Today at School...

[Mattius_]

I was in my World Affairs class when my teacher and I were discussing whether or not muslims should be able to wear headscarves and that is when a girl raised her hand and very sincerely and innocently asked: "I thought muslims were another word terrorists." Now, Im not mad, infact, I kinda fealt sorry about the situation, but how can someone slip so far through the cracks like that? Worse yet, I would bet there were other people in my class that were just as uneducated.

These are voters? I have lost faith.

[phatmonky]

That sucks.
I doubt she votes.
Muslims should be able to wear headscarves.

[Mattius_]

Actually, she is the type who reciprocates and regurgitates what is told in class, and consequently recieves decent grades, and is heading to college via her instistive parents. Statistics show that college graduates have a high voter rate.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Maybe she was "just joking"...? (Hopefully?)/(possibly?)

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who think like this.

As far as the wearing of the hijab- it's culture tradition in many muslim countries that it is obscene for women to expose their faces in public (I've read it's not actually in the Koran, it's just cultural tradition).

Now in the United States, it's considered, by cultural tradition, obscene for women to expose their breasts in public. I think forcing women against their will to remove their hijab is like forcing women to expose their breasts.

[phatmonky]

Originally posted by Mattius_
Actually, she is the type who reciprocates and regurgitates what is told in class, and consequently recieves decent grades, and is heading to college via her instistive parents. Statistics show that college graduates have a high voter rate.

Well atleast this is Highschool. So there is still hope she will stop being a dumbass later in life.

[The_Professional]

Wasn't there a news not too long ago in Saudi where American servicewomen were forced by the Saudi government to wear a headscarf because they're in a Muslim country. They were also Christians, not Muslims to begin with.

I totally didn't get that, we don't force Muslim women to not wear their headscarf when they're in the US.

[Janitor]

If the word 'Muslim' is understood to not mean "one who calls himself or herself a Muslim," but rather one who believes every commandment in the Koran is the literal and true word of the god Allah, then it seems to this old fellow that Muslim = terrorist.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
(SNIP) Now in the United States, it's considered, by cultural tradition, obscene for women to expose their breasts in public. I think forcing women against their will to remove their hijab is like forcing women to expose their breasts. (SNoP) humm...funny here in Ontario, it is pefectly legal for a woman to walk around with her breasts bared, (Gwen Jacobs case) but I would agree that nobody should really be "forced"...but most (what?) 'honest' men will admit that a womans bared skin (can) drives temptation...(Yeah! I know, depends upon what she looks like....shallow...) so having to "keep it covered" is law, over there, because of that, it's a 'hotter' (= Anger incitement) climate too, and 'latitude changes attitudes'...so many reasons we here, in North America, don't even consider....

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Janitor
If the word 'Muslim' is understood to not mean "one who calls himself or herself a Muslim," but rather one who believes every commandment in the Koran is the literal and true word of the god Allah, then it seems to this old fellow that Muslim = terrorist.

No, then Muslim would just mean fundamentalist. And if he takes "Thou shall not kill" very seriously, he can't actually be a terrorist. Of course, this is straying into one of those "true religion" potholes.

[Pergatory]

Originally posted by Janitor
If the word 'Muslim' is understood to not mean "one who calls himself or herself a Muslim," but rather one who believes every commandment in the Koran is the literal and true word of the god Allah, then it seems to this old fellow that Muslim = terrorist.

Indeed, and if the word 'American' is understood to not mean "one who lives in America," but rather one who believes whatever the government tells them to believe then it seems to this fellow that American = terrorist as well. So you see how easily we can arbitrarily assign definitions and make someone look like a terrorist?

[jimmy p]

Originally posted by The_Professional
Wasn't there a news not too long ago in Saudi where American servicewomen were forced by the Saudi government to wear a headscarf because they're in a Muslim country. They were also Christians, not Muslims to begin with.

I totally didn't get that, we don't force Muslim women to not wear their headscarf when they're in the US.

I have to agree, we respect their cultural ways, but they abuse ours. I mean for instance, if we were deeply offended that they wore headscarves, would the situation be different?

