http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/11/iraq.humanrights?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

"For Abdel-Qader Ali there is only one regret: that he did not kill his daughter at birth. 'If I had realised then what she would become, I would have killed her the instant her mother delivered her,' he said with no trace of remorse.

Two weeks after The Observer revealed the shocking story of Rand Abdel-Qader, 17, murdered because of her infatuation with a British solider in Basra, southern Iraq, her father is defiant. Sitting in the front garden of his well-kept home in the city's Al-Fursi district, he remains a free man, despite having stamped on, suffocated and then stabbed his student daughter to death. "

i just don't understand how a culture that considers this sort of activity normal can even wonder why the rest of the world wants them wiped off the planet. His daughter had merely TALKED to, never touched, kissed or anything a britishprivate, her father & brothers killed her for this!
I'm sorry but if the rest of the muslum community doesn't stand up to condemn these situations immediately than IMPO i feel that any civilized country would be perfectly right to declare their religion a dangerous cult which needs to be exterminated at all cost.

Martaug - You are very justified for feeling the sense of outrage and horror that you do at this barbaric murder, at the hands of ignorant and superstitious fanatics. Yet, I would comment that every religion has its irrational fanatics; even Christianity has fanatics who are every bit as dangerous as these idiots are. But what really troubles me is that in the ME, religion has taken over government; there is little separation between Church and State. IMO, it is solid proof that our Founders knew that they were doing when they attempted to keep religion out of our government.

yep, it was even written into their laws that honor killings were allowed up until recently & now that they are technically illegal they just ignore them or don't investigate the crimes. geez, pisses you off so bad you just want to glass the whole region.



Aarrgghhh!! gotta head to the gym & kill the heavy bag for a couple hours to cool down.

Yup, this is what unbridled conservatism leads to. Fight them wherever you meet them before we end up as that girl.

Martaug - this is not representative of 'normal' Muslims.

Martaug - You are very justified for feeling the sense of outrage and horror that you do at this barbaric murder, at the hands of ignorant and superstitious fanatics. Yet, I would comment that every religion has its irrational fanatics; even Christianity has fanatics who are every bit as dangerous as these idiots are. But what really troubles me is that in the ME, religion has taken over government; there is little separation between Church and State. IMO, it is solid proof that our Founders knew that they were doing when they attempted to keep religion out of our government.

That's good coming from an American...

Next to the Middle East, the US government is the one most affected by religion. Can you imagine if a presidential candidate in your country came out and said he/she was athiest? They'd not get another vote! Politicians in the US have to pretend that they're strongly religious, even when they're not... That's very much different to Europe where the religious beliefs of leaders are rarely even talked about, and certainly don't matter much.

Slightly off-topic, but I thought that was rich :p.

As far as I am concerned this has nothing to do with the Islamic faith.

Unfortunately there are a number of people in this world, of various faiths and ethnicities that will use 'religion' or 'culture' to justify their own bigotry and violence.

These people just give a bad name to any and all faiths - I have a friend who is totally opposed to all organised religion because of the atrocities that have been conducted in its name.

Martaug - this is not representative of 'normal' Muslims.

Isn't it though? As Martaug pointed out the "normal" Muslims don't seem to have any problem with it. For all the evils of US Christiandom, I'm fairly certain we are still a nation of laws. If one of my neighbors killed one of his children, I'm almost positive he would be arrested, at the very least he would never be invited to a neighborhood barbecue ever again.

yep, it was even written into their laws that honor killings were allowed up until recently & now that they are technically illegal they just ignore them or don't investigate the crimes. geez, pisses you off so bad you just want to glass the whole region.


That's quite odd, I didn't think Saddam Hussein would support this since he actually managed to keep state and religion seperated up to some point. Better than say SA or Iran. The Shariah (Islamic Law) does not support this. She would have been executed (by Law!!) if she was married, but since she wasn't she only would have received a whipping of 40 lashes.

It is not possible for an Islamic country to keep state and religion seperate. Unlike Christianity where Jesus never held any political position, Mohammed was a prophet, statesman - and general - rolled up into one. Since Mohammed is the ideal standard in ME countries, that would mean that any separation can be seen as an insult to Mohammed, the Quran and eventually Allah.

Martaug - this is not representative of 'normal' Muslims.
What is normal? Do you mean the average type of muslim who lives in the ME. Those actually condone it, since honor killings are something that happen quite regularly there. If you mean the 'westernized' muslim, that's actually a contradiction, you're either westernized or muslim, you can't be both.

Next to the Middle East, the US government is the one most affected by religion. Can you imagine if a presidential candidate in your country came out and said he/she was athiest? They'd not get another vote! Politicians in the US have to pretend that they're strongly religious, even when they're not... That's very much different to Europe where the religious beliefs of leaders are rarely even talked about, and certainly don't matter much.
Bollocks. I would take fundamental Christianity over fundamental Islam anyday, because the former is based on common sense and the latter on desert barbarism. I could go on, but that belongs in another thread.

Nice religion BTW. They really got themselves in a trap by taking the Quran as the perfect materialisation of the holy word of Allah that any sidestep into something democracic would basically be an insult of Allah. This is unlike the Bible, most Christians believe that the bible may contain mistakes but still holds the word of God as it was written down by mortals who were divinely inspired. I'm probably making generalizations about Christians and perhaps Muslims, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Martaug - this is not representative of 'normal' Muslims.

Unfortunately, this is representative of a large portion of the religion. Yes, this is the far-conservative, radical section of the religion, but that's a pretty large section. I don't know exactly what the statistics are, but I know both sides say the other is unrepresentative of the religion as a whole.

Yes, every religion, theology, and belief set concerning God (including atheism :flaming:) has committed horrible attrocities to enforce/support their beliefs, but it does seem rather more common here. Whether that is a matter of the religion or the culture I don't know and won't say.

you're either westernized or muslim, you can't be both.

Don't talk such wet. There's tonnes of people in my country, and yours at a guess, who are both 'westernized' and Muslim. A number personal friends of mine. I've got a few mates who are of Pakistan descendance who'd boil over about things like this. One is like 28 and still a virgin as he don't believe in sex before marriage and is still single. He's a right nice fella, has a laugh with the boys and gets on with everyone great. He takes the piss out of extremeists in his religion relentlessly, it's hilarious. He goes on about going down to London 'with a nice big ticking rucksack', but he's just taking the micky out of extremeism and hates it in any form. A few times a day he'll kneel on this rug thing with a tea-cosey type thing on his head and pray. He's a proper full-on Muslim, but about as 'westernized' as you can get. HE'S representative of Islam, not nutters like this. You'll find murdering swines everywhere, and they'll try and use excuses to cover their violence and hatred - alá this guy. He in no way represents true Muslims.

Bollocks. I would take fundamental Christianity over fundamental Islam anyday, because the former is based on common sense and the latter on desert barbarism. I could go on, but that belongs in another thread.

It's not bollocks at all. Religion holds a big part in US politics. No athiest will ever lead the US, because the country is largely Christian and will never vote for an athiest, even if he's the best politician ever. Besides, if you read properly what I said, you'd know I wasn't 'comparing' Islam to Christianity at all. I'm confused as to why you'd think I was.

Isn't it though? As Martaug pointed out the "normal" Muslims don't seem to have any problem with it.Speaking out about such things is far easier said than done. We're talking about speaking out against community-condoned murder in a region dominated by religious fanatics and morality thugs. Think about it a minute. Speaking out means being outcast from your community, death threats to your children and yourself, destruction of your property, etc. Could you really be so brave?

It's foolish to assume "normal" muslims are hunky-dory with honor killings. In a region where anything less than fundamentalist zealotry is considered weak and decadent, it's the peaceful and the pragmatic who are the outcasts. You don't stop a man from beating his wife with a bicycle chain in public unless you want the man and 10 of his imam buddies to come after you for violating their 'divine right' to maintain their home as they see fit.

