! towelhead! do you think we're going to be sent to hell for not believing in your god?'

 

Any line of questioning and subsequent discussion should be done respectfully, but this does not mean that Muslims should be exempt from tough questioning about their religion and how it relates to politics and non-believers. Neither should any other religious group be exempt, I see no reason why atheists too cannot be asked challenging questions.

 

Anyway, with a book that makes statements like I have quote as part of the ideology I find it difficult to think that us Kafir will ever totally remove from our minds the association of Islam with violence.

 

Nor should we forget that the Torah promotes racial purity of the chosen people of god. (Sounds a bit like an Austrian guy, I forget the name).

 

We must also not forget that the New testament condemns us all to hell and the Jesus had a cure for leprosy but only cured those that came to him. He did not just cure all lepers in one go. What a jerk.

[Mr Skeptic]

Anyway, with a book that makes statements like I have quote as part of the ideology I find it difficult to think that us Kafir will ever totally remove from our minds the association of Islam with violence.

 

Well yes but the Bible also has similar things, for example a song of praise about bashing the enemies babies against a rock, or some such, that most believers would find despicable. It also has statements that certain people should be put to death, like homosexuals, but even if Christians do not like them most of them would be against putting them to death.

 

That's relevant because Christians don't have a reputation for violence here, whereas Muslims do.

[ajb]

Well yes but the Bible also has similar things, for example a song of praise about bashing the enemies babies against a rock, or some such, that most believers would find despicable. It also has statements that certain people should be put to death, like homosexuals, but even if Christians do not like them most of them would be against putting them to death.

 

The old testament is indeed a very crazy book and shares much with the Tanakh ("Hebrew Bible").

 

The teachings of Christ are not as violent, but he is not beyond criticism. Certainly the Catholic church has mush to answer for.

 

Maybe all religions people should review their "good books". It is quite possible they ignore the bits they don't like.

 

 

That's relevant because Christians don't have a reputation for violence here, whereas Muslims do.

 

Lets take both Jesus Christ and Mohammed as being real, and their lives accurately record by the new testament and the Qur'an respectively.

 

Jesus' message was love and peace.

Mohammed's message was of dominance what ever the means.

 

I am not a Christian, but I know who I would rather meet.

Edited January 3, 2010 by ajb
Consecutive posts merged.

[iNow]

Maybe all religions people should review their "good books". It is quite possible they ignore the bits they don't like.

 

They absolutely have to. As odd as it may sound, it's the extremists and fundamentalists who are actually living up to what is taught in their holy books properly. The rest of society are merely picking and choosing the bits they wish to enforce or ignore.

 

http://www.evilbible.com/

[ajb]

They absolutely have to. As odd as it may sound, it's the extremists and fundamentalists who are actually living up to what is taught in their holy books properly. The rest of society are merely picking and choosing the bits they wish to enforce or ignore.

 

I would agree with that.

 

This makes me wonder what would happen if Insane_Alien pushed some awkward questions on his friends. Either they are not true believers and pick what they want or they do think he is kafir ripe to be deceived, cheated and even killed without any real though.

 

I hope I am wrong and very misinformed.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I should point out that the Koran is first-person from God, so "we" in the above passages means "God." It does not mean "us believers." So the verses you quoted do not seem to directly advocate fighting or killing non-believers -- rather, they state that God will punish them.

 

I'd have to dig to find it, but the Bible has a similar passage stating that God will handle the evil, and that you should not judge yourself -- let God do the final judgment when the time comes.

 

Of course, you could look through the Old Testament and dig up quotes to advocate slaughter, but you can look through any sufficiently long text and dig out individual sentences that will advocate any cause. The question is whether they mean the same in context, and what the overall message of the work is.

[npts2020]

That's relevant because Christians don't have a reputation for violence here, whereas Muslims do.

 

I completely disagree with this statement. From the crusades and inquisitions to modern day abortion clinic assassins and Oklahoma City bombers I am sure we could come up with examples all day long. If the reputation for violence is less than Muslims, it is because of the mass media and not any relevancy of facts.

