-
This debate took place on Channel 4
July 2008
"THE QURAN VIOLENCE DEBATE"
The TV Show - Web Producer:
Last week, Channel 4 broadcast The Qur’an - a two-hour film that explored the history of the Islamic holy text and looked at how it is interpreted by Muslims and non-Muslims around the world.
Not surprisingly, the channel has received a great deal of viewer feedback on the film – not only though Viewer Enquiries, but also on our forums, which have hosted some extremely interesting debates in recent days.
Did you watch The Qur'an? What did you think?
balaclava9 said:
I am an agnostic; I believe that all religious fundamentalism is bad.
I watched the first programme ‘It shouldn’t Happen to a Muslim’ which appeared to start with the view that Muslims are (wrongly) getting a bad time and steered the programme and players towards that conclusion. The presenter failed to ask Muslims the hard questions and failed to develop issues raised by anyone criticising Muslims. I found the second programme ‘The Qur’an’ balanced and most informative. It answered a lot of my questions and has caused me to research deeper into those question revealing some illuminating answers.
I would like to see a probing and ‘no holds barred’ investigation into the ludicrously obvious truth that the Qur’an is the words of men and not God. I would like answers to the questions like those listed below:
1. Why would God choose to deliver his message verbally to an illiterate man and over a period of 23 years, particularly as the same God wisely decided to deliver his original message in writing when he gave Moses his Commandments?
2. Why did God, after delivering unambiguous and unequivocal commandments to Moses feel the need to deliver a different message (or at best the same message in a different way) to Mohammed?
3. Why did God need 23 years to deliver his message, was it because (as it seems) that he kept changing or amending the message he’d delivered the year(s) before?
4. How do Muslims reconcile the fact that, although God kept changing the message he delivered to Mohammed, they have no way of knowing which message came first and which was God’s decided final version.
5. Why has wearing the veil and sporting long beards suddenly (over the past 10 years) become de rigeur for British Muslims?
6. Why is it that the Muslim world has failed to contribute anything of significance in the world (other than big Mosques and suicide bombers) for almost 700 years.
7. Why (despite massive oil wealth) us the Muslim world less well advanced than the western world and the Muslim man ion the street poorer than his western counterpart?
‘IS THE QUR’AN THE ACTUAL WORDS OF GOD DICTATED TO MOHAMMED AND ACCURATELY RECORDED BY HIS FOLLOWERS?’
Every other debate I have seen on TV is a trawl through the detail of verses of the Qur’an producing verses which suggest that Islam is a tolerant peaceful religion and an interviewer who is too frightened to point out the many hateful and contradictory verses.
Omrow said:
Most western scholars say Quran as exists today is the same text as that left by Prophet Mohammed.
Muslims believe that Quran is word of God which he revealed to Mohammed through Arcangel Gabriel.
Quran was revealed bit by bit; and took over 20 years to complete. It is same size as the Christian New Testament.
Last verse of the Quran was given to Prophet Mohammed by Gabriel in March 632 A.D.
He died 3 months later.
Today his grave in Medina is the second holiest site to Muslims. First holiest place is the Sacred Mosque in Mecca containing "The Kaabaa" - The "House of God" built by Prophet Abraham and his son Ishmael.
nitpicker said:
The Quran was officially collated in about 656 under the third Caliph (similar to a Pope) Uthman. This was to unify the tribes and stop the fighting between students and teachers. And to concentrate all forces on other ambitions.
After the compilation all fragments and miscellaneous tracts and documents were ordered to be burned or destroyed. The Quran is a comparatively new book; and its’ followers for some reason, or lack of, regard much older holy works as being corrupt.
Other Biblical holy scriptures are said to be corrupt due to altering and editing. …. Just how can that be said after the editing and burning of 656CE?
At least a lot of the pre Christian early evidence is still around, and being discovered still, for debate.
The last time books were ordered to be burnt is was during the nazi regime.
Omrow said:
This is simply not what muslims believe.
Prophet Muhammad left the Quran as given by Angel Gabriel.
mintbox said:
I've never met such a bigger bunch of idiots in my whole life! How do you convince someone to believe something when there hell-bent on proving it wrong, no matter how much evidence is brought forward there is always gonna be morons who like to disagree because they hate the fact that there wrong. They will never accept being wrong but continue talking nonsense just for the sake of it, and the qur'an doesn't recommend kaffar (non muslim) bashing, but does say defend yourselves. By getting a harmless quote from the Qur'an and turning it into to something malicious is not an intellegent thing to do. I'd be the first to admit that islam does have it's faults NOT THE RELIGION but one or two idiots who got it wrong, doesn't mean blame the whole muslim population for it!. But i know that the killing of innocent muslims won't stop, well let me inform you that islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, more and more people are converting to islam, so the more you insult us the bigger and better we get, so please continue. Before i go i ask you to ask yourselves just one question, have you ever considered the notion that muslims might be right?, i mean just consider it, what if, just WHAT IF muslims got it right?, where will your intellgence and long words get you when your face to face with god?, knowing that you insulted him, his prophet, and his religion, can you imagine what god's gonna do to you? boy, i feel sorry for you... actually come to think of it no i don't!, you were warned. And as for the good non muslims i will pray that god shows you mercy, and guides you to the right path.
balaclava9 said:
You speak of harmless quotes from the Koran. I’d be grateful if you would explain the peaceful tolerant aspects of the below verses?