For those who ask the question "why don't the 'normal' members of this faith speak out," as I once did - here is the real question. Why do catholic doicese who DON'T molest alterboys remain silent when others do and cover it up? I guess Catholics are ok with it. Why doesn't the LDS Church come out in force to denounce the FLDS church as a lunatic fringe and state unequivocally that actual Mormons DO NOT condone polygamy and statutory rape? They must be ok with it. Why do 'normal' American baptists sit quietly and allow the Westburrow Baptist Church to make all baptists look like bigoted sideshow freaks? I guess all baptists MUST be bigots. Etc. etc. forever.

Or is it perhaps wrong to tar an entire faith for the actions of the fanatical minority of a minority?

"Honor" related violence and other things in that general area has very little to do with religion and more to do with culture. That is why I made my first post in this topic. It is a tribal thing to protect the family "honor". You can find similar things in most backwards societies whether it is in Iraq, India, parts of Europe or rural America. The acid splashings in India is a shining example of reasonings like this. Honor violence is an expression of conservatism, not of religion. This comes from me who generally blame everything and then some on religion, there may be people who justify their deeds through religion but for once it isn't the primary culprit.

Why doesn't the LDS Church come out in force to denounce the FLDS church as a lunatic fringe and state unequivocally that actual Mormons DO NOT condone polygamy and statutory rape? They must be ok with it.

Bad example. They have denounced it. But the point was well made.

Violence as a solution is common place. The right a man had to beat his wife and children was upheld in America until the 70's. The turning point was when police stood by during a domestic disturbance while a man beat his wife to death in front of them (I believe it was in NJ). It takes public outrage and a unified front to prevent this kind of thing. Even in the non-'backwards societies' abuse, even fatal abuse, happens every day.

The only role religion plays in such events is giving the violent individual an excuse for their uncontrollable rage -- and, at times, a shield.

This is kinda hard to swallow!

I just read the article and kinda feel out of it!

Bad example. They have denounced it.Denounced officially and occasionally yes, but not forcefully. Not unlike how the Pope is only now coming out against the clergy abuse scandals, and many consider it far too little too late. And as it applies to this topic, there are indeed moderate Muslims who stand up to this kind of barbarism, but few are very forceful about it for a variety of reasons.

In all the coverage of the polygamist compound raided in Texas recently, I haven't seen a single peep from the President of the LDS church, or any other church spokesman, denouncing these people. Reporter after reporter on both cable and local news refers to them as "fundamentalist Mormons," and you can guess which of those two words are going to stand out in peoples' minds, reinforcing the very prejudices Mormons claim to lament so much. You'd think Mitt Romney of all people would be on the case if he still thinks 2012 is in the cards for him. Seriously - if I were a church spokesman I would jump in front of every microphone I could to say "Wait a minute, folks - these people are NOT Mormons, and we want to see them prosecuted as much as you do." Public Relations 101. But they aren't doing that. They didn't do it two years ago either, when Warren Jeffs was the polygamist wacko du jour. It's not as if the Mormon church lacks a PR department (who should all be cast from their profession in shame). So I think my point stands.

It's more complicated than that, DR -- the LDS church does not consider the FLDS folks to be related to the main church AT ALL. The church's position on this matter is a matter of well documented public record. Anything the LDS church says merely reinforces the erroneous belief that there is a connection between the two groups. No such connection exists at the present time or has existed for several decades. The LDS church leadership has no influence on that compound, as anyone there who ever was a member would have been excommunicated long ago, which in the West is as far as a religion is allowed to go in disciplining its members because of the separation of church and state.

To look at it a different way, the Pope had to say something about the priests OF HIS FAITH who engaged in disgusting crimes. Despite public perception to the contrary, the dirtbags on that commune are not clergy of the LDS church. I do not think it is fair to insinuate that because the LDS public relations people don't make more noise they agree with what happened on that compound. Ask any Mormon and he'll (or she'll) tell you that they totally abhor the FLDS practices.

I find myself agreeing with Joaqin to a certain degree here (which is stunning in and of itself) in that the "Honor killings" are a product of tribal culture in the middle east and Africa, not necessarily Islam. That said . . .

I teach Muslims on a daily basis. I brought up a similar case wherein a girl who got raped while out with a male friend (it was other guys who raped her) and SHE got a more severe punishment than the 3 bastards who gang raped her (IIRC, this was in Saudi Arabia.) Most of the women in my class basically said that it was the girl's fault and she should have known better. These women are in Canada, not surrounded by the zealots mentioned earlier. The problem is a lot deeper and more complex than we'd like to admit, but when you boil it all down, extremism, intolerance, and vicious violence needs to be fought wherever it is found.

Maybe, as hard as it is for me to believe, this guy really did uphold the teachings of his faith as he understands them, and so will earn his heavenly reward when his time comes.

If so, I hope that every one of those 72 virgins he earns has his poor daughter's face. :flaming:

@LKD,It's more complicated than that, DR -- the LDS church does not consider the FLDS folks to be related to the main church AT ALL. The church's position on this matter is a matter of well documented public record. Anything the LDS church says merely reinforces the erroneous belief that there is a connection between the two groups. No such connection exists at the present time or has existed for several decades. The LDS church leadership has no influence on that compound, as anyone there who ever was a member would have been excommunicated long ago, which in the West is as far as a religion is allowed to go in disciplining its members because of the separation of church and state.

To look at it a different way, the Pope had to say something about the priests OF HIS FAITH who engaged in disgusting crimes. Despite public perception to the contrary, the dirtbags on that commune are not clergy of the LDS church. I do not think it is fair to insinuate that because the LDS public relations people don't make more noise they agree with what happened on that compound. Ask any Mormon and he'll (or she'll) tell you that they totally abhor the FLDS practices.I'm not disputing any of this. I know the church's official position, and I know they have no control over the fundies, so I can see how my comparison to the catholic situation was not a perfect parallel. What I'm saying is, if the LDS church wants the impression that polygamy is common practice among ALL mormons to be shed, it is absolutely imperative that they have a representative, on TV, denouncing these groups loud and clear whenever it happens, and they should in fact be leading the charge in prosecuting them.

Whether the church likes it or not, whenever something like this happens the message filtered through the media noise to the world boils down to "fundemental + mormon = polygamy + child abuse." It doesn't matter if the LDS church leadership has no ties or influence with them, it's a matter of perception, and the shared terms of "Morman" and "(F)LDS" connect them in the public consciousness. It's unfair, but that's public perception for you. The public at large think Mormons are a wacky polygamist cult who aren't really Christians. These groups are the reason that impression still lingers today, because they do consider themselves "true" mormons. The church shoots itself in the foot when they're not doing all they can to dominate the message here. I am NOT saying that the church agrees if they aren't noisy enough (read my post again, that was rhetorical sarcasm). But I AM saying they have a duty to their church's good standing to be as noisy as possible to correct this negative perception. I know it's BS every bit as much as you do, and that's why it's so important that the REAL church fight back.

The rest of your post was very well said, I think.

@Rallymama
According to the traditional Quran, everyone who enters heaven gets 72 women of paradise to marry. There's no mention on what women get, but I'm sure that it is not much.

@Barmy Army

A few times a day he'll kneel on this rug thing with a tea-cosey type thing on his head and pray. He's a proper full-on Muslim, but about as 'westernized' as you can get. HE'S representative of Islam, not nutters like this.


When I think of someone as "Westernized" I except him to agree on the following things, amongst others:
- For the state and the law, there is no difference between men and women.
- For the state and the law, there is no difference between the believers of any religion.
- Treat others as you would like to be treated.

I am most willing to believe that your friend agrees with these basic rules. However, the Quran does not. You might claim that, even though he is a muslim, he does not need to follow the Quran to the letter. According to the Quran, that is simply not possible. The Quran is the complete and perfect word of Allah, omitting nothing. If he's a muslim and decides not to completely apply the rules mentioned in it, he deserves the death penalty.
I am, however, not capable in determining whether someone is a true muslim, only Allah can do that at the day of reckoning. There's something nasty waiting for him if his good deeds are not numerous enough to cover up his bad deeds.