[phatmonky]

Originally posted by Pergatory
Indeed, and if the word 'American' is understood to not mean "one who lives in America," but rather one who believes whatever the government tells them to believe then it seems to this fellow that American = terrorist as well. So you see how easily we can arbitrarily assign definitions and make someone look like a terrorist?

That's not even close to a good analogy, considering that Islam requires the belief that the Quran is the absolute, perfect, and uncorrupted word of god - and therefore, everything is to be taken literally because god does not make mistakes.

On the other hand,no where does it state that being American requires such absolute belief in our government.

[Pergatory]

Originally posted by phatmonky
That's not even close to a good analogy, considering that Islam requires the belief that the Quran is the absolute, perfect, and uncorrupted word of god - and therefore, everything is to be taken literally because god does not make mistakes.

On the other hand,no where does it state that being American requires such absolute belief in our government.

You're right, it's not a perfect match, but no analogy is. All things are relative, if you can't see the connection then you have a closed mind. My point is that a person's beliefs are not the concern, both your statement and my alteration are blatant generalizations that simply cannot be drawn logically. How does a person's beliefs define them as a terrorist? It seems to me that their actions should be the concerning factor, not their beliefs. The reason that such blind faith is a problem for Muslims is because of the self-righteous leaders who have used the Koran to force people into their own distorted way of thinking. They are not terrorists because they are Muslims, they are terrorists because they have been fooled into believing the person they follow is a messenger of Allah. The case is no different for the crusaders, in that time and place crusaders were terrorists and the Pope was their Osama. Does that make Christians terrorists? No, only crusaders.

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
humm...funny here in Ontario, it is pefectly legal for a woman to walk around with her breasts bared, (Gwen Jacobs case) but I would agree that nobody should really be "forced"...but most (what?) 'honest' men will admit that a womans bared skin (can) drives temptation...(Yeah! I know, depends upon what she looks like....shallow...) so having to "keep it covered" is law, over there, because of that, it's a 'hotter' (= Anger incitement) climate too, and 'latitude changes attitudes'...so many reasons we here, in North America, don't even consider....

Here in the US a woman briefly flashed a breast on live TV and people were outraged, forcing people to be fired, delays added to live events, the FCC cracking down on "obscenity." It's sort of an american taliban.

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Janitor
If the word 'Muslim' is understood to not mean "one who calls himself or herself a Muslim," but rather one who believes every commandment in the Koran is the literal and true word of the god Allah, then it seems to this old fellow that Muslim = terrorist.

Oh, so you've read the Koran?

I feel compelled to remind you that the Bible endorses slavery, even Jesus himself is in favor of it.

So does it seem to you, old fellow, that christianity = proslavery?

[phatmonky]

Oh, so you've read the Koran?

I feel compelled to remind you that the Bible endorses slavery, even Jesus himself is in favor of it.

So does it seem to you, old fellow, that christianity = proslavery?


But unlike the Quran, the bible is not the "all perfect true and absolute word of God". Thus, the bible is able to be moderated, and infered differently. The Quran calls for an absolute adherence, for God makes no errors, so all callings must be true and exact.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Please where in the Bible does Jesus Promote slavery?? pleeeeeease tell me where!!??

[dduardo]

But unlike the Quran, the bible is not the "all perfect true and absolute word of God". Thus, the bible is able to be moderated, and infered differently. The Quran calls for an absolute adherence, for God makes no errors, so all callings must be true and exact.

Dude, give me a break. I think it's this absolute belief junk that pushes people over the edge to commit terrorism. Just relax, do good onto others, and live life to the fullest.

People would be much happier if they just believed in themselves.

[Janitor]

No, in fact I have not read the Koran. I have however read English translations of parts of it which make it seem like it is commanding adherents to kill with the sword those who do not believe the same way they do. Is there not something in the Koran about Allah being pleased with the slaughter of 900 (?) Jews as well?

You ask if "christianity = proslavery." I have not read the Bible since my childhood days of being a believer. I have not believed the Bible in my adult years. So the best I can do for you is to recall that the Old Testament speaks of taking an awl to your slave's ear in order to punch a pattern of holes in it which will identify the slave as belonging to you. That would seem to make Old-Testament Judaism rather pro-slavery, I should think. (I can hear biblical apologists saying something like, "Well until the Lord instructed them to punch holes in the earlobes, slaveowners were carving their initials in the skin of the slaves, so the Lord really was improving the conditions under which the slaves lived, see.")