Sura 9:5 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful
Sura 5:51 O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
mintbox said:
balaclava, sura 9:5 i guess you haven't read the whole sura, this refers to the battle field, and how to conduct war, in islam there certain times when we are allowed to fight or not, for example the month of ramadan, this just refers to that "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans". Are you showing me this quote because it says fight and defend yourselves? what else do you expect muslims to do on the battle field, not fight? i find there to be nothing wrong with this quote.
as for the second quote, i admit i have no answer for not because there isn't one but its because i have not researched into it, but there is an answer i assure you. Islam is not a religion of hatred but of peace. The prophet muhammed (pbuh) stopped a battle because there were animals grazing! all you've done is got a quote from the Qur'an and made it out to be bad, but you can't be blamed because even muslims interpret quotes from the qur'an wrongly.
balaclava in the quote you gave there is written "but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful" this just proves that islam is a religion of peace even forgiving those who try to kill them.
balaclava9 said:
AT the risk of being labled an 'extremist' I'd be grateful for you views on the below verse from the Qur'an which suggests that a man can beat a disobedient wife. From what I have read, Muslims agree that he can beat her but only 'lightly'!!!
Omrow said:
There is no tapping mentioned in muslim holy book.
Qoran clearly says if your wife is getting out of line, then teach her a lesson with your hands.
Muslims are allowed to beat their unruly women.
Normally women get a slap across the face. Some muslims say they have to use a proper beating to bring a bad woman to her senses.
It is no point trying to hide these facts.
Truth is the truth. Live with it.
also,
Domestic violence in Britain is on the increase.
So many women are beaten up in their own homes.
In most western countries even atheists hit their women.
This is not because muslims holy book tells men to beat their wives.
Men of all faiths, and even those with no faith, tend to do that anyway.
Tequila nic said:
True and in the UK it is against the law to hit your wife.
Is this true in, say, egypt, syria or iran?
PS Are you going to tell me where the original koran is kept?
Omrow said:
Dispite the law, men in UK still beat their women. Domestic voilence in rising.
In muslim countries, there is no law against beating up your wife. You can hit them as much as you like as long as they dont die in the beating.
Original Qoran?
Muslims believe it is kept with God in a very safe place.
We only have a pure copy as revealed to Prophet Mohammed in 630 AD.
Tequila nic said:
Why is there no law?
Omrow said:
Come on Nic.
Learn to think beyond muslims.
Why is there no law in Britain against parents slapping their children?
Answer: Democracy.
Most people don't want it.
Tequila nic said:
Smacking is allowed in the UK, although parents can get into trouble if they leave a mark on their children's body when they smack.
Do you think the women in Iran were asked if they wanted to be beaten?
Do you have a link to any source that would confirm this?
Omrow said:
Come on Nic. You can do better than that.
Do you think children in Britain were "ASKED" if they "WANTED" to be beaten?
No one likes being beaten in UK. But our MPs feel that sometimes it has to be done.
Therefore, our Parliament passed the law that said parents can beat their kids.
Poor kids, now legally terrorised in England.
Tequila nic said:
OK I’ll try and type this so you understand
YOU CANNOT BEAT A CHILD IN THE UK
Even a single slap (if it leaves a red mark) can land you with a criminal record.
This is because our MP’s decided that if you hit a child and it leaves a mark it will be considered as an assault.
Do you understand now?
YOU CANNOT BEAT A CHILD IN THE UK
I also take it you cannot find any evidence that Iran asked its population if they wanted to continue to be allowed to beat their wives.
So try again.
santorini said:
also children are minors whereas wives are adults so i think it is a different scenario. Children have been vunerable in Britain but things improve as years' go on and they have more rights (maybe they have too many at times but that is another debate).
To me the allowance of hitting your wife belongs to victorian times and not 2008. Also what is your feelings on mutilations of females which takes place in Africa and seems to be happening here in certain circles?
Omrow said:
If a society accepts that helpless children can be beaten by adults - children who are actually vunerable and innocent little angels - then it is very strange to have double standards and object to adults beating adults.
Adults are not helpless like children.
Either physical beating of anyone is wrong, or it is not wrong.
Make up your mind.
We in Britain, as well as our friends in America, allows adults to beat little children.
This is really quite sad.
santorini said:
Personally i don't think there is anything wrong with giving your child a slap which is totally different to beating your child. The parent is in charge of discipline and they live under their roof. children are certainly no little angels. I don't agree with neglect or bullying but there are shades of grey like everything.
An adult is a grown up and i think it is wrong for a man to hit his wife who he has promised to love and honour. maybe he might lose his temper but be sorry afterwards but to think it is acceptable to do this is another matter and out of date IMO.
In an ideal world there would be no violence
CDarwin said:
Let us understand this religion more;
Is there a preferred way of beating a disrespectful wife? Are only hands allowed or is some kind of weopon recommended?
Omrow said:
In Britain, my dad used to get beaten with a cane in school.
Many fathers remember getting beaten in bording schools.
It was torture.
Terrorising kids to brainnwash them in national curriculum.
I think weapons like canes are very effective way that European nations use to make people get in line.
We have a saying in Bournemouth: "Spare the rod - spoil the child."
Muslims use same line of reasoning to straighten their "babies".
malcolm/monica said:
I no longer have the patience to debate with religious raving lunatics,who make it up as they go allong
Cardigan said:
Hmmm - know what you mean but we can live in hope that a Muslim will come along with enough intellect to put forward some sort of defence.
Omrow said:
Yes.
But muslims have been told in their holy book not to engage the idiots.
So, I suspect that its going to be a long wait for some people.