Which brings the question, what is normal reaction among muslims? I'm pretty sure what would be considered "normal" differs in Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan and Bosnia. I don't remember any instances of self-proclaimed honor killings here, for example, though it's hard to separate them over other domestic killings when the killer has not proclaimed loudly he wanted to kill his daughter over whom she was in love with.

Next to the Middle East, the US government is the one most affected by religion.

I challenge you to demonstrate this on a day-to-day basis in both American foreign and domestic policy making. Amercans tend to be both pragmatic and materialists by nature, (they are capitalists and pleasure seekers), and to a large extent, the government exhibits much of the same tendencies. I will agree that GWB has pushed the envelope a bit regarding this, (with his so called Faith-based initiatives and other policies), but really, I can't imagine him getting up in front of the American people and saying that Hurricane Katrina was the result of "God's wrath because of gays living in NO," the way that some evangelical leaders commented. He may even believe it himself, but he knows he would be laughed out of office by most Americans if he did (not that he already isn't, but that's a whole other matter...).

Most Americans are "Sunday Christians," and they tend to want that in their presidents. They like all the lip service and trappings of the president with his family, and wholesome looking wife in tow, while walking up the steps of a (any) Protestant Church on Sunday morning, but that's about as far as religion goes for most Americans. Even most evangelical preachers are capitialists and materialists - just ask them and they will ask you: "Is God poor?" I can see them on Sunday, with all the "tithes" they rake in, throwing all the money over their heads into the air, and at the same time saying: "God, anything you can catch, you can keep; the rest is mine."

Religion should not enter politics whatsoever. They should be completely apart from one another. I'd go so far as to say no person who strongly practices religion shuld ever be the leader of the country. Any decision they make is bound to be motivated by their beliefs in some way, and that's wrong. I seem to recall GWB saying something like God told him to attack Iraq or something equally as ridiculous. That lone should have been enough for the American people to think 'Wooooah, wait a minute, we've elected Christianity's version of Bin Laden!' He's always spouting religious stuff like how God is on the side of Americans and other such pish. The man's a complete looney, and an arrogant one at that. I stand by my belief that no athiest or agnostic will ever get that popularity to even CHALLENGE the Presidency in America, nevermind ascend to it.

'One nation under God'. Give me a break.

Wonderful country, completely nuts about religion!

@Rallymama
According to the traditional Quran, everyone who enters heaven gets 72 women of paradise to marry. There's no mention on what women get, but I'm sure that it is not much.

@Barmy Army


When I think of someone as "Westernized" I except him to agree on the following things, amongst others:
- For the state and the law, there is no difference between men and women.
- For the state and the law, there is no difference between the believers of any religion.
- Treat others as you would like to be treated.

I am most willing to believe that your friend agrees with these basic rules. However, the Quran does not. You might claim that, even though he is a muslim, he does not need to follow the Quran to the letter. According to the Quran, that is simply not possible. The Quran is the complete and perfect word of Allah, omitting nothing. If he's a muslim and decides not to completely apply the rules mentioned in it, he deserves the death penalty.
I am, however, not capable in determining whether someone is a true muslim, only Allah can do that at the day of reckoning. There's something nasty waiting for him if his good deeds are not numerous enough to cover up his bad deeds.

I don't know much about the Quran, but I'm sure it's general message is peace. Don't forget that Christianity changed it's testament. Some of the stuff in the Old Testament is absolutely horrendous - worse than the Quran at a guess. But that's for another thread.

AFAIK the old testament is the foundation of both the Quran, the Bible and the Jewish religious books. Then the Christians added the new testament and I might be wrong here but Mohammed and his followers took the Bible and added their additions. So from what I know the three big monotheistic religions have the same basic book with some variations and additions.

I don't know much about the Quran, but I'm sure it's general message is peace. Don't forget that Christianity changed it's testament. Some of the stuff in the Old Testament is absolutely horrendous - worse than the Quran at a guess. But that's for another thread.

Aye, the Islam strives for wordly peace. The problem is that this peace can only exists when the Islam completely controls the world and that everyone in it surrenders unconditionally to Allah. That is what Islam means, submission; and until people fight against the Islam, there can be no peace. The Quran calls out its followers to fight the evil in the world, sounds nice, but what if you're evil one? According to the Quran, homosexuals, women, Jews and anyone that exercises his universal rights are the enemy.
This peace that the Islam calls for is something like - but infintely worse than! - the Peace after the first world war. It can only mean suffering.


Some of the stuff in the Old Testament is absolutely horrendous - worse than the Quran at a guess. But that's for another thread.

No need, I can give a short answer. The Bible exists of stories. All of the acts taken - including the bad ones - are applied in that time and that setting. The bible does not tell its followers to do these acts and any Christian should remember that when he reads the Bible. The Old Testament with its stories of war and atrocities is also of very little use in the Christian religion, the New Testament supersedes it in almost any way possible with a message of peace and and common sense.
The Quran however, contains only a very small amount of stories, it's not even chronologically ordered. Most of what is found in the Quran are guidelines on how to live and on how to be a proper muslim. These guidelines are actually vague enough to mean almost anything, a muslim can find good justfications for terroristic acts if he looks close enough between the lines. The Quran is really vague - for a word of God! - and Islamic theocrats resort to 'logic by analogy' if they want to know if something is legal or not.

All three religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) are sometimes referred to as the "Abrahamic religions" because all three trace their roots through Abraham, a character present in the Old Testament, Torah, and Quran.

I'm getting a bit tired of responding to random hate-comments by people who don't seem to have any idea what they're talking about, so rather than answer each point (which would take several hours and make a hefty essay) I'll throw in a few comments addressing some of the more off-the-wall remarks.

First, the Quran does not consider homosexuals, women or jews to be the enemy (it says pretty much nothing about the first and a lot of good things about the other two). The Quran does not tell muslims to go take over the world and turn everyone to Islam, hence why it coexisted quite happily with Chrisitans and Jews for several hundred years. Oh, and that 72 virgin idiocy - guess what? Morgoth, if you're going to quote a book, please read it first and make sure what you're quoting is actually there in the first place. And while we're on the subject - the New Testament does not supersede the Torah, it adds to it while making it very clear that everything in the Torah still applies. Including stoning the gays, women responsible for all bad things, and so on.

Martaug - if by the "rest" of the muslim community you mean the ones with common sense, they have already condemned honor killings several zillion times, something that (of course) tends not to be considered news-worthy. And while you can rage as much as you want about the current government in Iraq, please keep in mind that this government was installed by none other than yours. Think they could so something about it? Oh I know! You can go invade all over again! Oh wait, you're already there...

NOG, if you're going to make a statement as bold as "Islam is more prone to fanaticism than any other religion in the world" than you had BETTER have numbers to back it up, and they had better be reliable numbers.

Barmy, Tarrasque, DR and Chandos - great posts.

The man's a complete looney, and an arrogant one at that. I stand by my belief that no athiest or agnostic will ever get that popularity to even CHALLENGE the Presidency in America, nevermind ascend to it.


Well, that was the rap on Thomas Jefferson, and he won anyway....As I commented there's a lot of pretence about religion, but little follow through. Nevertheless, I agree with your comments about GWB. But I don't recall anything about "God" telling him to attack Iraq. But it might be that Exxon has changed its name....

Well, what can you say when the police congratulate this murderer for what he did. If they all believe they're in the right, there's not a hell of a lot you can do, except leave them behind in the stone age and move along. If one was brought up like these men, without knowing any better, one would behave in just the same way and think it justified.

As for religion and politics. Yup, ideally they shouldn't mix whatsoever. Someone's personal beliefs should not have anything to do with running a country.

Ziad, Before I start commenting on the sections in your post that were directed at me, I'll have to say that I cannot help but feel a nasty accusation in your post. I do not hate muslims, nor the Islam, nor the Quran. Sure, the murder of Theo van Gogh left me quite bitter, but I do treat muslims fairly (I think!). Just in case you forgot, criticism is not hate.

