Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 ... 25
Send Topic Print
trees rocks talk donkeys fly (Read 46252 times)
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: trees rocks talk donkeys fly
Reply #180 - Jan 9th, 2018 at 10:24am
 
A bit more about the thematic flow of the Quran:

Chapter 9 is not the only chapter that deals with warfare and who should and shouldn't be killed during war. Another important reference is the preceding chapter (8). Now its important to point out that chapter 9 is the only verse that doesn't contain the "bismillah" (in the name of God) prefixed at the beginning. This is widely understood by scholars to be the case because chapter 8 and chapter 9 are meant to be a continuous narrative. Why is this important? There are a couple of significant commands in chapter 8 related to warfare, which IMO should be contextualised with chapter 9:

8:39...

And fight them until there is no fitnah* and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah . And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.

*"fithah" literally means "disorder" and is commonly interpreted as oppression.

8:61...

And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.

The message is clear: fight against oppression, but incline towards peace if ever your enemy does so.

That is about as opposite a doctrine of 'aggressive war' as you can get. But more importantly, contextualised with chapter 9, and the "garr kill all non-believers" narrative seems even more ridiculous.

And there are other verses that clearly command muslims to not be aggressors in war.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
issuevoter
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9200
The Great State of Mind
Gender: male
Re: trees rocks talk donkeys fly
Reply #181 - Jan 9th, 2018 at 11:18am
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 10:24am:
A bit more about the thematic flow of the Quran:

Chapter 9 is not the only chapter that deals with warfare and who should and shouldn't be killed during war. Another important reference is the preceding chapter (8). Now its important to point out that chapter 9 is the only verse that doesn't contain the "bismillah" (in the name of God) prefixed at the beginning. This is widely understood by scholars to be the case because chapter 8 and chapter 9 are meant to be a continuous narrative. Why is this important? There are a couple of significant commands in chapter 8 related to warfare, which IMO should be contextualised with chapter 9:

8:39...

And fight them until there is no fitnah* and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah . And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.

*"fithah" literally means "disorder" and is commonly interpreted as oppression.

8:61...

And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.

The message is clear: fight against oppression, but incline towards peace if ever your enemy does so.

That is about as opposite a doctrine of 'aggressive war' as you can get. But more importantly, contextualised with chapter 9, and the "garr kill all non-believers" narrative seems even more ridiculous.

And there are other verses that clearly command muslims to not be aggressors in war.


You bloody religious fanatics are all the same: can't think for yourself, need a book of rules to follow, no matter how stupid they are. You need to grow up.
Back to top
 

No political allegiance. No philosophy. No religion.
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: trees rocks talk donkeys fly
Reply #182 - Jan 9th, 2018 at 11:46am
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 8:28am:
ive, and ordained by G_d. And Islam also has an interpreti


No, this is where you're wrong. Judaism has something known as the Oral Torah, which states that not everything that God dictated to Moses was written down. This, along with the destruction of the Temple in 70AD led to a tradition which allows individual Rabbis to interpret the Torah individually. Secondly, most Jews would agree that the Tanakh is largely descriptive - talking about the history of the Jews and their relation to the land of Israel. Judaism has never been an expansionist religion. It's solely focused on Israel.

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 8:28am:
The US' forays into the Middle East represent the biggest threat to global peace, alongside China in the pacific.

No one would care? Oh, Augie...


So, you're attributing rational behaviour to irrational actors? The US is not responsible for the policies that those governments make, nor are they responsible for the Wahabbhist ideology of Saudi Arabia. People need to take responsibility for their actions. The Middle East has never been for hundreds of years the beacon of democracy or liberalism.

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 8:28am:
Nor is it practising harsh Islamic law or exporting jihad/playing geopolitics.

It is a jolly world, no?


No, it doesn't, although in Aceh it does. The point is that Indonesia is quasi-democratic and quasi-theocratic.

Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: trees rocks talk donkeys fly
Reply #183 - Jan 9th, 2018 at 12:01pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 10:11am:
its pretty self-explanatory from this as to who it is referring to, and only who it is referring to - is it not? I mean, it wouldn't make sense to say "this is a declaration of disassociation from group x..." - if it really meant to include groups y and z  as well - would it? Please tell me you're not going to start playing FD games and say 'oh if it doesn't specify "only" - then surely it must be referring to everyone - even if it doesn't mention anyone else'. Common sense is allowed here.


