dagenham wrote:Stroppy...reread your post..Mate...

You come across to anyone as arrogant, defensive and aggressive. And now a liar. In your latest post you outright deny coming across as "evangelical" - are you taking the piss here?

CoC, by its own definition is fundamentally evangelical...and, moreover, you listed as God's 11th Commandment to "spread the word (i.e. convert)" - which was highly suspect since there are only 10. Got some more for us - straight from God?

As a totally blind believer, you really are in major denial. Wake up...Brutha!

Dages, mate! Good to see you back, is your sabbatical over then? You need to get back into practice, your misquoting and fabrication are not up to your level of BS - could you try a little harder please?

Hey let's keep this civil boys!

I do not have any other profiles on this forum. I am not a member of 440 either.

thepeck, just clicked only on the link you have to the islamqna website. Did you bother to read the page bro?

on rape, this is the second paragraph
"This is an abhorrent crime that is forbidden in all religions and in the minds of all wise people and those who are possessed of sound human nature. All earthly systems and laws regard this action as abhorrent and impose the strictest penalties on it, except a few states which waive the punishment if the rapist marries his victim! This is indicative of a distorted mind let alone a lack of religious commitment on the part of those who challenge Allaah in making laws. We do not know of any love or compassion that could exist between the aggressor and his victim, especially since the pain of rape cannot be erased with the passage of time – as it is said. Hence many victims of rape have attempted to commit suicide and many of them have succeeded, The failure of these marriages is proven and they are accompanied by nothing but humiliation and suffering for the woman."

I did just a scan skim of the page and saw nothing saying rape was allowed or legal in any form.

Mr. Stroppy Chops, I appreciate your thought out response, but bro, what on earth, just what Qu'ran are you actually referencing??

I have one right in front of me on my lap, it is the only real wreckognized english translation. It is the King Abdul Aziz version, translated and authorized from Saudi Arabia. I just started referencing your references and bro, the language is completely different. I mean 100% different.

Here is Surah 4 ayat 3, as your referenced 4.3

"And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan-girls, then marry (other) women of your choice, two or three, or four: but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or (the slaves) that your right hands possess. That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice."

As I understand this is about a man having four wives. If you can, treat them all equally, financially, and emotionally, then you are free to do so. If not, better you don't. Yes there is talk about slaves, cuz this was 1400 years ago and would obviously not apply to today. There is also a lot of talk in the Qu'ran about how you treat slaves justly, and how setting them free garners a great reward.

I started clicking on some of your bbc links and well, like I said, going to that media that slanders Islam, well, not going to get a true picture right?

That one about the fire and the girls, yes that is insane, the majority of those special police in KSA are Shia's, and they are bat sh*t crazy. But, hey, just read recently about a man in the good ole USA who was shot or beaten by police as he tried to go into his burning home to save his family. So, referencing one crazy story in the KSA, I can reference thousands of said insane stories coming out of the states.

If someone invaded your country and killed your family, would you not also become something of a Jihadist? By the way, the word Jihad only means struggle. Does not mean holy war.

I would like people to think more about what I said about just how is it possible that after 1400 years we have the Qu'ran that has not changed a single word and was passed down in such a way. I mean the original Arabic, the English versions as I have seen, some vary wildly.

Just how many versions are there of the Bible? And how many of them are in their original language? The bible wasn't written in English ya'll.

How many people have the king james version memorized word for word? There are many yes, but how many people have the entire Qu'ran memorized word for word? Millions. Including children. I know a six year old boy who can do so.

I won't go through thePeck and Senor Stroppy Chops posts line by line and quote them and refute them. For one, I don't know how to use that quote function properly, and two, I just can't be bothered to do so. Also, we could do this day in and day out for years. Pointless.

I made my original post just to put out a different point of view that some or many of you may have NEVER heard before. If that makes just one person think a little bit differently about Islam, well, that is all I wanted to achieve.

StroppyChops wrote:

dagenham wrote:Stroppy...reread your post..Mate...

You come across to anyone as arrogant, defensive and aggressive. And now a liar. In your latest post you outright deny coming across as "evangelical" - are you taking the piss here?

CoC, by its own definition is fundamentally evangelical...and, moreover, you listed as God's 11th Commandment to "spread the word (i.e. convert)" - which was highly suspect since there are only 10. Got some more for us - straight from God?

As a totally blind believer, you really are in major denial. Wake up...Brutha!

Dages, mate! Good to see you back, is your sabbatical over then? You need to get back into practice, your misquoting and fabrication are not up to your level of BS - could you try a little harder please?