The Quran tells that it contains the word of God as it was written down by the mortal man Mohammed. He made no mistake and thus the Quran is the perfect materialisation. It is complete and it is the only source of law (Surah 6:114.) As I said, the Quran is vague and thats why there are four important types of literature surrounding it. These are the Hadith, which are the oral traditions that tell the deeds and words of Mohammed and his companions, the Shariah which is base of the Islamic Law, the Fatwa collections and the Tafsir, the comments on the Quran. These four works are very important in the Islam, and can be placed near the level of the Quran. The Shariah is based on the Quran and the Hadith. Before a muslim consults the Quran for the solution for a problem, he consults the Shariah or preferably a Imam or Mufti who issues a fatwa, a judgement. These fatwas are collected into works not unlike those big collections of books that lawyers seem to keep in their bookcases.
I do have a Quran in my collection of books, but yesterday I found out that it is from the Ahmadiyya movement. Which is not even an accepted muslim faction, members even have to fear for their lives in Pakistan, So, I guess I just have to fall back to one on the Internet, this one (http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/SURAI.HTM)

First, the Quran does not consider homosexuals, women or jews to be the enemy (it says pretty much nothing about the first and a lot of good things about the other two).
I made one mistake there. Women are indeed not seen as the enemy, but rather as lesser beings than men. They have less rights (2:228) and are less competent or - just should not be trusted - (2:282). Also, a man may beat his wife but lightly (that makes it okay I guess!) Homosexuals are mentioned in 7:81, For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women The Shariah condemns these men to death.
Jews are seen as apes, evil swines and donkeys who actively alter the word of God (2:65, 5:59-64, 62:5). Jews and Christians did received the Word, but they change it and thus are astray and have evil in their hearts.


Oh, and that 72 virgin idiocy - guess what? Morgoth, if you're going to quote a book, please read it first and make sure what you're quoting is actually there in the first place.
I never quoted anything. I looked it up and yes, again I'm wrong, there's no mention of 72 virgins. (Rallymama misled me, she is BTW a female. Turns out the Quran was right again! :P) However, according to 44:54 and 52:20, every righteous one is joined with companions. And those companions have beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes. Which leaves little to the imagination. The number 72 apparently comes from the Sunan al-Tirmidhi Hadith collection, that one also mentions a bunch of slaves and a nice palace.

The Quran does not tell muslims to go take over the world and turn everyone to Islam, hence why it coexisted quite happily with Chrisitans and Jews for several hundred years. Mohammed is seen as the best standard for a muslim, anyone should take him as his model(33:21). Since Mohammed the general conquered the Arabian peninsula and executed lots and lots of prisoners. That is what a proper muslim should do. I do have trouble recalling countries where Jews, Christians and Muslims lived together happily before modern times. Morocco comes to mind, but that never was much of a muslim country. Mohammed personally ordered the executed of hundreds of Jews who surrendered to him at the (IIRC) Oasis of Khaybar. Saladin executed a large number of Christians in 1187 at Hittin, the Jews and Christians that did not escape Jerusalem in time were sold of as slaves. The Turkish committed crimes in the Balkan, and actually at every place they set foot. Qaliph Umar required that Jews and Christians were not to be treated with respect, they were not allowed to build churches and synagoges, not allowed to own horses and they even had to pay special taxes. I guess happily coexisting is just another term for not being murdered and beaten all the time.

And while we're on the subject - the New Testament does not supersede the Torah, it adds to it while making it very clear that everything in the Torah still applies. Including stoning the gays, women responsible for all bad things, and so on.
Well, it's been a long time since I was a Christian, but please point me to the passages that tell that the Old Testament is still as valid as the new one.

Really ziad? How about posting to one site were muslims are condemning honor killings. Oh, and they weren't made illegal until the government went into power that WE helped to create, but since you are a muslim apologist i really dont think i will get a response. As to your other points morgoth pretty much blow you out of the water:)

Bloody hell Morgoth, you have way too much time on your hands!

'One nation under God'. Give me a break.


If you think the Founders crafted the "Pledge," you know even less about America than I thought...Here's some help...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

DR -- I guess we have a fundamental disagreement on the best path for the LDS church leadership to take -- I think they more they talk about the compound, the more people will SEE a relation where there is none. But I can also see what you're saying. We'd need some hard research on that one.

As for you, Morgoth, right on, buddy -- you kicked butt on that one!

As I have mentioned before, I teach Muslims, mostly poor, uneducated, reactionary ones. It is very clear to me, working in close proximity with these people, that there is a large community of Muslims who have ZERO respect for anyone who is not a Muslim. They certainly do not make much effort to understand those different than they are. This is the ground the zealot / terrorists grow out of.

That said, there is ANOTHER group of Muslims I teach who are educated, decent people who make an effort to be pluralistic. They are the ones we need to encourage and support in the hopes that they will eventually influence their radical brethren.

Agreed Chandos.

The words "under God" were added during the height of the McCarthy era. McCarthy and goons were busy trying to convince everyone of the threat of the Godless communists.

I personally feel it should be removed from the pledge.

Since a lot of folks here seem to be unaware, I feel compelled to point out that honor killings pre-date Islam. This bears repeating: The cultures in which honor killings are conducted have been doing it since long before they ever embraced Islam. It is true that Islamic nations in which such practices are conducted now mis-use Islam to justify their barbarism, but if Islam were truly the cause of honor killings, how does one explain the Christians living within parts of Africa and the Near East who are carrying out this crime even today? If Islam is the cause of honor killings, how does this explain the honor killings being conducted by Hindus and Sikhs of India, South Asia, and even the UK? How does that explain the honor killings that occurred -legally- in the predominantly Catholic nations of Brazil (until 1980) and Columbia (until 1991)? To this day, honor killings in these nations occur with alarming frequency.

Sure, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, and even Christianity are blatantly mis-used to justify these heinous acts, but I've read the bible, the Koran, and Baghavad Gita. While I have lots of bad things to say about any and all of these faiths, I can assure you that neither Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam and, hell, not even Santeria condone this ****. Folks, honor killings are not a religious problem. The problem is always cultural. I defy anyone on this forum to come up with even a single mainstream religion that actually condones honor killings.

Actually about the LDS vs FLDS, there is a passage in scripture that is relevent here:

(article of faith) 11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

This means that if Warren Jeffs wants to call his faith/cult the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or Fundamentalist Mormons, there's squat all we can really do about it. We can speak the truth as respectfully as possible, but there is little that we can do to stop them as private citizens.

That said, we can denounce polygamy and statutory rape until we are blue in the face, but the same legal principles that grant us the freedom to worship as we choose grant them the same rights. Polygamy and statutory rape, however, do not follow under the heading of worship.

Just as the mainstream church has the Word of Wisdom (forbiddance of alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea and illegal drugs, dietary council), they have doctrines which allow them to have multiple wives and marry them at a younger age. This however contradicts the seperation of Church and state. As long as the state does not make efforts to revise religious doctrine, religion can't place themselves above this law.

Many things in a religion will sound bizarre or outright wierd to those outside the faith. Even within faiths of the same root (Catholocism and Mormonism for example), some doctrines may be so different that one may not understand the other. This does not mean that attrocities can be written off, only that closer examination is needed to determine whether the attrocities are written in the cannon or are abuses of that which they teach as sacred. I think you'll find the majority of such attrocities fall under the latter...

Why should there be a pledge of allegiance anyway? I fail to understand why it's necessary. Sounds like nationlist overpowering bumkum to me.

Why should there be a pledge of allegiance anyway? I fail to understand why it's necessary. Sounds like nationlist overpowering bumkum to me.

If you think that's bad, you should see the oath of allegiance California requires its substitute teachers to take. I couldn't stop laughing while I was repeating it.

Yeah, I'm really going to defend the USA and the state of CA from all enemies, foreign and domestic, now that I've signed up to be a sub. Jackasses.

I do have trouble recalling countries where Jews, Christians and Muslims lived together happily before modern times.