[bascule]

I completely disagree with this statement. From the crusades and inquisitions to modern day abortion clinic assassins and Oklahoma City bombers I am sure we could come up with examples all day long. If the reputation for violence is less than Muslims, it is because of the mass media and not any relevancy of facts.

 

That's all true from a historical perspective, however coming from a "Christian nation" that trounced all over the Middle East, our image problems elsewhere in the world have abated with the election of Obama. Muslims, on the other hand, are hated throughout America and Europe.

 

Blame it on "the mass media" if you want, but I don't think it's anywhere near that simple. In America it's a case of neo-McCarthyism. In Europe it seems like it's a case of "unwanted foreign immigrants", similar to how Mexican immigrants are treated by many American conservatives.

[Mr Skeptic]

Maybe all religions people should review their "good books". It is quite possible they ignore the bits they don't like.

 

Not in the least. They re-interpret it, much like our Supreme Court re-interprets the Constitution to mean things quite different than what us laymen would take it to mean.

 

In the case of religion, this seems to be largely for the better, as some of the passages would be quite nasty interpreted literally.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I'd have to dig to find it, but the Bible has a similar passage stating that God will handle the evil, and that you should not judge yourself -- let God do the final judgment when the time comes.

 

"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." -- Romans 12:19

 

Not that all that many will adhere to this.

[iNow]

Not in the least. They re-interpret it, much like our Supreme Court re-interprets the Constitution to mean things quite different than what us laymen would take it to mean.

How might one reinterpret Deuteronomy 20:1-14 which explicitly condones rape and slavery?

 

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

 

 

Or where it commanded people to kill men, women, and children in Ezekiel 9:5-7:

 

Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.

 

But, maybe I'm misreading that and should check 1 Samuel 15:2-3 for a counter argument:

 

This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.

 

Hmm... not a lot of difference there for me to "reinterpret." Or what about reinterpreting Exodus 21:15 which says it's okay to kill your children if they hit you? How might you reinterpret that?

 

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.

 

 

Maybe I'm misreading the above, though. Let me look at Leviticus 20:9 for further insight into the matter:

 

All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense.

 

Hmm... Seems pretty clear to me. Not a lot of room for rationalization reinterpretation.

 

 

I think perhaps one of my personal favorites (and trust me, I'd be open to reinterpretation on this one) is in 2 Chronicles 15:12-13 where they talk about killing nonbelievers like myself:

 

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

 

 

Pretty well aligned with the quotes from the Qu'ran ajb shared above, if you ask me.

[Mr Skeptic]

How might one reinterpret Deuteronomy 20:1-14 which explicitly condones rape and slavery?

 

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

 

Out of context and obsolete. The context is Israel first taking the Promised Land, which they did ages ago, so that has already been done (with a few exceptions, which they were punished for).

 

Or where it commanded people to kill men, women, and children in Ezekiel 9:5-7:

 

Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.

 

What do you mean, people? Real, flesh and blood humans? Read the whole thing.

 

But, maybe I'm misreading that and should check 1 Samuel 15:2-3 for a counter argument:

 

This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.

 

What, you think people are going to go and attack Amalek? Or, if it is that carnage that you are concerned about, do you have any idea how recently we have decided that killing civilians was a bad thing?

 

Hmm... not a lot of difference there for me to "reinterpret." Or what about reinterpreting Exodus 21:15 which says it's okay to kill your children if they hit you? How might you reinterpret that?

 

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.

 

 

Maybe I'm misreading the above, though. Let me look at Leviticus 20:9 for further insight into the matter:

 

All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense.

 

Hmm... Seems pretty clear to me. Not a lot of room for rationalization reinterpretation.

 

They are interpreted as obsolete, just like prohibitions on eating certain foods, etc.

 

I think perhaps one of my personal favorites (and trust me, I'd be open to reinterpretation on this one) is in 2 Chronicles 15:12-13 where they talk about killing nonbelievers like myself:

 

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

 

Well, I for one am glad that we don't have a king that can declare a national religion and put people to death on a whim. But again, Israel is far from the only country to have ever declared a national religion, nor to execute people for rejecting it. This includes atheism, by the way.