Unless both parties are willing to use reason, what benefit can any discussion bring?
Cardigan said:
I so totally agree with you. I've consistently asked for nothing more than clear concise reasoned debate based upon evidence. OK we can all put forward an opinion but where it is not evidenced some give the opinion with some logic of how you get there. I promises nothing less and ask for nothing more. . . . You talk the talk but do you walk the walk?
Omrow said:
Cardigan. Only a very few people are willing to walk the path of sense.
Most people believe whatever suits them best, even if their belief is contrary to all reason.
Who would have thought that even in 21st century, most people from all sides still stick to their own party lines rather than the truth.
santorini said:
i suppose it is because the people who follow Islam are so conditioned to it that it is too frightening for them to step outside this comfort/control zone.
I am a christian and i do question at times but i think it is important to listen to others points of view and be open to debate.
Omrow said:
Your fear of Islam is apparent from your first sentence.
Also, if you did question things then you would have never believed in Trinity because it is competely against human reason. It just does not make sense at all.
Tequila_nic said:
Ive seen it on muslims forums where muslims have been told not to ask questions becasue it makes them kaffir.
Omrow said:
I too have seen fear on non-muslim forums where people are told not to talk to muslims because they might end up converting to Islam.
santorini said:
Yes you may be right Omrow. Not because i am frightened of being converted but because of the violence and intolerance that seems to come with Islam. I am not saying all Moslims are like this. I see it as a threat to democracy and freedom and our way of life. I do not like the way christians and jews are treated in Arabic countries e.g. Ethiopia or the Sudan. I do accept it is not all black and white and clear cut at times in these areas.
For example all the uproar with the cartoons printed in the danish paper or the death threats on Salmon Rushdie.
I am not trying to be offensive but honest.
Omrow said:
How nice.
A christian telling muslims that christians have no violence in their past.
Also, that Jews are victims of Palestinians violence.
I bet he would soon say that American christian military forces in Iraq are only defending themselves, and that it is Iraqi muslims who are violent.
And here comes his "our way of life" speech to muslims as if Christian world can hold a candle of morality muslims.
To sum up, with narrow minded people its always like the following:
"We in west are better than you in the east".
And also muslims who refuse to think, say:
"West, Christians and Jews are dispicable and most depraved people on Earth and will burn in Hell."
Ofcourse, both sides can continue have this type of condemning match. But I dont think there is any benefit to either side in this.
santorini said:
Omrow i am talking about now not the past. Yes christianity was violent but so was the rest of the world at that time and life was cheap. Yes there is a problem between the Jews and palestinians and it is complex.
I don't think i am particularly narrow minded by having my opinion. It has come about from some of the unpleasant things in Britain which have happened in the past 20 years concerning certain groups of Moslims. They are not very nice and wish Britain harm yet they are happy to take money off the state and have housing provided. they do not work but live very comfortably and do not worry about having a large family.
Again i know not every Moslem is like this.
John BE said:
Even if most Muslims were tempted to extremism, there aren't enough of them - and the fact is that most Muslims are ordinary peaceable folk who just want to get on with living their lives like the rest of us. Any sympathy they have towards extremists is generated by the peculiarly idiotic and vicious policies of the people that govern us.
Ever heard of Tertullian, santorini? The humorous Christian writer in north Africa back when there were persecutions back in the Roman Empire, third century AD?
He quoted the cry of the mob: "Christiani ad leonem!" "Christians to the lion!" That was when they used to put convicted people in an arena to fight lions to entertain the crowd. And then laughed at them: "All those Christians, just to one lion?!"
But he said something else, more seriously. "Sanguis martyrorum ecclesiae semen". "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church". And it worked out that way - the Church actually grew as a result of persecution.
And human nature's still the same, and it's no different for Muslims. I've just watched a film on Newsnight about American soldiers in Sadr City, the Shia suburb in Baghdad. After 9/11 I remember watching a New York woman on TV crying and saying over and over again "Why do they hate us?" If she watched that film, she'd have her answer ...
Omrow said:
People who are violent would use any justification for their actions.
Fanatic muslims misuse Qoran to justify their violence.
Militant Catholics in IRA and Protestants in Ulster both twist the Bible to strenghten their cause of terrorism.
It is human nature to look for support to sell your misdeeds.
Evil is evil whoever takes part in it.
constantius chlorus said:
I don't remember the Catholics or Protestants ever quoting the bible during their time.
parklaneyid said:
Omrow, its clear from this statement that you have absolutely no idea of Irish history. The two groups were fighting over territory and not over any religious differences; unlike the Sunni-Shia conflict!
Omrow said:
Yes. But all sides do use holy scriptures to justify their fighting positions.
People can use anything to carry on fighting.
Are you telling me that you really dont know that before carrying out their bombing campaigns on eath other, the IRA, UDF, UVF, and others did not get blessed by their respective Priests?
You dont know this?
You have clearly been brainwashed.
Maybe you have not heard of Reverend Ian Paisley?
I can tell you a few things about that priest who is now a "peaceful" man.
Omrow said:
My university's media studies' professor says media games never stop.
A Christian man who hates Islam has killed his sister because she converted to Islam.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7658355.stm
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24464249-5012751,00.html
Christian man shoots his sister for converting to Islam
AN Egyptian Coptic Christian shot at his sister and her family, killing her husband, after she converted to Islam and married a Muslim, a security official said today.
Rami Atef Khella, 28, broke into the Cairo apartment of his sister, Miriam Atef Khella, and sprayed her family of three with gunfire, killing Ahmed Saleh and injuring Miriam and her daughter, the official said.
