Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe contrary of my statement is that all cultural traits are specific to the religion predominant in that culture. Are you sure that's what you're trying to prove?
lol, i am actually in the process of trying to prove otherwise! and i really do believe that there is much evidence to the contrary.
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleThat's a bit unfair on some of us. I do not believe in any Ultimate Truth, nor is Bosse trying to convert anybody to Islam. Neither are we defending practices which we denounce as brutal, unjust and in violation of basic human rights.
As usually, it seems that the essence of this thread has to do more with the religionism -with the appaling "Ultimate Truth", which it must be spread by any means and it is taken too seriously by them insufferable religionist dolts regardless their religion and their denomination. They love more their religion than the people which they should love.
what Jesus would say over this?
Ahosyney, what the Prophet would say over this?
We are simply defending an incorrect attribution of the cause of such practices to a given religion, Islam in this case.
The fact is that all of them three Abrahamic religions and their "laws" are barbaric, based at the concept "eye for eye and tooth for tooth".
Is this the Ultimate Truth, beetle?
That concept can be found even in the Code of Ur-Nammu, arguably one very important mark for the development of civilization itself. For the time, such a written rule was a major step forward. Abraham was supposed to have lived around the time of Hammurabi, where that concept was still "advanced" for its time and it is not surprising that it found its way into religious texts.
My point is that religious texts cannot be read without a historical perspective. To believe that Abrahamic religions are still anchored around this concept is forgetting that these religions did not stop there and have more recent texts that show a clear evolution away of such brutal reciprocity. This reciprocity evolved from the eye-for-an-eye approach towards the Golden Rule, which is still the ethic expounded by the vast majority of non-fundamentalist believers. They might not always practice what they preach, but is that the fault of the religion itself? It would be disingenuous to claim so.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat is the ratio of female to male priests in your Church? What is the ratio of female to male priests in Great Britain? Can we therefore conclude that there is NO EQUALITY either culturally or religiously in a Christian society?
again giving attestation to the fact that there is NO EQUALITY either culturally or religiously in Islamic society.
And while we are about it what is the ratio of men getting raped to women getting raped in Great Britain?
Originally posted by PalynkaBut, Palynka, for me it 's clear that Bosse de Nage, you and me we are in agreement; and I never said that there is an "ultimate truth" -the ultimate truth is an utopia posed by a "religion". I just said that the three Abrahamic religions are based on the specific concept "eye for an eye", and I did it because there are pure evidence and hard facts -but you are more than welcome to show me I 'm wrong!
That's a bit unfair on some of us. I do not believe in any Ultimate Truth, nor is Bosse trying to convert anybody to Islam. Neither are we defending practices which we denounce as brutal, unjust and in violation of basic human rights.
We are simply defending an incorrect attribution of the cause of such practices to a given religion, Islam in this case. ...[text shortened]... each, but is that the fault of the religion itself? It would be disingenuous to claim so.
As we are responsible for our actions, we are fully responsible for our beliefs too. Yes Pal, I am aware of the evolution of the religions as you stated it; I am also aware of the fact that there used to be religions by far more barbaric than the Abrahamic ones. So what? The fact that the Abrahamic religions were based on previous social doctrines means not that their doctrines themselves are "divine" or acceptable; in fact a "religion" mirrors the energy and the tendencies of the society in which it was created. In addition a "religion" is not devine simply because, along with its specific doctrins, is the invention of the Human -if you disagree, show me I 'm wrong!
You know me well enough so you remember me to claim again and again that the spiritualism of the individual is well accepted, however the religionism of the individual or of the "masses" must be avoided along with the myth of the "ultimate truth". I was only trying to make clear why me in person I cannot accept Sharia, why I am sure that the reaction of the religionist Muslims regarding the Jyllands-Posten issue was wrong, why the murderer of Theo Van Gogh is an isufferable fanatic dolt which by the way he may be respected tomorrow as a "martyr" by specific religionist Islamic fractions.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageMy obnoxious brother,
"Use your common sense."
if I could really use my common sense through common sens I would avoid the religionists of any kind at any cost; for they are totally unable for a decent conversation and for a decent way of living, for ever committed on their razor blade hatred against the so called "sinners" and "infidels" and "unbelievers".
no religion
😵
Originally posted by black beetleWhat is so barbaric about that? Most Justice systems are based roughly along those lines are they not? I think the key evolution nowadays is not so much a change in the equation but a change in reasonable doubt. I think that if someone was guilty of premeditated murder and we were absolutely sure that it was the case many people would support the death penalty as punishment.
The fact is that all of them three Abrahamic religions and their "laws" are barbaric, based at the concept "eye for eye and tooth for tooth".
Many justice systems nowadays recognize two key facts:
1. People are often wrongly convicted, so irreversible punishments are frowned upon. We do not chop a thiefs hand off not because we see it as unjust but because we cannot put it back if the suspect is later found guilty.
2. There is a recognition that although revenge is nice, the main purpose of punishment is really to deter repeat behavior or similar behavior by others.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWe agree in full; surely there must be a punishment for a crime. But in my opinion adultery is not a crime; abortion is not a crime; theft is not a crime that urges us to force the amputation of the hands of the thief; however these are pure crimes for a Muslim religionist. Ok, I have decided long ago that I have to oppose this kind of people.
