--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sisters axed in Muslim 'honor killing'
Brothers tracked them down in attempt to restore family reputation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 11, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Two sisters were hacked to death by their Muslim brothers in Jordan in an "honor killing" that came one day after the country's parliament rejected a bill imposing tougher sentences for the crime.

The Jordan Times newspaper said the brothers used axes to kill the unidentified sisters, aged 20 and 27, according to a BBC report.

The brothers, now in detention, admitted they carried out the killing to uphold the "family honor."

The practice is known in many Muslim communities as a way of applying justice to a woman deemed to have harmed a family's reputation.

The Times said the 27-year-old sister left home two years ago to marry a man without her family's permission. Three months ago, her 20-year-old sister ran away to join her.

Jordanian officials said someone tipped off the brothers about where the sisters were living. The men went into their home with axes and hacked them to death.

"It was a brutal scene," the official said, according to the paper. "One victim's head was nearly cut clean off."

On Sunday, the Jordanian parliament rejected a bill that would strengthen relevant laws, which currently mete out sentences as light as six months in prison for people guilty of honor killings.

The Jordanian paper said, officially, 12 women are reported to have been killed this year for reasons of "family honor."

It is curious that, as opposed to such actions carried out by lone members of other religions, this is a state sanctioned and time honored tennent of this peaceful religion.

I didn't post it.. I don't mind factual information being posted however when my handle is used it's dis-respectful.

The above is another sophmoric ploy to ridicule me.

I did post the article and it kills KOBE and his handlers that I don't think the way he would like or expect me to.

But, let's see if he's still dancing in 5 months.

error

This vicious crime deserves condemnation like all acts of violence motivated by religious fanaticism - for example, the killing of thousands of Palestinians and the expulsion of tens of thousands more by people who claimed that they had a right to do this because a holy book told them that God had given them Palestine thousands of years ago.

It's pretty sad to see these games being played (spoofing, posting the pic over & over) in *direct response* to me posting FACTS (checking the timestamps).

FACTS are so disturbing that not only must you deny but also spam using several different handles.

One gets the impression we're dealing with DRUNKS or something.. (thier activities show a pattern of getting worse during the late evening to late night with the worst BS being during the times most drunks drink)

the troll post is posted at like 3pm while yours is 3am(drunk hour). What up with that?

Here's how to correct for them. Take a note of the timestamp on one of the latest comments posts (here), then go back to the front page and note that same thread's timestamp. Add the difference you see.

Only the webmaster knows or has control over this shift, there's no way for me to say or fix it (maybe he's having problems and he can't fix it or has other priorities right now ?)

Islam - A Religion of Peace

"When the sacred months are past, kill those who join other gods with Allah wherever ye shall find them, and seize them, beseige them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush; but if they shall convert and observe prayer and pay the obligatory alms let them go their way."

Qu'ran, Sura 9:5

Any religious book that contains such vague parables that one is free to interpret as they see fit isn't much of a religoius text as far as I'm concerned.

But beyond that religious texts are often *taken out of context* by people with agendas of thier own. Not to say this phrase isn't in there and can't be taken literally but that it's especially easy to take things out of context in such texts.

Then beyond even that I don't agree with it - I'm not Islamic...

The Bible is full of vague parables and mysterious phrases (even in it's Hebrew form). The Quran is void of such vagueness. It very clearly states its content, as to eliminate the possibility of misinterpretation. As far as religious texts go, it is the newest, and its history is completely documented.

Try reading it, then get back to us. You CAN read, cant you? The book wont have much in the way of how to make "cords" and "perf boards", but at least your background and the history of the Quran have one thing in common. They are both very very old. BWAHAHAHAH

The Bible is full of vague parables and mysterious phrases (even in it's Hebrew form). The Quran is void of such vagueness. It very clearly states its content, as to eliminate the possibility of misinterpretation. As far as religious texts go, it is the newest, and its history is completely documented.

Try reading it, then get back to us. You CAN read, cant you? The book wont have much in the way of how to make "cords" and "perf boards", but at least your background and the history of the Quran have one thing in common. They are both very very old. BWAHAHAHAH

just to let u know this is a crime not representative of islam. it is representative of SOME arab cultures.
this is the case in a lot of arab countries.

however i think it is only the saudi arabian government who actually sanction this kind of murder.



i guess the muslims today are in the same position
the christians of the 1800s were at in terms of social and mental development.
let us remember that the advanced, kind and modern christians enslaved the africans and brutally colonized much of the world.