Notice how the BBC presented the news story. You would not guess it was a Christian from the headline would you?
I think they were shocked after thinking that only muslims are supposed to do such things.
The Carpenter said:
No, that her family was Christian wasn't even mentioned until the first sentence in the article!
In fact, I couldn't even find the bit in the article where it actually says that he hates islam! The ... so and soes!
So, why don't you tell us what the headline should be? (6words or less please)
Omrow said:
Why six word headline.
When it comes to muslims, headlines often run way over 6 words.
They could have just stated the facts:
Christian kills sister for "becoming Muslim".
Freethinker15 said:
Maybe its because being a Christian for many isn't the be all and end all, like it is for many muslims.
Omrow said:
Or, maybe, you have fallen only for the anti-muslims propaganda?
Visit to the America's "Bible Belt" would enlighten you.
Fanatics exists in all religions.
look at this: Jews riot and try to force Muslims to oberve jewish religious events.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7660628.stm
Notice the headline again.
The Carpenter said:
So, in your opinion (as a media studies student?), what makes
"Christian kills sister for "becoming Muslim"
and better headline than
"Egyptian killed in sectarian row"?
also, this: "Jews riot and try to force Muslims oberve jewish religious events"
I entirely agree with you, obviously we should all be more tolerant and condemn violence in all it's forms whether religiously "inspired" or not. Hopefully you'll take this chance to condemn the violence against Muslims and the violence committed by Muslims as well.
Santorini, why don't you take the blinkers off, just for a few seconds? Christians are just as capable of committing murder as anyone else. You're not fooling anyone except yourself.
santorini said:
yes of course mr carpenter. it just reminded me of the situation in Ireland. i don't think i have blinkers on.
Omrow said:
People often make a fatal mistake when, without knowing, they develop three criteria:
One for their own people; one for their opponent or "enemies"; and, one for those whom they dont really care about.
I recommend that we all simply use one same standard to judge our own group as well as others.
I believe this would surely lead to a better world, a fairer society, and it would lead to peace between people.
The Carpenter said:
Sounds good to me, Kant said much the same thing in advocating that we should "Act only in accordance with a maxim that you can at the same time will to become a universal law", but he always was a bit of a wordy type. The name escapes me, but someone else managed to put it more simply a couple of thousand years ago(?), something about 'doing unto others'(?), from out to the east somewhere? Oh, it's come back to me now, it was Confucius.
Omrow said:
Thats right. Its an Islamic motto.
Its a Golden Rule for establishing peace and justice.
Muslims believe God sent 124,000 Messengers to guide mankind.
Confucious was one of God's Prophets.
His real name was Master Kong.
Western visiters to China did not like him very much, so they mutilated his name.
No1 is innocent said:
Does Islam actually have any of it's own prophets, or does it just lay claim to prominent figures from other religions?
Omrow said:
Muslims say they were all Islamic.
Muslims believe that Jesus was sent by Alla, so he was an Islamic Prophet.
Gotum Bod, known as Buddha, was also God's Prophet.
Master Kong is another.
Daood, known as David, is also Islamic Prophet.
So were, men like Abraham, Noah, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Solomon, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Joseph, and so on and on.
In fact, all the Prophets mentioned in Bible are Prophets sent by God.
Muslims claim that a total of 124,000 Holy Messengers were sent by God. Mohammed being the final one. He died in year 632 A.D.
Did you know, Islam did not begin with birth of Prophet Mohammed. It began with the appearence of the first MAN some 14,000 ago. He was pious. God chose him to be His Prophet.
Biologists have recently confirmed that first true humanoids emerged some 10,000 years ago.
This is what Muslims believe.
The Carpenter said:
124,000 prophets in 14,000 years? Thats nearly 9 prophets per year for 14,000 years, followed by none for 1,400years. Hardly seems fair to me.
And what was God doing before the first man appeared? Waiting?
Homo Sapiens first emerged about 250,000years ago, or aren't they "truly humanoid" enough for you?
Democrat said:
Would it be asking tooo much for Ch4 to air a programme on atheists, science and THEIR view of religion??
I am sick and tired of seeing programmes about Muslims/Islam etc, with all the exhortation for "respect" to be shown etc..excessive respect if we bear in mind 9/11 and 7/7!!
And incidentally, can we have these "Muslims" identified by their nationality instead of a religious label????
IE: British Asian/American Asian.German Asian etc etc.
The religion is (to me) totally irrelevant, but media seem to be falling over backwards not to get their windows broken in sucking up to this objectionable collection of religious bigots.
We need to do as the Americans do...your country must come first, then your religion is protected, but hard times to those who put religion before country.
Maybe a requirement to put a union flag on every mosque to show their true allegiance would be a start???
As for any holy book, we are wasting time on a myth...more science please!! (After all it is the 21st Century)
Yuze said:
I agree. Stop showing programmes on Islam.
----
Debate 2:
This discussion took place on Channel 4
July 2008
Islam on C4
The TV Show
Web Producer
This week, Channel 4 is broadcasting a selection of programmes that explore the Islamic faith. With both The Qur'an and The Seven Wonders of the Muslim World, commissioning editor Aaqil Ahmed believes the channel is contributing to a new understanding of Islam in the western world.
Visit The TV Show website to find out more, as Aaqil explains his motivation for commissioning both projects.