Would the Ottoman Empire do? The Ottoman Empire left pretty much alone the Greek Orthodox Church and let it go on with its functions. Also the Ottoman Empire was often a place where persecuted and exiled jews went from hostile Europe. While the tolerance of the Ottoman Empire was far from perfect and religious minorities did not enjoy the same priviledges as muslims it for a long time was more tolerating towards minority religions than Christian Europe.

Well, it's been a long time since I was a Christian, but please point me to the passages that tell that the Old Testament is still as valid as the new one.

There is a very nice quote in the bible of this one and I'll try to search it up shortly.

EDIT: Having little luck in trying to find it, however it was about Jesus saying that he was not there to change the old laws of the prophets and that no stroke of pen would be erased by him. Which pretty clearly goes on to state that the old testament is still consdiered quite valid. I think I saw Drew quote it once or twice on these forums so perhaps he could help providing the exact quote.

As to the topic itself these honor killings have more to do with the backward culture than the religion, as Drew says they pre-date islam. That is not to say that Islam does not provide the tools to justify these killings but just like with the bible it's all about inteprenting it all correctly. Horrible things have been justified with the bible too in the past so it's more about social and theological development than some inherent tendency towards murder and violence within the religion.

How about posting to one site were muslims are condemning honor killings.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543392

Would that one do?

Barmy:
Religion should not enter politics whatsoever. They should be completely apart from one another. I'd go so far as to say no person who strongly practices religion shuld ever be the leader of the country. Any decision they make is bound to be motivated by their beliefs in some way, and that's wrong.
Barmy, the problem with that is that it establishes a state religion of its own: atheism. And it scares me, I mean really scares me, that you don't see the problem with that.

Ziad:
NOG, if you're going to make a statement as bold as "Islam is more prone to fanaticism than any other religion in the world" than you had BETTER have numbers to back it up, and they had better be reliable numbers.
I never said any such thing. I said fanaticism seems to be more common among muslims than other religions, but then I specifically said that may be more due to a shared middle-eastern culture than to the influences of the religion specifically.

12th-century Spain is another example of a culture where Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived together in peace and prosperity. Maimonides (aka Rambam), one of the greatest Jewish sages ever, came from that culture.

Barmy, the problem with that is that it establishes a state religion of its own: atheism. And it scares me, I mean really scares me, that you don't see the problem with that.

I don't see why it would. Just because you don't allow religion to enter politics doesn't mean you establish athieism throughout (which wouldn't actually be a bad idea as far as I'm concerned). It just means you don't allow religion to alter political decisions. Also, I don't believe that not actively following a particular religion necessarily makes you athiest.

The most important mistake made here is the one connecting such murders to islam. They are and always were an expression of a tribal society, not of religious dogma.

Barmy, the problem with that is that it establishes a state religion of its own: atheism. And it scares me, I mean really scares me, that you don't see the problem with that.


I don't see the problem either. Why should a move away from blind faith to rational thought be discouraged, especially in the decision-makers? A state that has no strongly religious leaders will not necessary attempt to remove all traces of religion from the country and, due to human rights, I doubt that is even a likely possibility.


Just as the mainstream church has the Word of Wisdom (forbiddance of alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea and illegal drugs, dietary council),


No tea? That's...that's...simply barbaric! I dread even the thought it! ;)

How about posting to one site were muslims are condemning honor killings.
Morgoroth has already beaten me to it. Oh no! He must be a muslim apologist as well! :rolleyes:

These four works are very important in the Islam, and can be placed near the level of the Quran.
Depends who you're asking. Many muslims consider what's written in them to be bollocks since (as you've stated yourself) they consider the Quran to be the word of god (complete, perfect and all that) while the other works were written by men. They're meant to complement the Quran, not replace it.

Women are indeed not seen as the enemy, but rather as lesser beings than men. They have less rights (2:228) and are less competent or - just should not be trusted - (2:282).
Hardly specific to Islam. I don't like using the "oh but others have done it first!" argument but let's face it, sexism is hardly an islamic invention. If we're going to criticise the religion for something, let's at least pick something specific to it and that wasn't shared by half of the world at the time.

The Shariah condemns these men to death.
I thought we were talking about the Quran?
"According to the Quran, homosexuals, women, Jews and anyone that exercises his universal rights are the enemy." Your own words.
The articles of the Shariah are not universally accepted by all muslims as being worth the ink they're written with. Using something out the Shariah as an excuse to blast all muslims is the same as picking fault with some christian writing (say St Augustine's) and blasting all christians for believing in it. Not all do.

(Rallymama misled me, she is BTW a female. Turns out the Quran was right again! :P)
I know she is. I don't think I've refered to her in my post. If I did refer to her as "he" - sorry Rally!
(And while I'm willing to let martaug think of me as a "muslim apologist", don't get me started on the Quran being "right")

The number 72 apparently comes from the Sunan al-Tirmidhi Hadith collection, that one also mentions a bunch of slaves and a nice palace.
The Hadiths are a tricky thing to talk about. There's many of them - far, far too many. I wish I could remember who did this - some years ago a scholar decided to try to see just how many there were, and calculate how long it would have taken Muhammad to say all of them. The time frame he came up with meant that he would have had to spend every waking moment from when he had his "revelation" until his death talking non-stop :shake:

Mohammed personally ordered the executed of hundreds of Jews who surrendered to him at the (IIRC) Oasis of Khaybar.
That was specifically the Benu Nader tribe (all other tribes at the Oasis were spared). Not to justify their slaughter, but they have an interesting history of double-crosses, including an assassination attempt on Muhammad.
That said, I take back my comment about peaceful coexistence, as I had completely forgotten about the specific incidents you mentioned. My bad.

The Turkish committed crimes in the Balkan, and actually at every place they set foot.
The Ottoman empire happily slaughtered anyone who wasn't an ottoman, including other muslims, so I wouldn't really use them as an example of discrimination against non-muslims specifically :)

Now before anyone jumps at why I ignored all the specific quotes you've got from Quran passages, the reason is simple - none of those I've seen ever had a numbering system anything like the one you've used. I don't know where these numbers refer, as the only times I've seen them crop up was with translations and never with the Arabic books (which are the ones I've seen). The original language has a name (no number) for each Sura, which I assume is the first number, but if the second one is line number then finding the specific passages you're talking about is impossible with anything but the particular version you have (and others that use the same formatting).

I do not hate muslims, nor the Islam, nor the Quran. Sure, the murder of Theo van Gogh left me quite bitter, but I do treat muslims fairly (I think!).
I was wondering where your bitterness comes from, and I think I understand now. I also feel I owe you an apology - the accusatory tone of my post came from the assumption that you knew nothing on the topic, whereas your response is abundant in historical references (some of which I'll admit I did not know or had forgotten about). However if you truly feel that you do not hate islam and muslims then you've got to realise that sweeping generalisations like "you're either westernized or muslim" and "I would take fundamental Christianity over fundamental Islam anyday, because the former is based on common sense and the latter on desert barbarism" do not come across as "fair" or as "criticism" but as, well, bitter hatred (not to mention they really don't do justice to how well you've researched the topic). I'll agree that fundamental Islam is as far from common sense as you can get - but so is fundamental Christianity, fundamental Judaism, fundamental any religion, and yes, fundamental atheism. In response to one of Barmy's posts you've listed things you expect of a muslim to be considered "westernised" while completely disregarding (or possibly not realising) that none of these points have anything to do with islam itself and can be applied to any religion, including the predominant "western" religion (To take just one example: "One nation under God", "In God we trust", the president being sworn on the Bible, etc...)

thanks for the link morgoth, it just reinforces things while answering one question. did you notice the 3 legal reasons to kill someone? for killing another, for adultery or for becoming a non-muslim. now, i don't know about where you live but here if you cheat on your spouse or change religion we don't kill you.
@ ziad, yes the usa was founded as & is a christian nation yet we don't try follow the laws set done in parts of the old testament because we have grown & evolved to the point that we realize they no longer apply.
unfortunately, the islamic world does not wish to do this, as is common among fundies, the book is the end-all & be-all. to never change, sorry, it may have been ok to trreat your wife like one of your cows 1000 years ago but not now in the rest of the civilised world.
they either need to join the 21st century or become small isolated communities like the amish if they wish to keep a religion that is so fundimentalist, no more ruling countries & inflicting their crap on others. just because you believe your religion is right doesn't give you the right to violate the basic human rights of others.

now, i don't know about where you live but here if you cheat on your spouse or change religion we don't kill you.