What is so barbaric about that? Most Justice systems are based roughly along those lines are they not? I think the key evolution nowadays is not so much a change in the equation but a change in reasonable doubt. I think that if someone was guilty of premeditated murder and we were absolutely sure that it was the case many people would support the death pe ...[text shortened]... the main purpose of punishment is really to deter repeat behavior or similar behavior by others.
Sharia is a pathetic system of the past and it has nothing to do with the needs of our society today due to the two reasons you quoted. Yes, the criminals must be punished allright, but I estimate that the system in Netherlands is fine. For example, the murderer of Theo Van Gogh will pass the rest of his life forever separated in jail and he will never have the chance to communicate with nobody. This is enough for me, this is the kind of justice I appreciate.
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleI just said that the three Abrahamic religions are based on the specific concept "eye for an eye", and I did it because there are pure evidence and hard facts -but you are more than welcome to show me I 'm wrong!
But, Palynka, for me it 's clear that Bosse de Nage, you and me we are in agreement; and I never said that there is an "ultimate truth" -the ultimate truth is an utopia posed by a "religion". I just said that the three Abrahamic religions are based on the specific concept "eye for an eye", and I did it because there are pure evidence and hard facts -but respected tomorrow as a "martyr" by specific religionist Islamic fractions.
My point, beetle, was that a foundation stone does not a whole temple make. Like I said, religions did not crystallize around that concept. In Christianity, for example, there is even a quotation attributed to Christ where he directly rejects it. The word "based" is then somewhat misleading, because this is no longer a concept that most believers embrace even if it was indeed a foundation stone for Abrahamic religions.
The fact that the Abrahamic religions were based on previous social doctrines means not that their doctrines themselves are "divine" or acceptable; in fact a "religion" mirrors the energy and the tendencies of the society in which it was created.
Exactly! And hence we come to the question. Which is the chicken and which is the egg? Does the evidence that honour killings preceded Islam not favour an interpretation such as mine? Does the evidence that in such cultures, there are also honour killings committed by non-Muslims also weigh in? This has been my point all along. Blame not Islam for honour killings, blame the people who commit them! Blame those that turn a blind eye, blame those who preach it as if it was ordered by God .
It is not part of Islam, it is not part of religion, it is simple murder out of spite. Those committing it should be shamed for using the name of their own God, not told that their God commands it. Because that's what Robbie is saying when he says honour killings are part of Islam.
Originally posted by black beetleI just said that the three Abrahamic religions are based on the specific concept "eye for an eye", and I did it because there are pure evidence and hard facts -but you are more than welcome to show me I 'm wrong!
But, Palynka, for me it 's clear that Bosse de Nage, you and me we are in agreement; and I never said that there is an "ultimate truth" -the ultimate truth is an utopia posed by a "religion". I just said that the three Abrahamic religions are based on the specific concept "eye for an eye", and I did it because there are pure evidence and hard facts -but ...[text shortened]... respected tomorrow as a "martyr" by specific religionist Islamic fractions.
Yes you are wrong. If you ask any Muslim what are the bases of your religion, the answer will be the there is only one GOD and he is the one who deserve to be worship. Same goes for the religion of Mosses and Jesus (if you assume that they are different, I don't).
The first thing every Muslims learn is that Islam was built over five pillars:
1- To witness that there is no GOD but Allah and that Mohammed is his Massenger.
2- To pray the dialy prayer on time.
3- To pay Zakat on your money for the poor and needy.
4- To fast the month of Ramadan
5- To do pilgrimage once in your life to Mecca
As you can see not of them is what your are talking about!!
In many places in Quran and Hadith Islam was related to many other Moral qualities to be considered as basis of Islam, not of them is that rule!!!..
For example: in hadith it was narrated that the prophet Mohammed said that the Muslim could not be a liar. And lying is a sign of hypocrisy. So it is a basic thing for a Muslim not to lie.
So what is this rule: eye to eye and tooth to tooth. It is part of the law. Not the complete law it is just part of it. And even what you said about this rule in Islam is not complete. This rule was mentioned only once in one verse in Quran (how it could be the basic thing and be mentioned only once):
(Nobel-Translation)(Al-Maidah)(o 45 o)(45. And We ordained therein for them: "Life for life , eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allâh has revealed, such are the Zâlimûn -polytheists and wrongdoers - of a lesser degree-. )
As you can see there are two parts of the law, you only know the first part but you either don't know the second part or simply ignore it:
But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation.
So the law without this part is not complete, and it makes a big difference. Allah argue to remit and forgive because it is a considered as charity.
So as you can see it is not only that this rule is not basic, but it is an optional law. You are not forced to do it.