If you've watched any of the programmes featured in C4's Islamic season and would like to share your views/ask any questions about what you've seen
Thanks
johnbee said:
I wat5ched most of the program about the Qur'an. It was a completely typical BNP/Tabloid anti muslim rant, even down to the showing of a brutal mutilation of a little girl's private parts while she screamed pitifully in protest. Absolutly bnothing at all to do with the actual Koran (as it is spelt on the copy I read a while ago.
balaclava9 said:
I not only watched the whole of both programmes I taped them and have re-watched them.
The first programme ‘It shouldn’t Happen to a Muslim’ appeared to start with the view that Muslims are (wrongly) getting a bad time and steered the programme and players towards that conclusion; failed to ask Muslims the hard questions. I found the second programme ‘The Qur’an’ balanced and most informative. It answered a lot of my questions and has caused me to research deeper into those question revealing some illuminating answers.
Tequila nic said:
I am finding hard to find a version of islam that is compatable with our liberal society
wendymann said:
who is this we and why do you claim that you represent a liberal society?
from what ive read of your posts you are hardly liberal.
maybe if you just referred to the koran as your starting point, since that is the only islam you might learn something. of course one does have to have ones wit about them and be prepared to understand the simplicity and the complexity.
somehow i dont think you have that with in you when it is about islam.
islam tells one not to comment on things that one doesnt understand. it asks one to be on jihad to become a better muslim. it asks one to be respectful with regard to the koran.
what one was being told was that islam and muslims have a belief in a corrupted piece of fiction.
what one was being told was that islam is not a unifying faith that seeks to provide social and political set of directions but one that kills more muslims , is divisive and politically has no relevance to the modern era.
what one was being told was to doubt ones faith, doubt ones fellow muslims .
what one was being told was that islam has no place in todays society because it is backwards, primitive and cannot provide the solutions that are required.
that was the underlying thrread of the film and that is why it is being praised by anti islam anti muslims as being 'balanced'.
blast99 said:
the programme provided evidence to back this up. Islam is a medieval religion obsessed with medieval subjects such as virginity and adultery and how you should behave in the presence of an imaginary being.
One of the best bits that showed the religion's power to infect the mind was when the woman ex-lawyer was arguing against the notion that covering the face might be detrimental to communication with other people. Of course covering the face is detrimental to communication. This is fact obvious to a 3-year-old. Yet this woman rejected the idea as 'baseless'.
I'd heard about the mistranslation of virgin fron grapes (or white raisins) before but it was interesting to see the connection with Christianity and paintings depicting heaven being a place full of grapes! It was also interesting to hear the alternative translations from earlier languages which make much more sense of various parts of the text.
Omrow said:
The fact is that Islam is now the fastest growing religion on Earth.
More and more people are converting to Islam than to any other faith.
Ever since September 11, people who had never heard of Islam are now reseaching the religion and becoming muslims.
More white people convert to Islam than Muslims convert to Christianity. This is a fact.
Channel 4 Television is informing people as to what exactly Islam is and what muslims believe.
Naturally media being biased, TV does gets many things wrong. It is influnced by anti-muslim propaganda from newspapers like the Sun, Mirror, Daily Star and so on.
The quicker we learn to tolerate different views the better it is for everyone.
Intolerance is only speeding up the spread of Islam, and making muslims more determined to fight back.
balaclava9 said:
Entirely so, the probelm is, the Qur'an commands Muslims not to tolerate non-Muslims.
Omrow said:
Not true. I think you need to look into their holy book, the Qoran.
balaclava9 said:
The UK is a Christian country. The UK not only tolerates but has welcomed foreigners into the country and facilitated their worship of the religion despite the fact that their religion commands that they not tolerate non-Muslims.
Muslims in the UK choose to live here (rather than Paksiatn etc.,) presumably because the UK provides them with a better life, yet they offer no allegiance to the country that provides for them.
If Muslims said, I am British first, I intend to integrate and subscribe to British standards and my allegiance is the the UK head of state they would be welcomed by all.
to continue, Islam is not a religion it is an ideology and it is an ideology that promotes intolerance suggesting that God commands it to be so.
Muslims who walk around the streets of this (tolerant Christian) country wearing the symbols of that ideology are insulting the indigenous population who have taken them in and given them succour.
So Omrow, those different views that you suggest I should show tolerance to, please tell me how I should show tolerance to the below verses from the Qur’an that instruct you that you should not make friends with the people who gave a home to thousands of Muslims fleeing Muslim countries to live here in this tolerant Christian country. . . . .
Sura 3 Verse 28 Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah. except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.
Sura 4 Verse 139 Yea, to those who take for friends unbelievers rather than believers: is it honour they seek among them? Nay,- all honour is with Allah.
Sura 4 Verse 144 O ye who believe! Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers: Do ye wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves?
Sura 5 Verse 51 O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
Sura 5 Verse 80 Thou seest many of them turning in friendship to the unbelievers. Evil indeed are (the works) which their souls have sent forward before them (with the result), that Allah.s wrath is on them, and in torment will they abide.
Omrow said:
You take verses out of context.
In any propaganda, anyone can take anything out of context and make it suit their own beliefs.
Every honest person who is aware of this type of twisting and disinformation, knows full well that muslim holy book praises the christains and asks muslims to love them.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair said that Qoran is one of the most advance and beautiful books in the world.
Prophet Muhammad protected christians.He even paid for building of churches in his state. This is tolerance he showed to christians.
No one has yet paid muslims to build their mosques.
I think we need to remain cool-headed and not get things out of perspective.
