Thread: The Koran is a Hate Filled Holy Book

Originally Posted by Sadanie

Does that make them worse? If the habit of some Muslim women (not all, by the way!) determines what is "good" or "bad" in a religion. . .we wouldn't have much to worry about now, would we?

The fact is that, as more Muslim women are integrated in modern society, the full burka will be replaced by a more subtle cover (as it already is for most women who live day to day in a modern society), not unlike what happened with our Catholic nuns habits.

Have you ever seen nuns in their traditional habit?

Sisters_(Daughters_of_Mary)_Roman_Catholic_Singing .jpg‎ (403 × 297 pixels, file size: 21 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg) From Wikepedia

Which, of course, is something that those women wear by choice. It is not, however, forced on women who don't want to make that decision.

Originally Posted by clarkatticus

look up the 100 years war, the 9+ Crusades, English civil war, Bloody Mary, the Indian riots before the independence, the Islamic conquests of North Africa and S. Spain, manifest destiny, the Holicost, and the ongoing debacle in the Middle East, I could go on forever. The arguement could be made that all of these wars and conflicts can be traced more to politics than religion, which is true. But they were all done in the name of their god, or religion. I am sure there are several other arguements that can do a head count and say, maybe Stalin killed more, or Hitler, or pick a Chinese despot, I still think enough have been killed in the name of god to warrent my statement.

Not accorrding to the numbers.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Which, of course, is something that those women wear by choice. It is not, however, forced on women who don't want to make that decision.

I am certain that SOME Muslim women don't want to wear the full Burka, however, I am just as certain that many Muslim women feel a lot more comfortable in the clothing they have worn all their life than they would be in a mini skirt or even Legjeans!

Face it, we are ALL imposing in some way our standards on society! Why else would there be so many obese women showin a lot more than they wisely should because of peer (or marketing) pressure?

So, yes, there are women who will feel opressed by the obligation of wearing the Burka. . .and there are women who feel opressed and discriminated against by the interdiction to wear the full Burka (look at how the new law to outlaw the full Burka has come across in Belgium!)

Now, when I look at 60 or 70 young women wearing nothing but bikini and high heels and paroding on a stage during "Miss America," I feel just as sorry for them than I do for women who have lived their all life in Burka.

I do not believe that either extreme is healthy or should be the norm.

But, if women having (or choosing) to wear the Burka is a determination that "Islam is evil," it is an awfully long stretch!

Originally Posted by sadanie

i find this whole discussion quite silly!
In my opinion, and although religion may be useful as a guide line and a way to find one's "tribe" and socialize, all religions are man-made, therefore imperfect. I do believe in god, one god, with many images, given to him/her/it by mankind, with the limitations of mankind to even imagine an universal, personal god that is all encompassing.

Every religious writing has been provided by men. . .trying to figure out (with their own limitations of time, place, culture, and lack of understanding of the natural world) who/what they came from, who/what to fear, who/what to love, who/what to obey and follow.

The best proof that all religions are manmade is that all religions are really working against god, by dividing and separating man kind when they insist in "their" flavor of religion being the "only" one who will take the "chosen" to an imaginary place beyond the physical death.

Please, do not misunderstand what i am saying. I do respect everyone's right to have and follow their own religion. But i do not believe that any religion is "better" or "worse" than another. . .all religions are culturally based, and are limited by men's ability to even conceive of a higher power.

So, you can keep on comparing koran and bible and new testament, but all you're doing is comparing manmade dogmas, not god's will or true message.

amen!!

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

The desire to change the subject is strong on the Left. We are talking about now. We are talking about enemies of the US now. We are talking about terrorist acts against the US now. The facts show the enemy is Muslim and The Koran is a Hate Filled Holy Book, which they kill in its name.

"AN eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

Originally Posted by Crela2

"AN eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

Wow! You confuse an act of justice with the emotion of hate.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

The desire to change the subject is strong on the Left. We are talking about now. We are talking about enemies of the US now. We are talking about terrorist acts against the US now. The facts show the enemy is Muslim and The Koran is a Hate Filled Holy Book, which they kill in its name.

No, actually the thread only asked if the Koran is a hate filled book. It is you who went off on a rant about the Islamic danger to America, a somewhat valid point. Again, as I have said before, I do not believe in god, so I do not fear that what I do not believe in. I do have a healthy respect for the Koran thumping morons who are jealous of western success and preach hate and violence as an answer. That being said, I would have the same healthy respect for a bunch of Bible thumping morons with a similar agenda. That is my point.