Neither do they in Turkey which is predominantly a muslim country, nor do they in Malaysia, nor in Bosnia, or in Indonesia or in Albania. As Drew pointed out even in Brazil killing your wife for adultery was legal until 1991 so it's not like this has been illegal in all Christian countries for all that long. However I will agree that it's a barbaric custom that needs to be wiped and it's horrible to read about immigrants who carry on this custom to various European countries, it's unacceptable.

i don't know about where you live but here if you cheat on your spouse or change religion we don't kill you.

Not entirely true. I read in the news all too often about someone killing their cheating spouse. It's throughout the culture in books, movies, poetry and song (and not just country music). It is illegal to kill the cheater, but you often hear people say things like 'he had it coming for what he did' when referring to the crime. The 'crime of passion' defense works for a reason -- because we, as a society, are willing to believe it.

yes T2Bruno but it is not condoned & encouraged by your religion & when was the last time you heard of someone being killed for changing religions when islam wasn't involved?

It's called 'deprogramming' and can get out of hand. The killing is usually accidental, but not suprising when you consider the techniques used to deprogram someone from a religion (or cult).

Hey Ziad, it's good to see that you cleared up and I hope that you and I can now continue the discussion without feeling the need to be unnecessary rude :)

Depends who you're asking. Many muslims consider what's written in them to be bollocks since (as you've stated yourself) they consider the Quran to be the word of god (complete, perfect and all that) while the other works were written by men. They're meant to complement the Quran, not replace it. I admit, it depends on who you ask. The Shariah even differs between Islamic regions, albeit slightly. But these books do not mean to complement, they mean to clarify.

Hardly specific to Islam. I don't like using the "oh but others have done it first!" argument but let's face it, sexism is hardly an islamic invention. If we're going to criticise the religion for something, let's at least pick something specific to it and that wasn't shared by half of the world at the time. I only responded to your claim that the Quran said a lot of good things about women. The passages I remember look good at first, but are sexist at the core.

The Hadiths are a tricky thing to talk about. There's many of them - far, far too many. I wish I could remember who did this - some years ago a scholar decided to try to see just how many there were, and calculate how long it would have taken Muhammad to say all of them. The time frame he came up with meant that he would have had to spend every waking moment from when he had his "revelation" until his death talking non-stop I haven't heard about that one, that's funny :D I know that there are Hadiths that are only accepted in some Muslim circles. The one I got the number 72 from, is (IIRC) only accepted in the Sunni movement. This should lessen the burden for Mohammed.

The Ottoman empire happily slaughtered anyone who wasn't an ottoman, including other muslims, so I wouldn't really use them as an example of discrimination against non-muslims specifically It's true, they even oppressed the Arabs. So I'll stop using them.

Now before anyone jumps at why I ignored all the specific quotes you've got from Quran passages, the reason is simple - none of those I've seen ever had a numbering system anything like the one you've used. I don't know where these numbers refer, as the only times I've seen them crop up was with translations and never with the Arabic books (which are the ones I've seen). The original language has a name (no number) for each Sura, which I assume is the first number, but if the second one is line number then finding the specific passages you're talking about is impossible with anything but the particular version you have (and others that use the same formatting). Yes, the original way of referring to the books was not with numbers, but using numbers is more useful for scholars. The books are, except for the first one, ordered by the number of passages. So using numbers seems to be a good way that can be used across translations. The first number is indeed the Surah, and the second number is the passage. For example, 6:160 points to 160. He that doeth good shall have ten times as much to his credit: He that doeth evil shall only be recompensed according to his evil: no wrong shall be done unto (any of) them. Use the link to the digital Quran that I gave in my previous post.

I thought we were talking about the Quran?
"According to the Quran, homosexuals, women, Jews and anyone that exercises his universal rights are the enemy." Your own words.
The articles of the Shariah are not universally accepted by all muslims as being worth the ink they're written with. True, but since
(a) The Quran is complete and
(b) This rule is something that all versions of the Shariah agree on, and therefor,
(b2) all important Islamic theocrats have found justification for the execution of homosexuals in the Quran
I conclude that the Quran actually claims this, just not in the crystal clear words that I and you would like to see. To support this, 7:81 in full: "For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women : ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." and three passages later:
84. And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): Then see what was the end of those who indulged in sin and crime!

85. To the Madyan people We sent Shu'aib, one of their own brethren: he said: "O my people! worship Allah. Ye have no other god but Him. Now hath come unto you a clear (Sign) from your Lord! Give just measure and weight, nor withhold from the people the things that are their due; and do no mischief on the earth after it has been set in order: that will be best for you, if ye have Faith.

86. "And squat not on every road, breathing threats, hindering from the path of Allah those who believe in Him, and seeking in it something crooked; But remember how ye were little, and He gave you increase. And hold in your mind's eye what was the end of those who did mischief.

However if you truly feel that you do not hate islam and muslims then you've got to realise that sweeping generalisations like "you're either westernized or muslim" and "I would take fundamental Christianity over fundamental Islam anyday, because the former is based on common sense and the latter on desert barbarism" do not come across as "fair" or as "criticism" but as, well, bitter hatred (not to mention they really don't do justice to how well you've researched the topic).
That's fair. I'll redraw my second statement because it is a harsh one, but I'll stick to my first one for the reasons that I already mentioned.

@Rallymama

12th-century Spain is another example of a culture where Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived together in peace and prosperity. Maimonides (aka Rambam), one of the greatest Jewish sages ever, came from that culture.
I'm speculating here, but since they were on the far end of the Islamic region - and a whole different ethnic group, the Moors - they could have been quite immune from the fundamentalists Qaliphs in the ME.

yes the usa was founded as & is a christian nation yet we don't try follow the laws set done in parts of the old testament because we have grown & evolved to the point that we realize they no longer apply.


That sounds suspiciously like picking outs bits that want to follow and ignoring the rest. If it is in the OT and has neither been replaced by a passage in the NT or proven to be impossible to follow, why should you get to ignore it?

Yes, the OT can be a bit odd*, but do you not see the problem in claiming a religion is correct apart from some bits which you don't bother with any more?

* "They are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the osprey, the kite, the falcon according to its kind, every raven according to its kind, the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk according it its kind, the owl, the cormorant, the ibis, the water hen, the pelican, the carrion vulture, the stork, the heron according to its kind, the hoopoe, and the bat" (Leviticus 11:13)

If this is true, I've no idea why Noah went and saved them on his ark.

Ziad and Decados:
I would consider the forbidding of any active practitioner of a religion to be the official establishment of state Atheism. Mind you, the establishment of a state religion does not require that all other religions be oppressed or expunged, just that this is the religion which the state operates by whenever the issue comes up. This religion is assumed to be true in courts.

I would also like to remind you both that religion and rationality are not mutually exclusive. Many of history's greatest thinkers, ancient and modern, have been deeply spiritual people. At the same time, many of the biggest idiots I know are atheists or agnostics. Bad decisions are not by any means limited to the faithful, nor are good ones the sole property of the unbelieving.

Essentially, to even begin to defend such a measure, you would have to demonstrate that non-religious folk are statistically more likely to make good decisions, or at least less costly bad decisions. I challenge you to do so.

Decados:
That's specifically speaking of food. Those animals are not to be eaten. They are 'unclean'. If you go through the dietary restrictions of Leviticus, there are currently understood reasons to ban each one (mainly parasites, disease, or a high tendency to go bad quickly without being noticed). Once the reason is understood and can be properly managed, there's no need for the law anymore. This is covered in Acts 10:9-16 when God tells Peter in a vision to eat of the animals (all unclean) in a sheet lowered from heaven. Peter's response is that he has never eaten anything impure, to which God responds "Do not call anythng impure that God has made clean." - Acts 10:15b NIV. By this point, the Jews' contact with other cultures had educated them as to why these were unsafe to eat and how to handle them safely. This is why the Christian church has never followed the Levitical proscriptions on food.