I quoted you exactly and there was not one fabrication. Nice attempted parry but weak, Brother. Here are specific points in my previous post that you deny or call fabrications:

A) CoC is not evangelical? Right or Wrong? (Careful - I have quotes ready about their own-stated primary "Missionary" conversion purpose from the church's own website)

B) As a CofC member you can "opt out" on your role as an evangelical and forget about converting the sordid non-believers around you? A kinda "cut-and-paste" approach to your belief system, eh?

C) You claimed that Jesus told you personally that there were 2 nifty bonus Commandments (not in the bible currently)? Right or Wrong? (Careful - I have your exact posts ready)

You're actually a "straw man" and a flacid rep for your cult - up your game...

Generalisations are not bad statements to make. There are sometimes catalysts for further and deeper debate. It is not about scoring points, it is about learning, changing mind sets not winning or loosing. The problem, some folk have with generalisations, is simply they can not pick petty holes in them, just in the generalisation itself.

The bible ( and other religious books) are themselves very general, it is when individuals take a small extract and build a whole splinter religion (cult) around it that the real problems begin. The whole 'I am right' 'You are wrong' mentality, is just simply missing the point and the façades some erect to try to disguise their true motive, are about as convincing as a pantomime horse.

The only reason they are not challenged, is simply down to apathy on the part of the other posters.

dontbelievethehype wrote:I do not have any other profiles on this forum. I am not a member of 440 either.

Hi DBTH (may I call you that? Good posters tends to get acronymed around here) - thanks for your rational response.

Mr. Stroppy Chops, I appreciate your thought out response, but bro, what on earth, just what Qu'ran are you actually referencing?? I have one right in front of me on my lap, it is the only real wreckognized english translation. It is the King Abdul Aziz version, translated and authorized from Saudi Arabia. I just started referencing your references and bro, the language is completely different. I mean 100% different.

I would like people to think more about what I said about just how is it possible that after 1400 years we have the Qu'ran that has not changed a single word and was passed down in such a way. I mean the original Arabic, the English versions as I have seen, some vary wildly.

I changed your paragraph order here for clarity of response, I hope you'll agree that in doing so I haven't changed your meaning.

We both know that's not quite right. Do you want to discuss the seven major "Readers" (let's not consider the lesser ones for the sake of brevity) such as Nafi or Ibn Amir, or should we also discuss the many "Transmitters" such as Hafs or Ishaq? Many versions, all with unique modifications that identify them.

Just how many versions are there of the Bible? And how many of them are in their original language? The bible wasn't written in English ya'll.

There are many versions and translations of the Bible, just as there are for the Qu'ran (which also was not written in English). The different translations are for different language groups (as are the Qu'ran translations) and the different versions are as a result of evolving language and contextualisation (same). You yourself make reference to varying translations and versions of the Qu'ran.

How many people have the king james version memorized word for word? There are many yes, but how many people have the entire Qu'ran memorized word for word? Millions. Including children. I know a six year old boy who can do so.

I certainly haven't memorised it completely, I must admit. I'd like to but I don't seem to have the capacity or discipline for that volume of rote memorisation. A question out of genuine curiosity, have you memorised the Qu'ran?

I am always incredibly impressed by any religious scholar that can memorise their text. I believe there is a sect of Chinese Christians that did this as children when the Bible was outlawed in China, and they still have word perfect recall as adults, including the punctuation - that's astounding.

Here is Surah 4 ayat 3, as your referenced 4.3

"And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan-girls, then marry (other) women of your choice, two or three, or four: but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or (the slaves) that your right hands possess. That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice."

As I understand this is about a man having four wives. If you can, treat them all equally, financially, and emotionally, then you are free to do so. If not, better you don't. Yes there is talk about slaves, cuz this was 1400 years ago and would obviously not apply to today. There is also a lot of talk in the Qu'ran about how you treat slaves justly, and how setting them free garners a great reward.

I believe there's a lot of debate among Islamic scholars about this passage - depending on whether those scholars advocate that only the Qu'ran is the inspired word of Allah, or whether other religious texts should be considered authoritative as well. Some argue that the scripture discusses the 'just' treatment of orphan girls in your care (slave girls of old, possibly orphan girls within your extended family in this age) - that if you do not feel you can be 'just' - i.e. not take advantage of unlawfully or without consent - you may take up to four wives to pleasure yourself with so as to not violate the girl. I believe Islam teaches that Muslim men are significantly more sexually potent than other men, hence the need for greater outlet.

Other scholars contend that this passage 'makes halal' girls/women in any form if bondage.

I started clicking on some of your bbc links and well, like I said, going to that media that slanders Islam, well, not going to get a true picture right?