This is MERE Religious practice??!!

"The men went into their home with axes and hacked them to death. ..."It was a brutal scene," the official said, according to the paper. "One victim's head was nearly cut clean off."

my guess is this is sumthink beyond Mere Religion

nerds?
talk about wasting page space. What about equal time for creeps, geeks, dweebs and duficies?
Oh wait this has nothing to do with the lead post about another
religion. My bad.

You can find plenty of this in what Christians refer to as the Old Testament. Storming Jerico, slaughtering various "Canaanites," enslaving women and children, stoning adultresses, - all approved of or even commanded by God, of course.

this happened today, not 2000 years ago, which is the age that some muslims wish to reside in, you know?

"Muslims suck more."

Unsubstantiated Allegation
For more on logic at YOUR level, try reading "Logic for Rightwing Dummies (pardon the redundancy)."

well christianity is 2000 years old
while islam is about 1400 years old

considering the enslavement of an entire race took place by christians in the 1800s

i would say that, in terms of human rights, the muslims are about 400 years more advanced than the christians were at their respective ages in history

its funny how the white christians set the standard for human rights.

somehow that fellow john fish who posted his opinion a few scrolls up seems to think that because the white christians performed all those savage acts 200 years ago, those acts are excused because it happened so long ago and "the human race didnt know any better at the time."

so whereas the white christians are excused for the shit they did 200 years ago, the muslims are not because they do all their savage acts now. because they choose to live a "stone age" lifestyle.

such hypocrisy
white christians did far worse to mankind than muslims will EVER do.

---that goes for all races, religions or any groups

Are the xtremist-muslims justified in THEIR backward failures and extreme-religious-violence because slavery existed 200yrs ago?__NO__
...i don't expect other cultures to live like mine, but i expect a relative form of decency and individual freedom. is that hypocritical?

It is really funny that white christians decided that females are equals to males. That small girls are not to be circumcised, that people are people even if of a differant, or no faith, that people can elect their own leaders and keep organized religion off to one side, that one should turn a cheek rather than kill a family to avenge a slight, that a raped women is guilty of nothing, that God is more intersted in what you do than in what you eat or what kind of hat your wear, that God doesn't think women need to hide their entire bodiy or be banned from driving-- yeah pal, a laugh a minute. BUt I guess you have a funny sense of humor.

Oh yeah, now go cite examples of how some Christians have violated what they are, or should be, taught. But if you do, please show solid evidence that the first paragraph does not represent main stream Christian thought today.

Christians and Muslims both have committed savagery.

But some imams still preach it. And some Muslims still practice it.

Priests and pastors don't. And Christians don't stone or behead people.

my friend, earlier u were implying that the shit the white christians did were excusable because they happened a long time ago before the "human rights era".

u basically went on to say that xtremist muslims have no excuse because theyre doing their shit in the 21st century - a century where there is an established human rights consciousness.

the very fact that you brought up the issue of time period in which happened shows that u really were implying what i just said u were implying.





imagine what the buddhist populations of east asia would have been saying about white christians back then. "at least we dont do shit to people in this day and age."

the muslims need time to evolve the same way that you white christians took hundreds of years to evolve from your savage animalistic beginnings to ur pseudo-civilized society today,

"the muslims need time to evolve the same way that you white christians took hundreds of years to evolve"

There you go.

"the muslims need time to evolve the same way that you white christians took hundreds of years to evolve"

Oh, and I guess we should just stand by and let them 'learn' on their own.

Let's take 8 year old Billy. He walks out of the house, get's into a huge SUV with automatic trans and let's say he has long legs and can reach the pedals but can't really see much out the window.

Someday Billy will be as good a driver as his mother and driver are now, and in fact, were his father to have driven at eight he would have been just as bad.

Now Billy takes that SUV and careens down the road towards where your mother and your kids are crossing the street.