To you it is self-explanatory. You interpret it as being 'only'.

Your logic doesn't stand up: the first verse sets a different set of conditions for those with whom the Muslims made a treaty; it is an addition, not a subtraction. For e.g. if I say: "And fight those people who believe not in Queen and the Union Jack..." and then I say in another part: "to the nation of China and its people, because we have a treaty with you...." It is clear that I'm making an exception to China and its people, which doesn't subtract from the first sentence.

And I'm not playing games: don't forget this is God speaking (supposedly), surely He would make himself clearly by qualifying his statement using the correct terminology??? Unless God is a poor user of the Arabic language???

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 10:11am:
And the point I've been trying to get across to both you and FD is that verse 1 sets the entire scope of the chapter - thats why its in verse 1. Again, it refers only "to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists". It is reasonable to assume that any other mushriken (polytheists) - who have no treaty, and/or never had a treaty with the muslims - are not affected by the commands in this chapter. To say otherwise would be to second guess the Quran and assume, baselessly, that it is referencing something that is not even mentioned.


Those other people are mentioned in other parts of the Quran, for e.g. 2:191 states, which was dictated earlier than 9 states: "kill them wherever you find them...."

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 10:11am:
Not to mention that your and FD's interpretation is logically inconsistent with not only this chapter, but several other chapters dealing with the same subject. You point to 9:4 and argue it is a blanket command to kill all mushriken merely because there is no qualification - yet you ignore (or likely haven't read) the actual justification - which as you will see, is just plain at odds with a "garr just kill everyone who disbelieves" narrative. When justifying waging war and killing mushriken, it doesn't state mere disbelief as reason enough - which your interpretation would imply. Instead it describes in fair amount of detail the specific behaviours that are consistent with people who betray and break treaties. Hence 9:8...

How [can there be a treaty] while, if they gain dominance over you, they do not observe concerning you any pact of kinship or covenant of protection? They satisfy you with their mouths, but their hearts refuse [compliance], and most of them are defiantly disobedient.


You're missing 9:5 which states, 'when the sacred months are passed, kill them wherever you find them...." Why doesn't it say, and when they sacred months have passed, seek an extension of that treaty? Instead it commands a killing, and lying in wait for them - that indicates an ambush, not defensive warfare.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 10:11am:
erm... if a party fails another party in their treaty - when do you think this can happen if not "subsequently" to the signing of that treaty? Think about it.


You were the one who used this quote to state that it covered all persons not those with whom a treaty was made. You now seem to be backpedalling.

Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: trees rocks talk donkeys fly
Reply #184 - Jan 9th, 2018 at 12:11pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 10:11am:
Auggie wrote on Jan 8th, 2018 at 11:36pm:
Where does it say 'only' in the first verse? Can you tell me the Arabic word?


The translation is clear:

[This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists.

its pretty self-explanatory from this as to who it is referring to, and only who it is referring to - is it not? I mean, it wouldn't make sense to say "this is a declaration of disassociation from group x..." - if it really meant to include groups y and z  as well - would it? Please tell me you're not going to start playing FD games and say 'oh if it doesn't specify "only" - then surely it must be referring to everyone - even if it doesn't mention anyone else'. Common sense is allowed here.


Gandalf is lying about verse 1. It obviously does not say what he claims it says. You only have to read it to see that. If you read the rest of the chapter it also makes it clear that it is not limited to pagans who have a treaty. There are several verses similar to verse 1 that are far broader in scope.

The only interpretation that makes sense and is consistent with what the Koran actually says is to kill the unbelievers, and there is a caveat on that not to kill them if they have a treaty, and there is another caveat on that to kill them all if someone breaks the treaty. This is also consistent with Muhammad's actions. He took every opportunity and excuse he could find to reneg on his agreements and slaughter non-Muslims.

Quote:
The message is clear: fight against oppression, but incline towards peace if ever your enemy does so.


Someone forgot to tell Muhammad how to interpret these words 'correctly'. He thought it meant go out and slaughter pagans and destroy their temples and shrines.