We can say the same thing today about their laws on the treatement of the diseased or on exposure to blood and dead bodies. If you look at the laws, these are obviously disease control and quarantine. Today, we understand diseases and quarantine pretty well, and can handle these things ourselves.

That's specifically speaking of food. Those animals are not to be eaten.


That's fair enough- my biblical knowledge can be hazy at times. ;)


I would also like to remind you both that religion and rationality are not mutually exclusive. Many of history's greatest thinkers, ancient and modern, have been deeply spiritual people. At the same time, many of the biggest idiots I know are atheists or agnostics.


Very true. There have been great minds both religious and non-religious.


Essentially, to even begin to defend such a measure, you would have to demonstrate that non-religious folk are statistically more likely to make good decisions, or at least less costly bad decisions. I challenge you to do so.


I doubt there really is any statistical evidence either way in terms of ruling countries- it isn't as if there is a huge amount of data available.

I had another point to make on this, but it has gone and vanished. I'll edit if I remember it.

Actually, killing for adultery or apostasy is mentioned in the Bible.

"And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." - Leviticus 20:10, KJB

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God" - Deuteronomy 13:6-10, if I read Biblical nomenclature correctly .

However, the above would probably not apply to a conversion to another Abrahamic religion, since the three worship the same God. At the same time, the above verses were first written there were no other monotheistic religions near Israel, so there was nothing else to be mentioned. I don't know how the Qu'ranic verses work, especially as I've seen a few verses translated in very different ways - so I can't tell if they likewise consider converts to Christianity/Judaism apostates. I wouldn't be surprised.

Anyway, my point is that imo Islam, like Christianity or other religions, can be used for good or ill depending on how its teachings are interpreted and what the believer actually wants to do. Its teachings certainly can be used to defend inhuman behavior, but that doesn't mean it's not personal or cultural factors who actually motivate this behavior.

However, the above would probably not apply to a conversion to another Abrahamic religion, since the three worship the same God.

You are assuming everyone reading that passage believes the three religions worship the same God. Quite often, slight deviations in worship are only seen as blasphemy -- such worship is no longer directed at the "Only True God" but really revolve around worshipping the devil in the guise of the "Only True God".

People believe what they want and will distort religious beliefs to get what they want.

Another point is that neither the Jews nor the Christians actually enforce any of that nonsense any more. I think, as stated above, that this is much more of a cultural thing and that those who do this like to rationalize what they are doing by saying that god commanded them to do it in their holy books. It's a travesty.

Yeah, Christians stopped that stuff (or should have) the moment Christ uttered his "Let him who is without sin..." judgement. Obviously Jews have no reason to abide by that, but they may have their own reasons.

"or should have" are the key words there.

thanks for the link morgoth, it just reinforces things while answering one question. did you notice the 3 legal reasons to kill someone? for killing another, for adultery or for becoming a non-muslim. now, i don't know about where you live but here if you cheat on your spouse or change religion we don't kill you.Actually, Martaug, in Islam none of those reasons cited are legal justification to murder someone. While it is true that Murder, adultery, and apostasy are considered capital crimes in Islam, it must be prosecuted through the court system. If you are actually following Sharia law to the letter and your wife cheats on you, you don't kill her. You press charges in court against her and the man with whom she cheated. If found guilty, the Islamic courts will mete out the death sentence. If a man were to simply kill his wife for (suspected) adultery, a nation properly adhering to Sharia law would likely put him to death for murder.

While it is a grave injustice when the judicial system puts someone to death merely for apostasy or adultery, it isn't an honor killing.

Hey Ziad, it's good to see that you cleared up and I hope that you and I can now continue the discussion without feeling the need to be unnecessary rude :)
Sorry if I came across as rude in that first post. I was tired from work (I know, not an excuse) and made wrong assumptions. I'm glad we've cleared the air.

I admit, it depends on who you ask. The Shariah even differs between Islamic regions, albeit slightly. But these books do not mean to complement, they mean to clarify.
The Shariah differs between regions (which I'm tempted to say is due to the cultural phenomenon that Drew pointed out earlier, but I have no solid data to support this) but also between the different subgroups islam (sunna, chia, alaouites, etc). Many of the same stuff crops up in all of them, but some of the subgroups are very serious about how this or that article is different from some other subgroup's version, and these can trace back as far as the original split and the formation of the subgroups. You can see this if you compare the Alaouites (Syria) and the Chia (Iran). The countries may be political allies at the moment, but the religious subgroups, which can seem identical at first sight, have differences that go back centuries. To most (including me) the differences seem superficial but the people involved tend to take them very seriously (far too much really).

I only responded to your claim that the Quran said a lot of good things about women. The passages I remember look good at first, but are sexist at the core.
I reread my initial post and my phrasing was far too positive. What I should have said is "does not consider the enemy". That said, you are right and the passages you mentioned are sexist at the core. I would like to note that this attitude was not introduced by islam but was quite predominant among the tribes of the peninsual (definitely among the polytheistic tribes, not sure of the jewish ones had the same attitude, but if I had to venture a guess I'd say yes, as culturally all the tribes were very similar). Unfortunately the incorporation of this attitude into islam and the Quran means that nutters like the one mentioned at the beginning of this thread think they have an excuse or, worse, a duty to perform honor killings, which is insane.

I know that there are Hadiths that are only accepted in some Muslim circles. The one I got the number 72 from, is (IIRC) only accepted in the Sunni movement.
Same story as with the Shariah. Too many Hadiths, and each subgroup picks whichever they find more convenient (or make them up, which is the only reasonable explanation I can think of for their abundance!).

Yes, the original way of referring to the books was not with numbers, but using numbers is more useful for scholars. The books are, except for the first one, ordered by the number of passages. So using numbers seems to be a good way that can be used across translations. The first number is indeed the Surah, and the second number is the passage. For example, 6:160 points to Use the link to the digital Quran that I gave in my previous post.
My bad, I missed the link. The numbering system is strange, not all the Suras have numbered passages in the arabic version (though they do make referencing much easier).

I conclude that the Quran actually claims this, just not in the crystal clear words that I and you would like to see. To support this, 7:81 in full: and three passages later:
I've gone through some of the passages you've quoted. The translation is very odd in places (though not too surprising considering the archaic Arabic used in the book is difficult to read, never mind translate). The minute I saw that 7:81 quote I knew which passage you meant, and I was pretty sure (albeit from memory) this was referencing the Torah. I went back to the online translation, and while it doesn't make the reference as clear as I remembered it, you'll noticed the passage has plenty of Old Testament references (Satan the fallen angel, the Garden, Adam, etc). The passages you quoted (specifically "shower of brimstone") is, I'm sure, a direct reference to Sodom and the Bible.

(Completely unrelated - there's apparently two towns named Sodom, one in Ontario and the other in the Shetlands)

Now this would not be of much importance if not for one little point. You could always say that what the Bible says is immaterial, the Quran claims that all its words are true therefore its attack on homosexuality is its own problem, regardless where it got its idea from. The one little flaw here is that the Bible also says it is the word of god and is therefore true. See Matthew 5:18 in which Jesus refers to the Old Testament in these terms: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Sounds awfully like what the Quran says about its own accuracy, doesn't it?