Should Billy be allowed to drive down that road simply because, as New X implies, "boys will be boys" and gosh he needs times to grow out of it. (WZ's "excitable boy")

On another extreme example, should we have let John Wayne Garcy off the hook because the Egyptians biblically killed male children?

How far do we take this politically correct social relativism?

Do we go the other extreme also and say that since "buddhist populations of east asia back then" were peaceful the buddists in Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Laos who have been pretty nasty recently deserve to be condemned and stopped because their anscestors were well behaved boys and girls? So that an islamic car bomber is an understandable object of our pity but a Sri Lankan soldier shooting tamils is bad?

you fucking morons are so funny.
especially that fresca shit bird.
what a macaroon
probally hasnt been laid in years....
wonder why............. ;-}

Oh, and I don't see the logic train that would lead to this conclusion:
A - Violence is bad
B- Islam is violent today
C- Christianity was violent in the past but not today

D Therefore, I am excusing past christian evils.

Also, I would suspect that New X is neither well travelled nor educated beyond basic Western Civilization classes. Were he to have a broader and deeper view of the world he would most likely not make sweeping statements about christianity being such an overwhelming, worse in history event.

When he or she gets some experience in life New X will realize that other people have been quite nasty. We Chinese have had some pretty damn impressive death tolls - since we have more numbers we can usually top Western casualty figures. Hindus and Muslems killed quite a few million over the centries in the subcontinent and even the buddists he holds as an example have been evil - buddists in Cambodia pretty were the nastiest in the century on a 'blood'per-square-kilometer basis.

And of course our atheist friends have been pretty rough what with Stalin and company. On a small scale but per-capita-quite-horrid scale animists have wiped out entire tribes in tribal wars.

My conclusion:

Forget religion or lack of religion, people still kill.
Don't judge people or peoples on past behavior - that is the most racist thing a person can do
If you are comitting violence, you are wrong and I don't care if you are the "ipolitically correct-crowd" like muslims or palestinians or the 'politically-right crowd" like the isrealis or the paratroopers.

Good post.

1988 saddam gasses kurds
china is repressive
americans murder rate over 10,000 deaths

right wing response======

we are good
they are bad

i know more than you do

nanny nanny billy goat

...between your three examples?

You don't know?

Gee...I thought it was fairly obvious.

The Kurds and the Chinese deaths are a direct result of government policy.

America's murders, as awful as they are, are the result of acts of individuals.

Now, surely, you can see the two are not morally equivalent?

"especially that fresca shit bird. "

In all seriousness, I LOVE the term "shitbird" and try to use it as much as possible.

Good work!

...I'm posting from an Air Force base in South Carolina.

I get paid by the government to spam the Indymedia websites with my asinine drivel.

what that guy was saying was

A. Muslims are violent today
B. Christians were violent yesterday
C. Christians are excused because it was yesterday and we didnt know any better
D. However we do know better today therefore Muslims are wrong and they are animals UNLIKE us Christians who only fucked up because we didn't know any better.

"Christians were violent yesterday"

When? What event(s)?

i didnt mean yesterday literally

when i said yesterday i meant in the past

OK. When in the past? Give examples. Be specific.

OK. When in the past? Give examples. Be specific.

"I what that guy was saying was

A. Muslims are violent today
B. Christians were violent yesterday
C. Christians are excused because it was yesterday and we didnt know any better
D. However we do know better today therefore Muslims are wrong and they are animals UNLIKE us Christians who only fucked up because we didn't know any better. "

New X, you just don't get it. 1st, this guy was paraphrasing YOUR warped thoughts.

2nd, Where in the world did you get your 'D' from? is that more of your toughts or did you just invent that out of thin air because I can't see a serious post here that stated that.

If you didn't hate Christianity so much I's suggest you take a course in Logic and argument at a good Jesuit school near by.

see this is what happens when u just jump into an argument.

all the shit ive been saying has been addressed to one guy who excused the shit hte cchristians did because they happened in the past.

u dont even know which "guy" im referring to

please go back and re read everything. maybe then u mite be able to figure it out. otherwise just SHUT THE FUCK UP

CHRISTIAN BIGOT RACISTs

I HATE CHRISTIANS
ESPECIALLY THE CONSERVATIVES WHO TRY TO REINTRODUCE SCHOOL PRAYER ADN THOSE WHO TRY TO RID SCHOOL CURRICULUMS OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY

The Bible: "Love thy neighbor."