Also, if that is what the Koran intended, why does it not actually say that directly, rather than say, 'kill the mushriken wherever you find them'?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: trees rocks talk donkeys fly
Reply #185 - Jan 9th, 2018 at 12:14pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 10:24am:
. Now its important to point out that chapter 9 is the only verse that doesn't contain the "bismillah" (in the name of God) prefixed at the beginning. This is widely understood by scholars to be the case because chapter 8 and chapter 9 are meant to be a continuous narrative. Why is this important? There are a couple of significant commands in chapter 8 related to warfare, which IMO should be contextualised with chapter 9:


First of all, this completely dishonest, chapter 8 is, according to the chronological order of the Quran the second chapter revealed after the Hijra, whilst chapter 9 was the second-to-last chapter revealed thereafter, so there can be no logical connection between the two.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 10:24am:
8:39...

And fight them until there is no fitnah* and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah . And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.

*"fithah" literally means "disorder" and is commonly interpreted as oppression.


"Until the religion, ALL OF IT, is for Allah". In other words, until they convert to Islam....

Also, disbelief was considered oppression: if you disbelieved in Allah that was akin to corruption of the land and to oppression. Don't forget that Muhammad was very picky with people criticizing him and the religion of Islam, and this is well-documented.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 10:24am:
ds peace if ever your enemy does so.

That is about as opposite a doctrine of 'aggressive war' as you can get. But more importantly, contextualised with chapter 9, and the "garr kill all non-believers" narrative seems even more ridiculous.


Well, if you read 8:59, it says: "And let those who disbelieve think they will escape. Indeed they will not cause failure to God." 8:60: "And prepare against THEM (referring to the previous ayat) whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of God and your enemy and others beside them whom you do not know but whom God knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of God will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged."

So here, it is clearly saying that fight those people BECAUSE they're disbelievers. Second, inclining toward peace ONLY IF THEY ADOPT THE RELIGION OF ISLAM.

Later on in the passage, 8:73 says: "The Unbelievers are protectors, of one another: Unless ye do this (protect each other), there will be tumult and oppression on earth, and great mischief.'

This clearly indicates that disbelief EQUATES to oppression and tumult.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91855
Gender: male
Re: trees rocks talk donkeys fly
Reply #186 - Jan 9th, 2018 at 12:21pm
 
Auggie wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 11:46am:
Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 8:28am:
ive, and ordained by G_d. And Islam also has an interpreti


No, this is where you're wrong. Judaism has something known as the Oral Torah, which states that not everything that God dictated to Moses was written down. This, along with the destruction of the Temple in 70AD led to a tradition which allows individual Rabbis to interpret the Torah individually. Secondly, most Jews would agree that the Tanakh is largely descriptive - talking about the history of the Jews and their relation to the land of Israel. Judaism has never been an expansionist religion. It's solely focused on Israel.


True, but the oral Torah - the Kabbala - is a different tradition within Judaism. Jewish law is still Jewish law. Even Yeheshua said he came not to change the law, but to fulfil it.

Prescriptive laws like stoning people for blasphemy have not been rescinded or "translated" out of existence. They are simply not applied today.

The blood covenants of circumcision and Passover, however, are still practiced. They're held as core elements of the Jewish tradition. Even secular Jews tend to practice circumcision.

Judaism is only expansionist in terms of its territory. It's not a proselytising religion. For most Jews, it's a culture or race, and not a religion.

Islam, on the other hand, is solely a religion.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: trees rocks talk donkeys fly
Reply #187 - Jan 9th, 2018 at 12:25pm
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 12:21pm:
Auggie wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 11:46am:
Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 8:28am:
ive, and ordained by G_d. And Islam also has an interpreti


No, this is where you're wrong. Judaism has something known as the Oral Torah, which states that not everything that God dictated to Moses was written down. This, along with the destruction of the Temple in 70AD led to a tradition which allows individual Rabbis to interpret the Torah individually. Secondly, most Jews would agree that the Tanakh is largely descriptive - talking about the history of the Jews and their relation to the land of Israel. Judaism has never been an expansionist religion. It's solely focused on Israel.


True, but the oral Torah - the Kabbala - is a different tradition within Judaism. Jewish law is still Jewish law. Even Yeheshua said he came not to change the law, but to fulfil it.