Originally Posted by clarkatticus

No, actually the thread only asked if the Koran is a hate filled book. It is you who went off on a rant about the Islamic danger to America, a somewhat valid point. Again, as I have said before, I do not believe in god, so I do not fear that what I do not believe in. I do have a healthy respect for the Koran thumping morons who are jealous of western success and preach hate and violence as an answer. That being said, I would have the same healthy respect for a bunch of Bible thumping morons with a similar agenda. That is my point.

No. The thread did not ask a question but made a statement. I merely "went off" on the observable effect, e.g., terrorism.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

No it doesn't and I challenge you to provide proof.

Yes it does.

"Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel." (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

The OT IS part of the christian Bible.

Chronicles 15:12-13 ESV
And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.

Luke 19:27 ESV
But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”

There´s plenty more, just use Google.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Why do you continue to post off topic? The Koran is a single book, supposedly dictated to Mohammed by god. It does not contain any of those books from the Christian or Jewish Bibles. Why can you not discuss the Koran as I requested? The KORAN is the topic of this thread.

Is it that difficult to understand ?

The OP was quite obviously posted with the intent to show the Quran as THE bad book.
So it also points straight to the counterpart, the christian Bible.

It´s a trick question.

Yet you can´t describe day without referring to night.
It would be senseless.
You can´t describe a wound without referring to the uninjured limb.
You can´t describe full without comparing it to empty.

Describing the Quran as a bad book would make no sense if you had not the "good book" in mind.

So citing the bible where it conjoines with the Quran is definitely NOT off topic.

BTW I´ve read the Quran. I also read the hadith.
To be honest, neither makes much sense to me.

But it is not true, that EVERY page contains words of violence.
And where it does, most parts are direct copies of Mosaic law.

Every muslim reads the Quran. I doubt if a single one can make sense of it.
It´s open for interpretation, yet exactly that is denied by all muslims. Anyone can change meanings there to suit the own agenda.
And everyone does.

Most Muslims live to the hadiths.
Now, they describe, from the observation of four different people, how Mohammed peed or crapped.
For true followers of the hadith it might be a little painful to wipe their ass with a stone.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

I am waiting for all you self proclaimed scholars of religion in general and islam in particular to discuss the TOPIC, but no one ever does. When the Koran comes into it you all do a 180 and start discussing the Bible, Christian or Jewish. Since the Koran was written several hundred years after those other two books, they in no way relate to what is in the Koran.

Why can you not just discuss the Koran which in no way whatsoever has anything to do with earlier texts.

I am VERY interested in the TOPIC....the actual topic of the thread.

Emphasis mine.

Oh yes, they do.

Mohammed took a great deal of the AT and OT to construct the Quran.
Whatever else is in that book are only adaptations to suit the customs in his own small realm and time.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

The only reason why you don't know about the differences is because you're not educated on them. There is the matter of up to 1,500 years of seperation between the two. The doctrinal differences beteen the two are also very evident. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that you didn't answer any of my questions on why Christians don't have to sacrifice animals, ect.

As far as the Koran...I'm unaware that the Koran is made up of two different religious texts.

Well, tell us, why is Christ referred to as the slaughtered lamb ?

He kept btw to the jewish rites to celebrate Passover:

MARK 14:12 Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they killed the Passover lamb, his disciples said to him, "Where do you want us to go and prepare, that you may eat the Passover?" 13 And he sent out two of his disciples and said to them, "Go into the city, and a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him. 14 Wherever he goes in, say to the master of the house, 'The Teacher says, "Where is the guest room in which I may eat the Passover with my disciples?"'

Of course you could argue, that Chritianity started after the death of Jesus.
But that would sound kinda dumb.

Originally Posted by darth omar

Hitler agreed. He was miffed because the German people were saddled with a namby-pamby religion like Christianity instead of a more overtly militant one like Islam which was more consonant with his perverse political philosophy.

Undeniably, there is violence in the OT. But in contrast to the Koran, it has an historical context that makes it difficult to apply to today's world. In other words, slaying the Hittites becomes problematic once one realizes that there are none to be found.

But slaying the infidel is an open-ended call to violence against the unbeliever.

The Bible and the Koran are two distinctly different religious texts.

Hitler and Islam ?
What makes you phantasize ?

Hitler had his very own protestant church despite being catholic.

And he tried in vain to get Germans to accept nordic Gods.
For SS and SA Odin and Walhalla were the real thing.