| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:47 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| You have offered not a jot of compelling counter argument or convinced me in any way that you are more informed on the issue. |
Exactly what I was about to say. Thank you. The man attempts to come off as informed and intelligent. Yet all he does is snipe from the sidelines without actually offering any insight or opinion, which makes anything he says irrelevant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| And, bigverne you said that Jihad is central to Islam, ummm....okay I can buy that, as long as you're talking about the non-violent forms of Jihad which are by far its most common expressions, as opposed to the violent form of Jihad which is performed by an obvious minority |
Well, obviously it is the violent form of Jihad that we should be most concerned with. The fact remains that it is a central component of Islam, always has been, and can be utilised by any Muslim for almost any end, as long as it entails fighting infidels.
That is why Zarqawi's death will make little difference. As long as there are Muslims preaching hatred of infidels (and how could they not as such hatred is evident in pages of the Koran and numerous Hadith) such violence will not end. It is up to Muslims to reform their own religion, to repudiate the messages of violence, domination and hatred and to accept peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think that "bigverne's" aggressive approach in dealing with hardcore fanatics is more pragmatic than more passive approaches advocated by others on this forum. However, I don't share his total discrediting of Muhammad as a spiritual leader. His mission (like Jesus but perhaps to an even greater degree...) was to establish worship of one supreme God among a spiritually degraded group of people, and he sometimes engaged them in acts that seem on their face to be unholy.
From a mundane perspective there may appear to be no difference in killings perpetrated by ordinary men and killings carried out by an empowered servant of God for a higher purpose. (Of course, that assertion will set off a slew of knee-jerk reactions in defense of core beliefs...) But, from a spiritual perspective, anyone killed by an empowered representative of God will benefit - and likely attain liberation...
People with no spiritual sense will scream foul and point out that any madman can go on a rampage and claim he's doing it for God and a higher cause. That doesn't preclude the possibility that God sometimes empowers spiritual warriors to use lethal force when necessary to carry out a mission. (Gandhi completely misrepresented that aspect of Bhagavad-gita...)
Although I think that Muhammad was an empowered representative of God (or Allah) and could kill without incuring sinful reactions I think that we should try to efficiently kill any followers of his who are bent on killing us "infidels" - and let God sort it out... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gypsyfish wrote: |
I find it interesting that, on the part of the liberals on this board, there has been more charity and understanding for terrorists than for people who have different political opinions than them.
It cuts both ways, the conservatives on this board can see no good coming from the liberals, either.
(This is similar to the lack of reason seen on FOX news and Air America, ad nauseum.)
It's real easy to pontificate from our ivory towers and make intellectual games of this. It's also easy not to take any of the Dave's ESL 'extremists' seriously for the same reason. |
Just to clarify my position:
For me it's not a conservative vs. liberal thing it's just a Bigverne is a(...hmmm, first thought wouldn't be nice...so...) fucking moron thing. There, that toned it down a bit.
On the larger issue, my take is this: violence is wrong and sadly cannot always be thwarted in non-violent ways. But that is the ideal.
Any program of thinking that stereotypes groups without direct knowledge of the individuals involved is faulty. As the loosely-jointed HT pointed out, the same goes for unsubstantiated political/military events--it takes a lot of time for such things to be corroborated and the process of corroboration is itself often suspect. As for stereotypes, they simply cannot be corroborated. And are therefore useless.
In the end, a lack of compassion dooms any analysis. A lack of compassion is a sign of a weak mind.
Which is both why I always say that I mourn Bigverne's lack of intelligence, and why he suffers the lack.
Which is why you would never see me taking "conservatives" to task.
Which is why you will see me treating Bigverne like the obnoxiously precocious pre-pubescent racist that he is, but lamenting it all the while. It's simply for his own good.
Tough love. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| he sometimes engaged them in acts that seem on their face to be unholy. |
Rape, murder, genocide and assasination do not 'seem' to be unholy, they are morally reprehensible.
| Quote: |
| I think that Muhammad was an empowered representative of God (or Allah) and could kill without incuring sinful reactions |
How convenient for him.