As far as the New Testament goes, I can remember nothing specifically pro-slavery, but maybe that just shows that I have forgotten much of the scriptures. Can you enlighten us? I guess you could point to this or that place in the New Testament where Jesus may have said his followers ought to obey Jewish law, and then you could claim that in doing so he was endorsing any pro-slavery sentiments that were in the books now known as the Old Testament.

[phatmonky]

Dude, give me a break. I think it's this absolute belief junk that pushes people over the edge to commit terrorism. Just relax, do good onto others, and live life to the fullest.

People would be much happier if they just believed in themselves.


Give you a break?!?! Because I explained the very foundation of Islam???? [g)]

[dduardo]

Give you a break?!?! Because I explained the very foundation of Islam???? [g)]

Is that really the foundation of Islam? Sorry if it is. Can anyone else confirm this? I would be very schocked to know it was true. What would drive people to belive to such extremes?

[Zero]

But unlike the Quran, the bible is not the "all perfect true and absolute word of God". Thus, the bible is able to be moderated, and infered differently. The Quran calls for an absolute adherence, for God makes no errors, so all callings must be true and exact.


I don't know where you get your information, but the Bible does claim to be absolute truth.

[Njorl]

The Koran contains specific passages forbidding harm to Jews and Christians, "the people of the book", because of their beliefs. In times of war, however, they are not afforded as much protection as Muslims. Hindus and Animists are fair game though.

Interestingly, some Sunni's consider Shiites to be unbelievers deserving of less respect than Christians and Jews.

Njorl

[phatmonky]

Is that really the foundation of Islam? Sorry if it is. Can anyone else confirm this? I would be very schocked to know it was true. What would drive people to belive to such extremes?

Islammessage.com/bb :) have away!
The Quran is supposed to be the devine word of God transcribed from visions of Muhammad.
The Quran is not allowed to be altered in anyway.
The Quran is allowed to be interpreted, but not in anyways that contradicts ANY other part of the Quran. And when I say interpreted, I simply mean for different situations. Muslims believe that when the quran says you aren't to do something, or someone is to be punished a certain way, then that is the way it is, for the Quran is God's word, and God would not say something he did not mean.
This situation leaves little room for moderation. Sharia law comes directly from the Quran.

[phatmonky]

I don't know where you get your information, but the Bible does claim to be absolute truth.


Perhaps you can show me where this is said. To my knowledge, and while I consider myself versed I could be wrong, the bible never references itself (a common flaw pointed out my other religions). There are plenty of books of the bible that do not contain God's actual words. Therfore they are human words and are left to the ability to be wrong or interpreted differently to figure out what that person really meant. The Quran is all god's word sent to muhammad, transcribed by his peers (muhammad was illiterate).

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

But unlike the Quran, the bible is not the "all perfect true and absolute word of God". Thus, the bible is able to be moderated, and infered differently. The Quran calls for an absolute adherence, for God makes no errors, so all callings must be true and exact.

I thought you were a creationist?!

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Please where in the Bible does Jesus Promote slavery?? pleeeeeease tell me where!!??

Sure.

"The slave will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it.* But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.* Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."* (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Here's one example. Basically, he's saying if a slave did something wrong but didn't know it, beat him lightly, if he did something wrong on purpose, beat the **** out of him. The word 'slave' is often translated as 'servant', but in the context of 1st cent. Judea, and the beatings, it should be translated as 'slave'. As a historical note, it was this passage that was used to justify the beatings of african american slaves in antebellum US.

[Zero]

Perhaps you can show me where this is said. To my knowledge, and while I consider myself versed I could be wrong, the bible never references itself (a common flaw pointed out my other religions). There are plenty of books of the bible that do not contain God's actual words. Therfore they are human words and are left to the ability to be wrong or interpreted differently to figure out what that person really meant. The Quran is all god's word sent to muhammad, transcribed by his peers (muhammad was illiterate).
It's in Timothy:"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." This is basically the same claim that the Muslims make about the Koran. Of course, either book is subject to human nature. (I'm an Atheist, so all "holy books" are equally fiction to me.)