The Quran: "Convert, enslave, or kill the infidels."

Anarchist: "Humans, by nature, are good."
Nonanarchist: "Humans, by nature, are evil."

Your butt?

No, I believe the human race, as a whole, is on the good side of the Moral-Meter.

Of course, that's just the average.

People can be incredibly kind, loving, generous.

Then again, people are capable of unspeakable evil.

But we average out pretty decent.

Now, do you have any more extremely wrong opinions to attribute to me?

703-695-0071

To tell 'em you're a dweeb?

They already know that.

Let's see, nonanarchist. You are opposed to our political philosophy. You are opposed to this newswire. Why then do you post here? Oh, I know, it's called spamming and harassment.

..."making fun of the idiots".

What, exactly, are you afraid of?

The secret that anarchy is a failure might get out?

News flash: everybody but you already knows.

It's call " freedom of expression".

Ever hear of it?

It's in that piece of paper you want to destroy called the Constitution.

Did you pay to use this newswire? Did you donate funds to IndyMedia? Have you, in any way, contributed to the causes for which this newswire exists? Given that you disagree with its philosophical foundations, what are you doing here? Oh, that's right, you're engaged in harassment.

Tell you what. Let's meet and have it out one on one.

I was never implying or saying that the early Christian acts, or even more recent ones, were excuseable. Like I said: Prior acts are no excuse for atrocities today, on this scale of extremism.
I got no problem in comparing arab-xtremists with slavetraders as animals...no problem. Just that one done years ago doesn't justify the other today, izall.

Did I pay to use the newswire?

No. It's not mandatory, is it? Beside, I contribute by making the discussions livelier. It'd get pretty boring in here if everyone posted just "Yeah, Bush DOES suck!"

"Tell you what. Let's meet and have it out one on one."

Okay. I'll hit you so hard, your whole political philosophy will die.

Ooops...somebody beat me to it.

That should be good for a laugh!

All his money's invested in bumper sticker material.

Sorry Ms. new-xl, I re-read the above posts and I can't find where anyone tried to excuse anyone for acts done in the distant past. Could you point that out. What I see, and of course, i could be wrong - please point out what specific lines I am missing - is someone misreading statements.

Now if some some weird reason you believe in the rather outdated notion that people are guilty if their forefathers were guilty then you may be right. By saying that Christians today shouldn't be condemned for medival-era actions, then maybe they are excusing the actions of the past.

The way i read these posts is that they point out that Christians as a whole did things in the middle ages that they don't do now but that what we are addressing vis-a-vis Islam are actions taking place now.

Regarding the statement on your hating christianity, you have confirmed with your own words at least part of that - that you hate christians - those who follow the gospels.

I honestly don't hate moslems. I don't hate islam. There may be some moslems I don't care for and there certainly are aspects to the relgion that leads me to believe it has violent tendencies and needs some kind of reformation but i don't give a blanket hatred to a race.

If some moslems wish to express their religiion in my school, then I have no touble with that as long as it is shown in context and others are given a chance to express their's with no pressure. Religion IS a factor in American life and should not be ignored by schools as it is (IMHO). I don't find this a reason to hate. My disagreement is with violence, not with teachings per se. And I certainly don't hate the millions of moslems who try to live simple lives of feeding families and surviving day to day as you seem to for their Christian eqivilents.

brutality and religion
by Meyer London Friday September 12, 2003 09:23 AM



You can find plenty of this in what Christians refer to as the Old Testament. Storming Jerico, slaughtering various "Canaanites," enslaving women and children, stoning adultresses, - all approved of or even commanded by God, of course.


add your comments



ya right meyer
by john fish Friday September 12, 2003 10:34 AM



this happened today, not 2000 years ago, which is the age that some muslims wish to reside in, you know?






please, maybe he didnt intend for his message to come out that way, but it is surely excusing the christians.

when did i ever say i hated christians? *wink wink*

You still haven't answered when Christians killed people in the past. Could you?

isn't that what we're doing again?
They remember their VERY long history.