By the way, in the Islamic hierarchy of infidels, you are about as low as it can get. Astonishingly, you defend a religion that treats you with utter comtempt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
Well, obviously it is the violent form of Jihad that we should be most concerned with. The fact remains that it is a central component of Islam, always has been, and can be utilised by any Muslim for almost any end, as long as it entails fighting infidels. |
Again wrong.
| bigverne wrote: |
It is up to Muslims to reform their own religion, to repudiate the messages of violence, domination and hatred and to accept peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims. |
This is correct. First thing thus far in this thread. Are you showing signs of improvement? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Which is why you will see me treating Bigverne like the obnoxiously precocious pre-pubescent racist that he is, but lamenting it all the while. It's simply for his own good. |
Translation: I have no compelling counter arguments and will not provide any rebuttals or refutations because it will reveal my general ignorance about what is being discussed.
Instead I will stick to pseudo-intellectual platitudes and childish insults. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
Astonishingly, you defend a religion that treats you with utter comtempt. |
Also wrong. (Not focused on the spelling.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
Translation: I have no compelling counter arguments and will not provide any rebuttals or refutations because it will reveal my general ignorance about what is being discussed.
Instead I will stick to pseudo-intellectual platitudes and childish insults. |
Again wrong. You weren't learning, were you?
As I have said in many a thread before: show me one convincing argument for something that I take exception to, and I will engage you. Thus far: racist rhetoric--poorly conceived and poorly expressed.
Try again. Harder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, you got me there. Can't argue with that kind of insight and argument.
This is getting really boring. Hindus (and other polytheists) are not even 'People of the Book' who are given dhimmi status.
Anyway, this is the last time I will reply to your one line rebuttals. You are a waste of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
This is getting really boring. Hindus (and other polytheists) are not even 'People of the Book' who are given dhimmi status.
|
OK. You have mentioned one piece of history here, so I will address it:
Did Hindus receive dhimmi status under Mughali Padishah, or not?
Did Hindus receive dhimmi status in Malaysian and Indonesian Khalifates, or not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wikipedia to the rescue!!
I'm going out.
Tschuss.
Last edited by flotsam on Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:46 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
The reason that they did receive dhimmi status (which is morally abhorrent anyway) was due to circumstances of political expediency. If you massacre an entire population you are not able to extract tax from them, so simply because certain Muslim rulers chose (for economic and political reasons) to 'bend the rules' does not mean that Islam does not consider 'polytheists' to be the lowest of the low.
But at least you recognise that dhimmitude is a part of Islam, which still continues to this day (to a greater or lesser extent) in a number of Islamic countries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
The reason that they did receive dhimmi status (which is morally abhorrent anyway) was due to circumstances of political expediency. If you massacre an entire population you are not able to extract tax from them, so simply because certain Muslim rulers chose (for economic and political reasons) to 'bend the rules' does not mean that Islam does not consider 'polytheists' to be the lowest of the low.
But at least you recognise that dhimmitude is a part of Islam, which still continues to this day (to a greater or lesser extent) in a number of Islamic countries. |
Different forms of which take place in most countries--but that's neither here nor there.
So you are admitting there is complexity to the issue and you can't make sweeping statements about Islam without sounding an ass? That's a start.
Homework: Why was early Persian-Sasanid conversion actually frowned upon and discouraged? And why is conversion still discouraged to this day by these rulers who did and do things for political and economic reasons?
Wait. Did you say that? Muslim leaders acting for reasons other than religion? Like almost every ruler in every land with religious affiliation(or without it) throughout history? Like that, you mean?
My word, keep at it BG, you fight you better than anyone I know.
Now really, til the morrow. Be off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Different forms of which take place in most countries--but that's neither here nor there. |
Different forms of what take place in which countries? Again, you do not bother to explain or elaborate. It sounds a lot like moral equivalence to me.
| Quote: |
| Muslim leaders acting for reasons other than religion? Like almost every ruler in every land with religious affiliation(or without it) throughout history? |
But I never said anything about how Muslim leaders have behaved. I was making a point about how Islam views polytheists. The fact that some Muslim leaders at certain points in history have not applied certain aspects of Islam does not mean those aspects do not exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