Prescriptive laws like stoning people for blasphemy have not been rescinded or "translated" out of existence. They are simply not applied today.

The blood covenants of circumcision and Passover, however, are still practiced. They're held as core elements of the Jewish tradition. Even secular Jews tend to practice circumcision.

Judaism is only expansionist in terms of its territory. It's not a proselytising religion. For most Jews, it's a culture or race, and not a religion.

Islam, on the other hand, is solely a religion.


Even if all of this is the case, for whatever reason it may be, Jews aren't motivated by the barbaric verses of the Torah. We know that many Muslims (not the majority, I know) are motivated by those barbaric Quranic verses, and this is an issue. Whether this is because Islamic theology states that the Quran is the literal Word of God may be, and is likely, the cause. Many Jews would now except that the Tanakh was written by different authors after the fact; but in Islam this type of heurmaneutics is not possible.

According to Islamic theology, the Quran is the perfect unaltered Word of God. And this already provides a temptation to absolutism and violence, because anyone who tries to apply a logical framework of textual interpretation is immediately shut down as a blasphemer. I'm more than happy to accept that many parts of the Quran (especially the later verses) contain many redactions and additions, given that the style of the writing is very different from the earlier verses. Problem is that Islamic theology doesn't allow for such interpretation to occur, although the average person can interpret the Quran this way.

In fact, I'm willing to come up with my own interpretative model: any Medinan verse that contracts an earlier verse or that is not mentioned in a Meccan verse is to abrogated.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91855
Gender: male
Re: trees rocks talk donkeys fly
Reply #188 - Jan 9th, 2018 at 12:26pm
 
Quote:
No, it doesn't, although in Aceh it does. The point is that Indonesia is quasi-democratic and quasi-theocratic.


No, the point is that the Quran does not compel Indonesians to act as Wahabists - just as the Torah does not compel Jews to practice Leviticus.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: trees rocks talk donkeys fly
Reply #189 - Jan 9th, 2018 at 12:30pm
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 12:26pm:
Quote:
No, it doesn't, although in Aceh it does. The point is that Indonesia is quasi-democratic and quasi-theocratic.


No, the point is that the Quran does not compel Indonesians to act as Wahabists - just as the Torah does not compel Jews to practice Leviticus.


It doesn't have to compel them to act as Wahabits - there are varying degrees of Islamic practice; but it does compel them to be intolerant of other religions, and to produce terrorist groups.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91855
Gender: male
Re: trees rocks talk donkeys fly
Reply #190 - Jan 9th, 2018 at 12:33pm
 
Auggie wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 12:25pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 12:21pm:
Auggie wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 11:46am:
Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 8:28am:
ive, and ordained by G_d. And Islam also has an interpreti


No, this is where you're wrong. Judaism has something known as the Oral Torah, which states that not everything that God dictated to Moses was written down. This, along with the destruction of the Temple in 70AD led to a tradition which allows individual Rabbis to interpret the Torah individually. Secondly, most Jews would agree that the Tanakh is largely descriptive - talking about the history of the Jews and their relation to the land of Israel. Judaism has never been an expansionist religion. It's solely focused on Israel.


True, but the oral Torah - the Kabbala - is a different tradition within Judaism. Jewish law is still Jewish law. Even Yeheshua said he came not to change the law, but to fulfil it.

Prescriptive laws like stoning people for blasphemy have not been rescinded or "translated" out of existence. They are simply not applied today.

The blood covenants of circumcision and Passover, however, are still practiced. They're held as core elements of the Jewish tradition. Even secular Jews tend to practice circumcision.

Judaism is only expansionist in terms of its territory. It's not a proselytising religion. For most Jews, it's a culture or race, and not a religion.

Islam, on the other hand, is solely a religion.


Even if all of this is the case, for whatever reason it may be, Jews aren't motivated by the barbaric verses of the Torah. We know that many (not the majority, I know) are motivated by those verses, and this is an issue. Whether this is because Islamic theology states that the Quran is the literal Word of God may be the cause. Many Jews would now except that the Tanakh was written by different authors after the fact; but in Islam this type of heurmaneutics is not possible.

Islam is a religion like Judaism.