That one about the fire and the girls, yes that is insane, the majority of those special police in KSA are Shia's, and they are bat sh*t crazy. But, hey, just read recently about a man in the good ole USA who was shot or beaten by police as he tried to go into his burning home to save his family. So, referencing one crazy story in the KSA, I can reference thousands of said insane stories coming out of the states.

Yes, there is insanity in the fringes (fundamentalists?) of any religion, and I personally have seen some pretty inhuman acts in the name of Christ.

Another genuine question: Is it your point that any media that portrays Islam in a bad light is just wrong? Personally I think the media coverage of child abuse by the Catholic church is sadly lacking - largely because of the influence of the Catholic church on the media.

If someone invaded your country and killed your family, would you not also become something of a Jihadist? By the way, the word Jihad only means struggle. Does not mean holy war.

Probably. I'm aware if the meaning if jihad, but your comment didn't address mine - that's okay, there's no requirement that you should do so.

I won't go through thePeck and Senor Stroppy Chops posts line by line and quote them and refute them. For one, I don't know how to use that quote function properly, and two, I just can't be bothered to do so. Also, we could do this day in and day out for years. Pointless.

Someone else commented elsewhere that atheists and believers of any religion arguing is an absolute waste of time as one is never going to change the mind of the other. In that respect this dialogue might be pointless, but I respect and appreciate your response here, that you've heard my point of view (which is clearly different to yours) without getting personal, and that we can amicably discuss our differences. Thank you for that. I do apologise for any argumentative tone in my original response.

I made my original post just to put out a different point of view that some or many of you may have NEVER heard before. If that makes just one person think a little bit differently about Islam, well, that is all I wanted to achieve.

Well done to you, sir.

dagenham wrote:

StroppyChops wrote:

dagenham wrote:Stroppy...reread your post..Mate...

You come across to anyone as arrogant, defensive and aggressive. And now a liar. In your latest post you outright deny coming across as "evangelical" - are you taking the piss here?

CoC, by its own definition is fundamentally evangelical...and, moreover, you listed as God's 11th Commandment to "spread the word (i.e. convert)" - which was highly suspect since there are only 10. Got some more for us - straight from God?

As a totally blind believer, you really are in major denial. Wake up...Brutha!

Dages, mate! Good to see you back, is your sabbatical over then? You need to get back into practice, your misquoting and fabrication are not up to your level of BS - could you try a little harder please?

I quoted you exactly and there was not one fabrication. Nice attempted parry but weak, Brother. Here are specific points in my previous post that you deny or call fabrications:

A) CoC is not evangelical? Right or Wrong? (Careful - I have quotes ready about their own-stated primary "Missionary" conversion purpose from the church's own website)

B) As a CofC member you can "opt out" on your role as an evangelical and forget about converting the sordid non-believers around you? A kinda "cut-and-paste" approach to your belief system, eh?

C) You claimed that Jesus told you personally that there were 2 nifty bonus Commandments (not in the bible currently)? Right or Wrong? (Careful - I have your exact posts ready)

You're actually a "straw man" and a flacid rep for your cult - up your game...

Dage's, responding to your verbal diarrhea is a fun way to waste time, but before we go on with your BS, quote me (in full context, you deceitful old bastard!) as ever saying I'm a Church of Christ member... or just go back to your beer.

You made assumptions that you never clarified, and ran with them. Oh, and wipe your chin, you've dribbled something unpleasant.

dagenham wrote:Seriously, Rain...wasted typing, my friend. Think about it.

SC is a militant missionary (albeit in clever "Gomer Pyle - As Shucks!" disguise) representing a cult whose sole purpose on earth is to convert non-believers from going to certain Hell.

Reasoned discussion with this foot soldier for Christ aint going to happen.

Ever.

Because for every argument you have comes Stroppy's standard: "The bible says..." or "Jesus told me...", et al...

Missionaries? Tar and feather and then deport I say...

What do you do here in Cambodia? Do you mind me asking?

StroppyChops wrote:Wow. This post, your PM, and the decrease in karma really surprise me, RD. Clearly this is something very personal to you for you to suddenly get so personal, but after reading back through my post I stand by it. Frankly I reckon your response is out of context and proportion, but that's what happens when religion (any religion) is discussed.

The question I asked the OP regarding another username has been asked of other first-time posters that make an impassioned or political first post. What is is that you're so offended at - that I would ask this of a Muslim?

I had no idea that you are the sole poster of positive comments about Islam, so I absolutely refute your comment that my post was aimed at you.

'Common knowledge' is any academic's way of suggesting, tongue in cheek, that the original poster (thePeck, in this case) should possibly have backed up a sweeping generalisation in some way - thePeck clearly understood this and responded in kind. You, however, went angry shouty.