Now let me make it very clear I did not bring up this quote to say "if the Bible does it then it's perfectly acceptable for the Quran to do so as well". It's not. The reason I'm drawing this parallelism is specifically because of some passages you quoted being references to the Bible (the Quran has loads of these, as I may have said in an earlier post) and more generally because the argument that Islam can never become modernised (or westernised) because every word in the Quran must be true, then this will equally apply to both Christianity and Judaism (not so sure about the latter, although I remember some passages from the Torah implying that being the word of God everything in it must be true. The Kabbalah spring to mind, but I don't think they're representative of Judasim as a whole). Therefore this becomes no longer a debate about Islam but a debate about monotheistic religions. Which means that the "a muslim who does not follow the Quran word for word is not a "real" muslim" argument no longer applies either, because at that rate a disproportionately large number of muslims (and christians) are not "really" religious. I'm sure many of them would beg to differ :)

That's fair. I'll redraw my second statement because it is a harsh one, but I'll stick to my first one for the reasons that I already mentioned.
Unfortunately I have no evidence I can present to you to convince you your first statement is too generalising. The only evidence I have is a number of people I know, and that's not easy to get across to someone else. Edinburgh has a mosque in the city centre, not too far away from where I live. The people there are incredibly friendly - they've got a kitchen with some tables and chairs, offer food for a very good price (very generous portions as well!) and invite everyone, especially non-muslims, to come in and eat. No lectures, no "convert and you'll get a discount", none of that rubbish. You get your food and you eat, simple as that. If you express interest in learning more about what they believe and why, they are more than happy to give you a tour and explain, but the explanations are of the "we believe that" variety and never "we are right" or "what we believe is better". As far as I can tell they have no political involvement and are not trying to integrate Shariah law into British law or anything of the sort. By all appearances they're well integrated, happy to live here, make no distinction between a Brit or someone from their region, and their openness and eagerness to explain their belief without imposing it makes me wish more religious people were like them. The reason I'm going on about this is simple - that's an example of muslims (and the guys running a mosque, not some random people off the streets) who seem to fill in the 3 points you raised in an earlier post (I think in response to Barmy) which you considered as requirements for westernisation. In that same post you brought in a major point to the argument - even if people fulfill these 3 requirements the Quran does not, therefore the people cannot really be muslims and also fulfill the requirements because the of the Quran claiming its own words are always true. To this argument I raise the counter-argument I made earlier - the Bible says something similar yet many Christians consider themselves, and are considered Christians, without following the "letter of the law". While we could resolve this by saying that these people cannot claim to be Christians without following the Bible, I'd much rather think that they can, in the same way that muslims can be muslims without following the Quran to the letter.

I'm speculating here, but since they were on the far end of the Islamic region - and a whole different ethnic group, the Moors - they could have been quite immune from the fundamentalists Qaliphs in the ME.
Andalucia (well Al-Andalus at the time) was generally far more open and accepting than most of the other civlisations around it, especially at the time of the Inquisition (a number of european scholars fled to Andalucia, and the emirs there translated and preserved many of the books being burned further nborth). Ironically it was started by the remains of the Umawyya, who spawned the bloodiest and craziest caliphs, when the Abbasid took over the islamic empire. It's possible that the circumstances under which they formed, as well as their mixing with the Moors and the native Andalucians, made them much more open than their predecessors were (and could be the reason they outlasted the Abbasid empire by centuries). But this is again speculation.

One thing about the passages cited in the old testament I'd like to bring up is that in addition to the Divine Laws (The ten Commandments), and a historical record of the people. How many of these were interpretation by mortal Scribes and Pharisees and a concession to the lack of a prison system? In some cases, there was no alternative other than death...

If you start interpret like that you can pick and choose mostly everything Gnarff. By your own reasoning pretty much everything in the bible is interpretation of mortals. Is it possible to be a Christian and pick and choose from the bible what you deem is divinly inspired and what is just the ramblings of some old cook?

The simple answer to that is "yes". There is a lot of debate amongst the Christian denominations as to whether or not some books are canonical. There is also some debate about whether things have been altered, lost or mistranslated over the centuries. I would venture to say that a lot of debate in the Christian religion stems from arguments like this, though there are a lot of core texts that are not under debate (eg: every Christian sect accepts the 4 gospels as divinely inspired, I would assume.)

To add to what LKD said, I've seen books in other bibles that I've never heard of elsewhere. On one hand I'm curious to what they are, but on the other hand, I have enough to learn. But I do remember in the Gospels (universally accepted among Christians as divinely inspired) where Christ ran afoul witht he Scribes and Pharisees when he did good things but not within the confines of their ever tightening interpretations of basic laws given of God in Exodus. The Old Testament laws that come into question are where mortals try to clarify what God has commanded without the spirit of inspiration.

Must be hard to try to live ones life after a really old book that actually seems to be open for interpretation even by the true believers. It seems that everyone when all things are said and done trust their own judgement whether they are of faith or not. This is very off topic though. Honor killings are bad!

It's a question more of seperating the divine from the secular history recorded in the book. The secular makes concessions to practicality that lose the spirit of the divine laws.

the worst part of this is people try to say, "oh its just the tribal communities" but as this shows : http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/11/iraq.humanrights1

In a BBC poll one in 10 young British Asians believed that 'honour' killings could be justified.

now these are youths raised in britian, not what i would call a backwards tribal community. they are being taught it along side their religion as they grow up. there must be a way to change this. everyone has the right to raise their children but they shouldn't be allowed to preach hate & intolerance.

I want more information about that poll, who they asked and what questions they asked, as well and who conducted the poll. It's quite easy to get a stat like that.

It's a question more of seperating the divine from the secular history recorded in the book. The secular makes concessions to practicality that lose the spirit of the divine laws.

How do you manage to decide what is secular and what is divine history? Being a Christian seems to demand some serious self confidence, not only do you have to first pick a religion and be sure it is the right one, then you have to pick denomination and be sure it is the right one but even then you are not done with choice, you then have to dissect and pick and choose from your holy book what is relevent and what is not and if you make one wrong choice you go straight to hell or at least get barred from heaven or something. I am impressed by your selfconfidence Gnarff, I do not think I would be able to make so many choices where so much hangs on the line as it does when you do have faith. Making the right and correct choice with religion seems as probable as winning on roulette several times in a row.

martaug, it is quite possible to keep tribal values despite living in another society for a generation. Tell me, how would you feel if your sister (if you have one if not imagine it) came home with a flaming bisexual liberal who finds Obama to be a bit too far on the right and also enjoys to dress up in your sisters clothes now and then?

Completely off topic, but Sodom? In Shetlands? :lol: :hahaerr:

Well joacqin, i would have no problem with the flaming bisexual part but the liberal deal we would have to talk about:) & as long as he didn't mess up her dresses no problem, i like a good drag show as much as anyone.
See, unlike a lot of conservatives, i am extremely liberal as far as your sex life goes. As long as it is agreed to by all parties have at it. a bit of roleplay & leather never hurt anyone(well, no more than they wanted it to:jawdrop:)

Honor killings are bad!

I like it when someone can synthesize an entire thread in 4 words and one exclamation mark. Go have a cookie, Joacqin ;)

How do you manage to decide what is secular and what is divine history?

Context is a good indicator. There has also been centuries of commentary in some religions (over 150 years in the case of Mormonism) that can assist us in making these determinations. That is why some things stay forbidden and some things written off as concessions to the living conditions or man's interpretation of the law. Some of the stuff fromt he scribes and pharisees is actually kind of stupid and impractical...

Tell me, how would you feel if your sister (if you have one if not imagine it) came home with a flaming bisexual liberal


Personally, I'd recommend that in the future she sticks to those who are not on fire. Although that would be second- I'd first be rather shocked as I reach for a bucket of water. :p

now these are youths raised in britian, not what i would call a backwards tribal community. they are being taught it along side their religion as they grow up. there must be a way to change this. everyone has the right to raise their children but they shouldn't be allowed to preach hate & intolerance.This still doesn't prove that the cause is religion rather than culture. I can guarantee you that, in Bangladesh, a hell of a lot more than one out of ten people think honor killings are acceptable. One out of ten would likely be the number who think that they aren't. A lot of those youths raised in Britain were raised by parents who weren't raised in Britain, so they didn't exactly get the full cultural experience of the UK.

Of course, if someone preaches something that is against the law, the state can be allowed to intervene imo. Give the Caesar what is caesar's, etc. However, as I said this attitude should not be restricted only towards Islam. If you want to be a ........, you can find more than enough in the Bible - and I'd say the Torah, if it is what the Old Testament was based on - to support your beliefs.