Islam believes in many prophets, including Jewish ones. If Jews aren't motivated to execute blasphemers, why are Muslims?

Your point that the Quran must be interpreted literally is far from true - only a few Muslims believe this - probably less Muslims than there are Christian fundamentalists.

When Cat Stevens converted, he gave up singing due to something he took literally from a Hadith.

He's since changed his mind. Few Muslims would judge him for this.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91855
Gender: male
Re: trees rocks talk donkeys fly
Reply #191 - Jan 9th, 2018 at 12:34pm
 
Auggie wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 12:30pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 12:26pm:
Quote:
No, it doesn't, although in Aceh it does. The point is that Indonesia is quasi-democratic and quasi-theocratic.


No, the point is that the Quran does not compel Indonesians to act as Wahabists - just as the Torah does not compel Jews to practice Leviticus.


It doesn't have to compel them to act as Wahabits - there are varying degrees of Islamic practice; but it does compel them to be intolerant of other religions, and to produce terrorist groups.


How?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: trees rocks talk donkeys fly
Reply #192 - Jan 9th, 2018 at 12:38pm
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 12:33pm:
Islam believes in many prophets, including Jewish ones. If Jews aren't motivated to execute blasphemers, why are Muslims?


Islam also believes that those Prophets were misguided or misdirected. That's why the Prophet is considered to be the Seal of the Prophets.

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 12:33pm:
Your point that the Quran must be interpreted literally is far from true - only a few Muslims believe this


I never said that it was to be interpreted literally; I said that it is considered to be the exact Words of God as Mohammad had recited from God. Therefore, a textual analysis cannot be accepted by Islam.

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 12:33pm:
only a few Muslims believe this - probably less Muslims than there are Christian fundamentalists.


Most Muslims believe that the Quran is the perfect Word of God. Literal or non-literal interpretation is up to the person. Most Christians today would accept that the numerous authors wrote the Bible, but that they were 'divinely-inspired'. This is different to the Quran being the exact and inmovable Word of God.

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 12:33pm:
he took literally from a Hadith.

He's since changed his mind. Few Muslims would judge him for this.


He probably became a Qurani, who reject the Hadith as an authoritative source.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: trees rocks talk donkeys fly
Reply #193 - Jan 9th, 2018 at 12:39pm
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 12:34pm:
Auggie wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 12:30pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 12:26pm:
Quote:
No, it doesn't, although in Aceh it does. The point is that Indonesia is quasi-democratic and quasi-theocratic.


No, the point is that the Quran does not compel Indonesians to act as Wahabists - just as the Torah does not compel Jews to practice Leviticus.


It doesn't have to compel them to act as Wahabits - there are varying degrees of Islamic practice; but it does compel them to be intolerant of other religions, and to produce terrorist groups.


How?


Christians in Indonesia are severely discriminated against. There was a recent case of a Jakarta Mayor who was taken to court because of his comments toward Islam.

That's hardly tolerant and open.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91855
Gender: male
Re: trees rocks talk donkeys fly
Reply #194 - Jan 9th, 2018 at 12:54pm
 
Auggie wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 12:39pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 12:34pm:
Auggie wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 12:30pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 12:26pm:
Quote:
No, it doesn't, although in Aceh it does. The point is that Indonesia is quasi-democratic and quasi-theocratic.


No, the point is that the Quran does not compel Indonesians to act as Wahabists - just as the Torah does not compel Jews to practice Leviticus.


It doesn't have to compel them to act as Wahabits - there are varying degrees of Islamic practice; but it does compel them to be intolerant of other religions, and to produce terrorist groups.


How?


Christians in Indonesia are severely discriminated against. There was a recent case of a Jakarta Mayor who was taken to court because of his comments toward Islam.

That's hardly tolerant and open.


No, it was a political hatchet job, as every schoolboy knows. Christians have been persecuted on some islands and provinces, and not by the state, but vigilantes. As you must know, Christian vigilantes have done the same all over the world, so you're hardly presenting hard proof that the Quran compels followers to go out and kill.

The conviction of Jakarta's mayor, by the way, was ludicrous. It's clear that he didn't blaspheme but only referred to those who use religion politically. He was using irony, as every schoolboy (but obviously not Indonesian judges) knows.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 ... 25
Send Topic Print