I am genuinely offended that you so readily label me as a bigot/religious hater/evangelical whatever, based on my post in this thread or any of dagenham's misquotes and outright fabrications. You disagree with my post - that's fine, but debasing yourself to name calling shows your passion for the subject, not your rational response to my comments. "Hate speech" is a very big claim, it's right up there, and you're way over the line. I am very surprised that you, personally, would jump there so lightly.

What you know about my knowledge of the Qu'ran is nada. It would be arrogant for me to make declarative statements about your knowledge of the Bible, or any other text, and your comments here are highly arrogant.

I'm also curious to know in what part of my post, apart from the scrolls comment, I made ANY reference to Christianity as being greater than Islam.

This has obviously meant enough for you to decrease my karma, although as a courtesy I won't post your PM comments here - if that truly gave you any sense if satisfaction/retribution, decrease it again tomorrow, and the next day, until it's gone. Personally I only ever increase the karma of other posters, but you go ahead.

Stroppy, Yes it in many ways it is quite personal to me. I was once engaged to an Indonesian Muslim woman who was very progressive, modern, no head covering, highly educated and successful etc. This relationship began prior to 911 and indeed I could probably write a book (In fact I had considered it) about an American and a Muslim trying to navigate a relationship in the post 911 world. In fact we traveled together several times in the USA and I was able to learn vicariously through her what racism, religious bigotry and fear mongering is all about. The relationship failed in part due to these stresses as well as other reasons but my experience learning from and spending time with actual Muslims left a profound impact on me, and helped shape my worldview even though I follow no organized religion.

So when I see a "hater" making ignorant statements, I am Prone to react. Unfortunately there is so much hate when it comes to "Christians" and Jews hating Muslims that most of the time I need to just tune it out. Unfortunately in your case I could not let it go because:

A) You seem to be trying to set yourself as an opinion leader on this forum (it is not clear to me if you are a mod or not.)

B) You preach "Brother", "Love thy neighbor", and "Just here to help" yet you make a hateful post like that --- generalizing about a faith followed by almost 1.5 billion people and promoting the usual negative stereotypes used by various hate groups and Anti-Muslim media personalities.

Your ENTIRE reference to the Qur'an, Islamic Teachings, and various events in the world of 1.5 billion Muslims was negative (not to mention inaccurate and typical of efforts at hate propaganda). I will even quote you :

"Still no link between Islam and rape?"

" I believe Islam teaches that Muslim men are significantly more sexually potent than other men, hence the need for greater outlet."

"Other scholars contend that this passage 'makes halal' girls/women in any form if bondage."

WTF?

If you don't like being called a religious bigot don't post like one. Dagenham's posts had no influence in my response to you. It was totally in response to YOUR WORDS in YOUR POST. In hindsight though I may actually owe Dagenham an apology as I was one of those who originally got on him and told him he should cut you some slack.

As to your "knowledge" of Islam -- what I know is what you have posted -- a copy/paste from a source that is obviously extremely hostile to Muslims and then spamming with a bunch of media citations bashing various events in the Muslim world. In short you have demonstrated no contextual knowledge or inner knowledge on the topic at all.

If your panties are up in a bundle because I deducted karma points from you (the first time I had ever done so or anyone), big deal. As far as I understand it, the karma function is a tool to give feedback on posts you particularly appreciate or for those you think are particularly ugly. I have given you positive karma in the past for posts I liked --- and this time I found your post linking Islam to rape disgusting and gave you negative karma for that post. Personally I like the karma function because I tend to type long thoughtful posts and it is great to get feedback on them or to even know someone has read them. I could care less about the points (unless I can redeem them for free beer or something) so if you are really so obsessed about that aspect go ask admin to transfer my points to you --- you will not have earned them, but if it makes you happy ...

And if you are angry at my reaction, I believe Christians often use the adage "try walking in my shoes".

dagenham wrote:Seriously, Rain...wasted typing, my friend. Think about it.

SC is a militant missionary (albeit in clever "Gomer Pyle - As Shucks!" disguise) representing a cult whose sole purpose on earth is to convert non-believers from going to certain Hell.

Reasoned discussion with this foot soldier for Christ aint going to happen.

Ever.

Because for every argument you have comes Stroppy's standard: "The bible says..." or "Jesus told me...", et al...

Missionaries? Tar and feather and then deport I say...

Yea -- we will see -- I might actually owe you an apology for getting on your case about calling him out so aggressively.

It's getting bad when vladimir has to tell people that this thread is stupid and going nowhere.

However, I will not deny it may be amusing to some people.