The following are words of British "Christian" Prime Minster about the muslim holy book:
PM Tony Blair praises the Quran:
"The Koran is practical and way ahead of its time".
"The most remarkable thing about reading the Koran – in so far as it can be truly translated from the original Arabic - is to understand how progressive it is".
"I speak with great diffidence and humility as a member of another faith. I am not qualified to make any judgements. But as an outsider, the Koran strikes me as a reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins, rather as reformers attempted with the Christian Church centuries later. It is inclusive. It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition. It is practical and way ahead of its time in attitudes to marriage, women and governance".
"Over centuries it founded an Empire, leading the world in discovery, art and culture. We look back to the early Middle Ages, the standard bearers of tolerance at that time were far more likely to be found in Muslim lands than in Christian." [ Tony Blair 2006]
Greenjack said:
well if TB said it it must be true
Omrow said:
Tony Blair thought that Qoran is probably the most tolerance-preaching religious book in the world.
It is known for its advance laws on co-existence and love between difference cultures, races, religions and so on. To confirm this, one only has to read it with an opened and unprejudiced mind.
Tequila nic said:
Yet he didnt revert, in fact he became a chatholic
Why do you think that is?
Omrow said:
He was not convinced by other stupid things that many muslims believe which are based on sources outside the Qoran.
It is these doctrines that most of the western world has a real problem with.
In fact, any honest thinker would have serious issues with such beliefs.
If muslim belief was based ONLY on the text of the Qoran, then Tony Blair would have converted to Islam.
And who knows, the gentleman is still young.
CDarwin said:
Quite amusing really...arguing over which fairy story is true. Wake up!
Omrow said:
Not quite as amusing as the monkey story told by Darwin, I must say, dear old chap.
Dream on !
Cardigan said:
When it comes down to quoting part of a speech, that’s done all the time by moderate Muslims trying to convince us that the Qur’an preaches tolerance and peace. Take the below
After September 11, 2001, many Muslims came out with the following Qur’anic quote to show that Islam and the Qur’an disapproved of violence and killing: Sura V.32: “Whoever killed a human being shall be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind ”.
Unfortunately, these soothing words are being quoted out of context. Here is the entire quote: V.32: “That was why We laid it down for the Israelites that whoever killed a human being, except as a punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind; and that whoever saved a human life shall be regarded as though he had saved all mankind. Our apostles brought them veritable proofs: yet it was not long before many of them committed great evils in the land. Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the country.”
Omrow said:
If you bother to carefully read the Qoran, you will agree with Tony Blair and Bush that it is most tolerant book on Earth.
You quoted a verse: "Those that make war... and spread disorder shall be put to death "
So what Cardigan?
Actually it was President Bush who quoted this verse from Qoran to show that Islam is not a violent religion at all as media's anti-muslim propaganda tries to alledge. He said it was only some muslims who twist Qoran's teachings.
The muslim holy book is simply saying that the warmongers and terrorists should be put to death.
What your problem?
Isn't that what US is doing already - killing terrorists?
Cardigan said:
I have read here, extracts from the Qur'an, posted principally by balaclava, which advocate hate, intolerance and violence to non Muslims. I am sure you have studied the Qur'an; will you help us by listing the Sura that advocate peace, tolerance and non violence to non Muslims?
Omrow said:
Quotes from Qoran by Mr balaclava are "dug up" and deliberately misinterpreted.
They show only the gentleman's own dislike of muslims. Nothing more.
I can even quote parts of the United States Constitution and show it preaches hate.
So what?
Does it?
No.
Qoran claims to be from God.
Therefore, naturally, it is going to be comprehensive. It would cover every type of human need from sex to slaughter.
From sex on the bed with 4 wives. To slaughter on the battlefield.
Between these two, it offers Divine Guidelines on all daily needs of humans from finance to foul.
After the Bible, Qoran has had the most impact on human history.
Pickthall translation is the only Standard Version from Arabic into English.
Other translations are inaccurate and, therefore, considered unrealiable by muslims.
parklaneyid said:
Very strange choice to illustrate the breadth of human experience. And with such precision!
Why not sex with 5 wives on the floor? Why not slaughter on a University campus?
constantius chlorus said:
Why not allow a Muslim woman to have sex with four men?
Omrow said:
Perhaps if they were like other women, they too wish for such an act?
Muslim women are in no way like any other women.
Go and see.
santorini said:
i don't think i would want to be like that either Omrow. Not every western woman is drunk and promiscous. Moslem women probably are just like Western women in lots of ways and want the same things.
parklaneyid said:
Omrow, don't make such sweeping and loopy statements! I have taught hundreds of muslim women. Almost all of them (though not all)behave and act just like anyone else.
Omrow said:
I am just stating the facts.
Dont try to twist what is clear to everyone, to muslims as well as to the rest of our great country.
We should never shy away from the truth, especially when it is bitter.
God hates those who run away and hide from the truth.
constantius chlorus said:
Ah but whose truth?
John BE said:
From a traditional Christian point of view, it's quite an extraordinary idea that God hates anybody ... but then the early Christians used to reckon that Islam was a sort of Jewish/Christian heresy ...
Omrow said:
Truth is not a property of any one person or a particular group.
God says that everyone has the right to access the Truth, except, of course, the idiots.
God hates the morons.
John BE said:
Your God does quite a lot of hating, for one is is, I understand "all-compassionate and all merciful ..."
Omrow said:
Whose God loves idiots?
Certainly not the God who made this universe.
Even Jesus hated a lot of people. Go read his words.