 

For it being one of your favorites, just goes to show you completely ignore context even on your favorite passages. What does that say about you?

[iNow]

AJB - The above is more evidence for your suggestion that people pick and choose the parts they want to follow. The rest is little more than rationalization.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

In any case, the New Testament changes things up a bit:

 

Luke 10:26-37

 

"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

 

27. He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'[a]; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'

"

 

28. "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."

 

29. But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"

 

30. In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. 35. The next day he took out two silver coins[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'

 

36. "Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"

 

37. The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him."

Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."

 

NIV Study Bible footnote: "Jews viewed Samaritans as half-breeds, both physically and spiritually. Samaritans and Jews practiced open hostility, but Jesus asserted that love knows no national boundaries."

 

This is one of a few passages in the New Testament (particularly the Synoptic Gospels) that preaches the same message. Mark has a passage where Jesus says the two commandments listed in 10:27 above cover all the rest; "love thy neighbor" implies the rest, and any other rule to live by.

[iNow]

None of that negates the fact that what I quoted appears as gods instructions within that same book.

[Pangloss]

I've always thought that the best part of the Good Samaritan parable is the lawyer challenging Jesus who the "neighbors" are. It just has a whole "Hah! Answer THAT!" feel to it.

[Mr Skeptic]

AJB - The above is more evidence for your suggestion that people pick and choose the parts they want to follow. The rest is little more than rationalization.

 

Also evidence that 2/3 of iNow's Bible quotes are intentionally out of context.

[iNow]

Tell me again in what context murder and rape commanded by a supreme being are supposed to be okay?

[Mr Skeptic]

Good, past tense is correct for those passages. Present tense, is not.

 

As for your passage from Ezekiel 9:5-7, that is completely out of context, and your passage from 2 Chronicles 15:12-13 that you claim is one of your favorites, you conveniently leave out that this was an individual king's decision a few millennia ago, while pretending it is an ongoing command from God (or are you claiming you lived during King Asa's reign?).

[iNow]

Good, past tense is correct for those passages. Present tense, is not.

 

Unless, of course, it pertains to allowing homosexuals to get married, right? You are only reinforcing the point regarding your selective reading of the book. In many threads here you have argued passionately against allowing homosexual marriage, and now you're talking about how all of those instructions are past tense. And you have the temerity to call me the hypocrite?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Ad hominem tu quoque?

[Mr Skeptic]

What part of "those passages" did you not understand?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Good lord, guys, stop it. There seem to be long-running grudges from previous discussions that must always be brought up. iNow, what anyone has to say about homosexuality has nothing to do with what the Bible said in the cases of the specific passages you quoted; Mr. Skeptic, retorting as you have doesn't help convince anyone -- it merely makes the argument personal.

 

This is a touchy subject. Please don't touch it inappropriately.

[iNow]

iNow, what anyone has to say about homosexuality has nothing to do with what the Bible said in the cases of the specific passages you quoted;

 

It does, however, counter Mr.Skeptic's suggestion that all of those commands from the bible are "obsolete" and to be interpreted using past tense alone, since "present tense, [it] is not." Or... at the very least, it shows how internally inconsistent his position in this thread truly is.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It does, however, counter Mr.Skeptic's suggestion that all of those commands from the bible are "obsolete" and to be interpreted using past tense alone, since "present tense, [it] is not."

 

There's a specific difference between a general moral proclamation and saying "we're going to take this one particular village. Murder the people of that village!" One advocates morality in general, one advocates behavior in a particular set of circumstances.

 

Of course, the Old Testament does involve a lot of violence and God does advocate a lot of things that are not particularly nice. But as far as I recall, most were in particular situations ("conquer this city!"), not a general statement of "kill everyone!" The New Testament goes a step further when Jesus says that "love thy neighbor" even applies to enemies and those you don't like, and when Paul says that you should not judge and avenge -- you should let God handle that.