Not only that, but there is more, read this verse:
(Nobel-Translation)(An-Nisaa)(o 92 o)(92. It is not for a believer to kill a believer except -that it be- by mistake, and whosoever kills a believer by mistake, -it is ordained that- he must set free a believing slave and a compensation -blood money, i.e Diya- be given to the deceased's family, unless they remit it. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you and he was a believer; the freeing of a believing slave -is prescribed-, and if he belonged to a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance, compensation -blood money - Diya- must be paid to his family, and a believing slave must be freed. And whoso finds this -the penance of freeing a slave- beyond his means, he must fast for two consecutive months in order to seek repentance from Allâh. And Allâh is Ever AllKnowing, AllWise.)
From this verse you will see that it is clear that life for life applies only on deliberated killing not mistaken one. And the Islamic law expand this concept for all other sorts for crimes. So eye to eye is only applicable when it is deliberated.
----------------------
To conclude this, you are looking at Islam from a very narrow window. The window that was opened to you to see it a religion of violence. Try to open the window and to see the whole picture, and it will be much difference. Or simply close the window and Ignore it.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat is so barbaric about that?
What is so barbaric about that? Most Justice systems are based roughly along those lines are they not? I think the key evolution nowadays is not so much a change in the equation but a change in reasonable doubt. I think that if someone was guilty of premeditated murder and we were absolutely sure that it was the case many people would support the death pe ...[text shortened]... the main purpose of punishment is really to deter repeat behavior or similar behavior by others.
I started to believe that is it only barbaric when it comes to religion specially Islam!!!
Originally posted by black beetleBut in my opinion adultery is not a crime;
We agree in full; surely there must be a punishment for a crime. But in my opinion adultery is not a crime; abortion is not a crime; theft is not a crime that urges us to force the amputation of the hands of the thief; however these are pure crimes for a Muslim religionist. Ok, I have decided long ago that I have to oppose this kind of people.
Shari ...[text shortened]... nce to communicate with nobody. This is enough for me, this is the kind of justice I appreciate.
Is is it OK for you that your wife sleeps with someone else.
Originally posted by PalynkaThat doesn't mean it should be a crime, now does it? 🙄
That doesn't mean it should be a crime, now does it? 🙄
Now lets suppose that your wife got pregnant from that relation, is it ok for you to have a son or a daughter that is not yours.
Lets say that you discovered that the son/daughter is not yours, will you still care of him/her.
What if you refused to consider him/her as your son/daughter, what will happen to that person. Do you think he will grow up normally.
----
Lets say that your wife captures a STD from that relation and later you got infected and that led to your death, is this ok for you.
----
Originally posted by PalynkaI see what you mean! Unfortunately the fact that Jesus rejects the killing means not that the so called Christians are following his doctrine; people they tend to follow whoever and whatever they are trained to believe, and currently they are really lost in the ...interpretation; the countless Christian denominations is a solid proof that every scholar/ “holy man” is able to establish his own interpretation of the so called “holy scriptures” and thus create his own flock, which then it must be expanded asap and by any means. And when the problem arises, I mean when we hear the hail “we the chosen we ‘ll now fight against them infidels”, you know how it turns out.
[b]I just said that the three Abrahamic religions are based on the specific concept "eye for an eye", and I did it because there are pure evidence and hard facts -but you are more than welcome to show me I 'm wrong!
My point, beetle, was that a foundation stone does not a whole temple make. Like I said, religions did not crystallize around that concep ...[text shortened]... . Because that's what Robbie is saying when he says honour killings are part of Islam.[/b]
Regarding honour killings Pal my bad we agree that they take place everywhere -but it seems that they arise by far more usually when the common sense is dismissed, mostly because of war, rage (against the machine, BdN), hatred, religionism, fanatism and lack of respect for Life. No culture, hatred, constant ethnotic discrimination, violence and blind beliefs, well this is an agent that keeps us down and transforms us into pure savages.
But still the killing remains a primitive and serious part of the Abrahamic religions, which all of them three are purely discriminative for there are always the “chosen” over here and the “infidels” over there and the “chosen” must prevail over the “unbelievers” by any means, or not?
And the uncultured religionists, misguided by leaders like the two imams which they caused all this trouble regarding the Jyllands-Posten issue and like the ones that they infiltrated the hatred in the heart of Van Gogh’s murderer, well these religionists my friend they are the power that keeps the wheel up turning whilst their “spiritual teachers” are the accessories before the fact for all this mess.
Originally posted by ahosyneyIf the pizza arrives 2 hours late, it's not OK for me. But not being OK for me, doesn't mean I think it should be a crime.
[b]That doesn't mean it should be a crime, now does it? 🙄
Now lets suppose that your wife got pregnant from that relation, is it ok for you to have a son or a daughter that is not yours.
Lets say that you discovered that the son/daughter is not yours, will you still care of him/her.
What if you refused to consider him/her as your son/daughter ...[text shortened]... hat relation and later you got infected and that led to your death, is this ok for you.
----[/b]
If you can't satisfy your wife and she wants to have sex with sexier and gentler men, then it's her right. You can divorce her if you don't like it. I'm guessing she wouldn't mind it too much.
If this is not OK for you, then I suggest you go back to the middle ages where you belong. I defend Muslims who are intelligent, tolerant and believe in basic human rights. I don't defend anyone who proposes retrograde laws.