If Jesus loved people, why did he call them dogs and pigs?
Jesus certainly knew how to curse.
No point running away from the facts.
Truth may be bitter, but it is the truth.
John BE said:
Looks like your Islamic tradition contains things about Jesus that none of the rest of us have heard of ....
Omrow said:
As you all well know, muslims actually love Jesus. They claim that Jesus will return to sort out the mess in our world. To muslims that means Americans and their allies.
Although I have read nowhere in the Qoran that Jesus will take over the White House.
But it is not a bad idea.
I hope he does.
The place is in desperate need of good cleaning.
John BE said:
Mmm - but it seems it's a rather different Jesus from the one I recognize ...
Omrow said:
We all recognise a different Jesus.
Even Atheists recognise a different Jesus to one known by christians and muslims.
Upon his return, only Christ himself
will tell which of us was right and which of us was wrong.
He is the best judge. Perfect, in fact.
Christians and Muslims both love Jesus in their own way.
One says he was God in human form.
The other claims he was an Envoy of God - A Messenger.
Well, we will just have to wait till the day he comes and settles it.
Angelus the Vampire said:
I think the muslim koran also mentions Jesus, although they have him as a prophet, rather than as the son of god.
The Carpenter said:
I think you're right, but then the Koran also mentions a Noah-esque flood, so the fact that a myth can spread from one holy book to another doesn't confirm the original event. All it does is suggest that they share a common ancestor.
There's some rather good sections in God is not Great (by C.Hitchens) on how and why religions adopt different bits of earlier beliefs, including both the probable historic reasons for the Koran and the Book of Mormon or LuisGarcia's list of Easter blessings for the Christians to ponder.
I'll assume we're talking about one massive world wide flood of epic proportions that covered all (or at least the vast majority) of the earth at some point since humans first started communicating in some way, shape or form. (If you want to extend/ challenge that definition, let me know and I'll see what I can do.)
Firstly, if there was a flood like that, where did the water come from? and where did it go to?
Secondly, a flood on that scale would leave massive amounts of evidence, but there isn't any.
e.g. - We would expect to find massive amounts of sedimentation being churned up and re-deposited, but instead of being laid down in it's originally order the densest layers would be at the bottom and the least dense at the top.
- We would expect to find that all the fossils distributed through these layers, either wholly randomly/ all at the bottom/ with the slowest moving or heaviest towards the bottom and the lighter or faster moving animals near the top (delete as applicable).
Since we don't find evidence that fits this massive one off flood, but we find evidence that smaller local floods do occur, that many cultures have many myths about floods. It makes much more sense to assume that the local floods were exaggerated to epic (even biblical) proportions to suit the story telling needs of primitive peoples (who were also scared of thunder & lightning, volcanoes etc) to fit in with the currently popular god myth of the day (& then copied and pasted into later god myths).
Angelus the Vampire said:
A world wide flood does not need to have happened. But a catastrophic flood could hav engulfed completely the area of the author of the story.
For example, in the Ice Age, huge glaciers covered large tracts of land hundreds of miles wide. Behind the glacier builds up a lake of rain water formed over hundreds/thousands of years.
Obviously as global warming happens, ice melts and cracks form in the glacier. Once the glacier melts past a point of no return the build up of water in the lake breaks through causing a huge flood. I Have on DVD somehwere the story of one such event happening in what is now the USA: the flood rushing over the countryside was over 500foot deep, and travelled for hundreds of miles. Without rewatching it (or finding it first) I can`t remember the well known area of the USA this flood travelled over, but the landscape after the flood waters died down is very impressive.
The experts are monitoring another glacier that is getting into a similar state of collapse in Iceland at the moment.
Omrow said:
Noah and the flood, as mentioned in the muslim holy book Qoran, is not a global flood. It was a local flood to drown only the local nasties who poked fun at God's Prophet.
As you know, God does not like his mates being mocked. So, He sent hurricanes, storm, floods and everything and drowned all the baddies.
Noah's son was also drowned because he sided with the pagans and refused to get on board the divine ship. God said, he is worst than a pig, and I will now kill him.
So, there was no world wide flood. Only parts of Turkey and Armenia were flooded. It occoured only in the area around the black sea.
Muslims do not accept the Bible version. They claim it was altered to make it more dramatic.
John BE said:
I read Omrow saying that, because God "didn't like his mates being mocked", he "sent hurricanes .. &c .. and drowned all the baddies", and that God decided to kill Noah's son because he was "worse than a pig". I think your God's way nastier than mine, Omrow!
The Carpenter said:
No, Omrow’s God only killed some people in a localised flood, yours killed everyone on the planet apart from Noah & co. Even if you’re going to try and claim this was a smaller flood (i.e. not the flood god promised in Genesis) Omrow’s god only killed one more person (Noah’s son) than your’s did. So I’m not sure that really qualifies him as “way nastier” (or are you now saying that this was just a flood and God had nothing much to do with it at all?)
Omrow said:
Noah's son was drowned becaused he mocked God and refused to get on board.
But the pig, now he had more sense. The pair did get on to the ship.
Mr and Mrs Swine were saved by Noah.
So, God killed Noah's son and saved the pigs.
Lesson of Noah's story is that if
you mess with God's Prophets, watch how the Divine Wrath will destroy you.
also,
Muslims say Islam is compatiable with modern science.
There is no fact established by scientific finding which goes against any text of the book of God - the holy Qoran.
Muslims say only scientific theories seems to contradict Qoran. Never the facts.