[phatmonky]

I thought you were a creationist?!
I often play the devil's advocate on this board, and my questions somehow become statments of my beliefs in many people's minds.

[phatmonky]

It's in Timothy:"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." This is basically the same claim that the Muslims make about the Koran. Of course, either book is subject to human nature. (I'm an Atheist, so all "holy books" are equally fiction to me.)


But there is the difference. The Quran is only one man, so therefore he knows what else is in the same holy book.
Paul says that to Timothy in the middle of the new testament. This would have been before many other books were even written, so by that reasoning, how can that phrase be applicable to later books? This statement can only be applicable to the book of Timothy, and other books that Timothy was aware of at the time (the old testament, and....?)
Mulims also point out that the bible is works of multiple men, and there in lies the problem with contradiction. This same thought gives Christian's a reason to change their religion to rationalize the differences.
The bible is also released in different versions. NIV, King James, etc.

The Quran is only one version, one man giving the absolute word of god. It would be a GREAT blasphemy in the eyes of muslims to alter the Quran.
For Christians though, the human fallibility (sp?) leaves room for translation.

[phatmonky]

A more thorough example of what I mean with the Timothy, and by a Muslim no less :)

http://bismikaallahuma.org/Bible/Commentary/paulinspire.htm

[Zero]

BTW, phatmonky and anyone who is interested, all you have to do is turn on the radio to hear the fundamentalist Christian rantings. Their beliefs are very similar to those of the Islamic terrorists, with the main difference being that they are soft and lazy in their SUVs.

[The_Professional]

Hahahaaaaaa

[Zero]

A more thorough example of what I mean with the Timothy, and by a Muslim no less :)

http://bismikaallahuma.org/Bible/Commentary/paulinspire.htmLOL, that doesn't mean anything either...well, I guess it does, but it doesn't...



Loo, I don't believe none of that crap, so I guess I have a hard time with it. Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims both claim that their holy books are written by their god.

[phatmonky]

LOL, that doesn't mean anything either...well, I guess it does, but it doesn't...



Loo, I don't believe none of that crap, so I guess I have a hard time with it. Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims both claim that their holy books are written by their god.

Difference being that Christians who believe that the bible is the word of god throughout are the major minority, and have only developed that thought through their own choice, not the full word of the bible.
Muslims who believe the Quran is the perfect word of god are the MAJOR majority. It is then, in essence, that that one thought is the basic foundation for islam. The Quran references itself, is written by one man, is considered the true word of god, and is not allowed to be changed any. This is a big difference from Christianity, and you know it.


So, like I said. " Islam requires the belief that the Quran is the absolute, perfect, and uncorrupted word of god - and therefore, everything is to be taken literally because god does not make mistakes."
I have no idea why you insist on trying to show that christianity is the same when it most certainly is not the reality of the situation.

[phatmonky]

BTW, phatmonky and anyone who is interested, all you have to do is turn on the radio to hear the fundamentalist Christian rantings. Their beliefs are very similar to those of the Islamic terrorists, with the main difference being that they are soft and lazy in their SUVs.
That's quite a stretch to compare the proverbial apple and orange.

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

I often play the devil's advocate on this board, and my questions somehow become statments of my beliefs in many people's minds.

"(Creationism) has as much founding as evolution. The fact is, even playing the devil's advocate, one can't prove one or the other."

-Phatmonkey.

Usually, when one plays Devil's advocate, they say they're playing Devil's advocate, instead of saying, "this is what I believe:"

[phatmonky]

"(Creationism) has as much founding as evolution. The fact is, even playing the devil's advocate, one can't prove one or the other."

-Phatmonkey.

Usually, when one plays Devil's advocate, they say they're playing Devil's advocate, instead of saying, "this is what I believe:"


Where did I say that's what I believe? I said that creationism has as much founding as evolution. Perhaps I should have said as little?

[Zero]

That's quite a stretch to compare the proverbial apple and orange.
Why? The derangement is the same, even if the behavior is different...and the difference is in the soft life Americans lead, IMO.

[Zero]

Where did I say that's what I believe? I said that creationism has as much founding as evolution. Perhaps I should have said as little?
Perhaps you should take your pseudoscientific nonsense over to Theory development?

[Zero]

And, I think this has turned into a religion debate...so sorry.