Paris

I enjoy art and entertainment, play cards, chess and other board games, and listen to music.
The point I was trying to get across is *most* Muslims do... but the people who carried out these attacks don't.

All that in the middle of Makkah, the center of Islam, openly, and no one criminalizes me. Those could be controversial, just like drinking and taking drugs are around the world, but not considered crimes.
That's where the clash is though right?... to the "west" playing chess or listening to music is freely encouraged, in fact it's something that we actively would teach and push onto our kids toward... whereas drinking, well, it's the sort of thing that you tell your kids they need to be responsible with, and drugs, we spent thousands telling kids that they shouldn't take drugs, and enforcing a law against drugs...

Playing music/board games are not at all controversial... and that's why I don't agree that there can be dialog with the extreme people who take the most literal interpretations and then kill people.

(to a western mind you can't understand how someone could possibly look upon playing chess in the same way as taking drugs, even soft drugs.)

Though I understand how you're saying that it's not *meant* to happen but *may* happen, and for most is widely tolerated.


but you brings up a second point...

And this is the thing really, I don't agree with what most "western" politicians are saying that "this is a 'Muslim' problem" and that all Muslims somehow *must* denounce this...

Because it's not a "Muslim problem" it's a problem for Muslims, in the same way as it's a problem for anyone else. because the way of life that this particular cult want is really nothing at all like how most people either inside or outside of Islam want to live their lives.

and that's kind of the point here, when you consider the attacks in Paris, on a football game, a music concert and at people eating in restaurants...

Well many Muslims enjoy playing and watching football, many Muslims enjoy listening to music, and the last time I checked, many Muslims eat. and given the amount of restaurants that offer Halal foods, I gather a lot of Muslims enjoy eating in a restaurant, and don't consider said (family) restaurants as centers of prostitution!

So no, not every Muslim in the world has to immediately come out shouting about how much they hate those guys, and want them dead, or apologizing for a group that not only has nothing to do with them, but that would actually also kill each and every other Muslim in the world because clearly to enjoy playing board games or listening to music etc is against their twisted interpretation and so that must make you a bad Muslim, who has turned away from the word of God...
(also I didn't notice the pope apologizing for those family planning clinic shootings)

Believe me, it's a misconception. But I understand any misconception about Muslims. I'm Muslim and understand what the crazies in my belief are doing. I want it to stop. They gave us a very bad image that I and the vast majority of us suffer because of it and their extremism. Please know that I do not approve of what those low lives are doing.

I don't judge all Muslim people by the actions of a few!
 
First off; Re: This thread: Tl;dr

I'd like to know WTH the US is doing and I'm an American.

To this; Causing more problems.

In my time in Iraq, I'm not sure I remember a single positive thing we did. Sorry, I know everyone here wants to believe we're over there feeding kids and ****, but that's simply not true. When you send teenagers to fight wars, they do stupid **** and cause international issues... not solve them. So then what? We'll just drop some drone bombs.

We're just making things worse.
 
The Koran, in it's raw text, is not any more or less violent than the old testament

No... It is not, there is a whole load of "smiting" in the bible, a bunch of killing, and a whole load of really (in modern terms) quite horrible stuff about how slavery is OK (provided you only keep slaves from out of town), about how women are property, I think that there is no specific guidance as to the age it's appropriate to start sleeping with women. (there is a website somewhere that compares the similarities asking you to guess whether verses came from the Koran or Bible.

And indeed along with all the harsh words that god had to say in the Koran there is specific guidance as to when you should sleep with a woman in Muslim texts (as in what age is appropriate)... but you have to ask why?

i would expect that if people need to be told that they have to wait for a young girl to develop before they have sex with her, it's because that was not the custom at the time (to wait)! - so all these Christians who are saying "dude was a peado" have to think... by today standards (which have evolved) yes (well... maybe, there is nothing in the book that says Mohammed actually slept with his 9 year old wife)... but standards were much different back then, and second there must have been a whole lot of child raping going on in the "predominantly Christian lands" for there to have needed to be specific restrictions put in place!

Pretty much everything that "we" (western folks) say oh I can't believe it says that, was most likely a vast improvement in the standards of life at the time.

(think about it, lets pretend that I'm the leader of a new religion, today, it doesn't matter how popular 'my' religion is, or how much of a truth that i may speak, if I walk into a primary school to choose a wive, I'm not going to have many followers the next day -I certainly won't be founding the next major religion... -this must have been socially acceptable at the time.


(anyway... old testament times = bad, new testament times, = a bit better for some)

it's not the difference between the texts that are the issue though, so much as the way in which they are presented.

The bible is presented as the words of god transcribed by man, as a fluid text, because the bible and religion is framed in a context of evolving, whilst is is an unchanging law, it's also not an unchanging law, there is a dogmatic element, (Christians believe that Jesus spoke the word of God, was the son of God, and those things *must* be true because they are written in the bible.) but at the same time.
Even though Jesus says that the Hebrew scriptures (that we call the old testament) are true, there are contradictions in other things that he write, (so God goes from vengeful to loving) Additionally, given that the church has adopted many books, up to and including over a millennium after Jesus dies... it's safe to say that "the written interpretation of the word of God" can change... the bible in a lot of places doesn't say anything, meaning there are some quite key things in life where you may need to know how to behave, and you can infer "how to be a good christian" but you can't just go and loo kit up.

The Koran on the other hand, says a lot. arguably it is more strict,(because it says a lot more past a key message or look after each other) (though possibly with good reason), there is a lot of detail about what can and cannot be done. and it is very dogmatic, there is no evolution of the Koran, past the immediate times of Mohammed, and because it says a lot more, and is a lot more specific about a lot more things, there is a lot less "wiggle" room to justify things. there are no "what would Mohammed do" memes because to visually represent Mohammed would be bad, and you don't need to ask as it's right there is black and white! (not exhaustively obviously)
 
The point I was trying to get across is *most* Muslims do... but the people who carried out these attacks don't.
......... (please refer to the original post for the removed part)
I don't judge all Muslim people by the actions of a few!

Understood. Thank you for the clarification.
 
I think I saw a thing, a youtube thing - where white christian people were read verses and told they were from the Koran, and they acted all disgusted - until the presenter revealed they were all from Leviticus and Deuteronomy

I found this quite amusing, but I totally agree that the bible is much more brief and open to interpretation than the Koran is.

I don't think either book is necessarily a problem in it's self, people take from it what they will. If anything, it's the personality cults that form around certain religious leaders. Fred Phelps is a good example of how the Bible can be used to justify hatred, and obviously ISIS are an example of how Islam in a loose sense can be contorted to support violence.

If you adhere too strictly to somebody else's interpretation of your religion, you are probably being mislead in some way, I believe anyway.
 
I'd still say that the Bible and the Koran are work of fiction. Would a true mighty being advocate violence against people? Just like we have different races we have different religions.

We all originated from a man and a woman, if that's true but which came first, a chicken or an egg?
 
Back
Top Bottom