Freethinker15 said:
Evolution, as has been explained to you on a number of occassions, is a fact!! Therefore, along with many other examples, your precious book is a big contradiction.
Omrow said:
If the monkey story was a fact, then there would be unity among scientists.
The fact is, that there are still some scientists who do not accept the "THEORY OF EVOLUTION".
I agree that man-made stories can contradict God. But never the facts.
God makes facts. Men make delusions.
Yuze said:
The Prophet said: "Speak of good or remain quiet, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day."
Angelus the Vampire said:
Perhaps your words should be aimed at Omrow. He does not obey this directive, ie speak nice or remain silent.
Omrow said:
What he meant was that reasonable people do not engage in howling.
malcolm/monica said:
We are going off track,or being led off.
'God' said their woman must dress 'modestly'...nothing wrong with that(apart from the God bit)
Where it goes naughty is in recent years history shows clearly that the dress code has tightened...why?,we might ask,this is a man made shift...no god imput!
Angelus the Vampire said:
lol.....
The insults only allowed to go one way, Omrow?
Or aren`t you used to females biting back?
Omrow said:
I am just not used to girls peeing on my shoes.
And I wont let them either.
Segregation is essential.
The Carpenter said:
What's this strange obsession with comparing praying and urinating?
Omrow said:
What about people comparing praying with gender equality?
Is that not a stranger obsession?
Angelus the Vampire said:
per-ice-less.
So you don`t mind men peeing on your shoes?
Thought you lot executed men of that inclination?
Omrow said:
What do you mean "you lot" !!??!!
You will never understand "us lot".
We humans with our warm blood will not allow ourselves to be sucked dry by "your lot" !!!
The Carpenter said:
How dare you!? You show me one passage in the Koran where it says men can't pee on other men's shoes!
Omrow, do you believe men & women should have equal rights?
Omrow said:
No. They have to bend to us.
Its men's eternal prerogative.
The only way all "real men" like it.
Angelus the Vampire said:
I do believe that the mods are too afraid of your extremist views and religion to censure you properly, Omrow.
And I know that any comment that I make in this forum about how you and your attitude is offensive to me will earn me a visit by the ban stick.
The Carpenter said:
That's right the religion that produced someone so obviously backward (& terrified of women) is Islam.
I've got a little thought experiment for you Omrow. Obviously this implies you're capable of thought, which is just one of my wacky atheistic ideas, but do you want to give it a go & see if we can get at least two of your neural synapsese firing at the same time?
Mycor said:
You've disappointed me know Omrow, just when it was going so well. At least everyone knows where they stand now, which is partly what I've been seeking throughout.
By the way, I wasn't going to comment on your sexual stereotyping of me previously, but will now. I'm male and certanly no less of a man than you (referencing your real men comment). I have a lot of female friends who I consider of equal status to my male friends, men and women are equal in my eyes and should be judged as individuals and how they are not by their gender. If a woman choses to play a role in the family etc where she leaves decisions to the male that's up to her, but the idea of someone having to bend to a man's will is wrong. Unfortunately there does seem to be a theme in Islam that somehow women have to be hidden away and covered up, seemingly because men (is that real men?) cannot be trusted in their presence to control their thoughts/actions. Seems to be more a problem with a macho male culture than anything else and is something I'd be ashamed to admit.
Omrow said:
Real men do not like to bend themselves before women. It has to be the other way round.
Many studies and polls have shown that females like such men.
Daily Mail regularly carries this type of "scientific" research of human desires.
Basically, I dont think any self-respecting woman would like to be seen with a whimp.
Ofcourse, all this has nothing to do with gender equality.
Angelus the Vampire said:
How do you explain then that the women control the money their husbands earn?
Omrow said:
I think all the money in the world belongs to women. They just love cash.
Also, women are very good are looking after things.
Men tend to be clumsy. Which is why they need to trust women with their valuables.
santorini said:
Omrow sounds like he has read that American book on the submissive wife. i don't mind a bit of chivalry from men but not to be a doormat.
Omrow said:
Now, in the 21st century, most women dont like girly men.
Women are once again returning to look for "real men":
No wonder at the univesity so many girls fell for...
More reports on why women dont like whimps:
From girls there is lot of demand for REAL MEN.
Very few women nowadays like arse kissers.
[see sources of these articles in other blogs on the profile]
santorini said:
I like men to be men and not wimps but i don't want a control freak husband either. I want my independence and be able to be myself. There is a way in the middle.
do you think Mr Masoud in Eastenders is a good role model for moslem men. he does seem very moderate
Omrow said:
Daily Mail often reports on how our secular society abuses women's rights.
For Atheists, there is no such thing as equal rights.
Men in high positions get treated differently than women.
They dont even pay women the same amount of money for doing exactly the same job as a man.
Even when women are more qualified, are getting more top jobs, but they get less pay.
Even at an equal rights body, women earn less than men!!
Britain is well behind Latvia and Sri Lanka in giving women equal rights.
A think-tank found that the UK has slipped two places down to 13th in its gender equality table in the past year, being overtaken by third world nations!!
Men just dont trust women to make major decisions. New global report on women's rights has found that women are still less likely than men to get top political and decision-making roles.
United Nations says that even in the 21st century western nations are not giving women equal rights.
Dont blame religion for this.
It has nothing to do with God!!
Angelus the Vampire said:
true.
very true.
But that doesn`t explain YOUR attitude that it`s men`s ETERNAL PEROGATIVE that women bend their will to a man, which is what YOU Claim your god expects.
--
No comments:
Post a Comment