The Crusades were done by the Catholics. Catholics are not Christians. I have never met any person who is a member of any religious denomination that is a Christian. I've met a lot of people who THOUGHT they were Christians, but they weren't.

Just because someone claims to be a Christian doesn't mean they are one. Just because someone claims they are doing things in the name of Christ doesn't mean they are. The N.T, doesn't authorize Christians to force others to by the sword to convert to Christianity. Convertion to Christ must be done by the free-will of the individual.

So, you need to show me where any non-denominational group of Christians ever killed people. You either can or you can't. Which is it?

i thought the Brit settlers who settled in N. America and the KKK were christian?
i must be wrong
theyre probably full blooded muslims who eat goat meat

so we come back full circle to the initial argument.

just because someone is of a certain religion and he or she commits a crime, doesnt mean they committed that crime because they religion compelled them to.

honoUr killings are not sanctioned by islam. honor killing are cultural in nature. it is a problem that only some in positions of power care to address. so to say that honour kilings are representative of islam is false.

is forgiving, not forgiven.
that's the difference.

Sorry New X, your reference doesn't seem to imply at all that anyone is excusing christians. Just saying it happened in the past.

The statement was that the event happened hundreds of years ok, not that it happened hundreds of years ago and so is OK. Again, though, I am assuming a rational person's interp of this which is that hte blood of the fathers does not pass on to that of the sons.

Need I point out where you stated you 'hated' christians?

The Pilgrims did believe themselves to be Chrsitains, but they weren't. Same with those who would be a part of the KKK.

If this is too deep for you, let me know.

There are plenty of people who believe themselves to be Christains who practice the ways of Christainity in some aspects of their lives, but they are not Christians, for they have not obeyed God's commands in relation as to how and become a Christian and all that it involves.

The Crusaders did not follow the practice of the teaching of Jesus. No where did He command that people be converted by force. Therefore, they were not Christians.

The Pilgrims, while good people by all observances, did not practice all that the Bible taught. In fact, they added to the Word of God by making their won traditions and teaching supercede the Bible. They were good people, but they were not Christians.

Obviously the KKK are those whose hate because of one's race. Jesus taught us to hate no man. Therefore, they aren't Christians.

Christians simply follow God's Word. They don't add to it. They don't take away from it.

OK, let's skirt the issue of people who act contrary to a religion's teaching are not of that teaching.

It is a fact that the Bible, as modified by the New Testiment is a pacifist doctrine of love and forgiveness. It is very hard to interpret the core statement (Sermon on the Mount) as anything other than one of inclusiveness and understanding.

The Koran is still an Old Testiment/tribal type of document. I've taken classes in it and read what I could of it and I don't see that same stream of love in it. I see quite a bit of vengence and retribution in it.

Now to return to the 'who is a christian' issue. I think in a spiritual way obviously only actions count.

However, the institution does count. Today 'Christian' (TM) leaders almost universally condemn violence. Even the Catholic bishops in the US were against the Iraq operation. This is not true for Islam (TM) leaders. After 9-11 the crys for peace and sympathy from their leaders were deafening only in their silence. The crys for Jihad were loud and wide spread.

Why should we consider this? Because its important to understand what the real ground rules are if we are to address an issue. Taking a politically correct view that everything islam is great and everything christian is bad and hateful solves nothing.

Islam teaches that those who are not Islamic are heritics and should all be killed.

even the parts that contradict themselves?
both your views on this same god and
their prophet/son come from a
god that kills.
know yourself, be yourself.

~?{}!

You should research how religions and philosophies are studies and particularly the Christian tradition of interpreting their writings.

You don't go after ideas by comparing each and every line seperately as if they are stand alone books.

You also don't take parables literally.

Philosophies are to be understood. They aren't rote sets of instructions. Most people who frequent these pages know that.

The gospels have little contridiction philosophically. I mean, does it make any differance in one's behavior if Mark talked about three angels and Luke two? Not one of the four gospels preach hatred and viloence. That is what is important. Can the Koran say the same? In fact are there many places where a phrase of love isn't followed by a phrase of vengence?

(Remember the various statements after 9-11 concerning "too bad for WTC BUT those americans reaped what they sowed" that is an islamic approach. A Christian approach would be to stop the sentence after expressing sympathy.)

the old testiment is a bit heavy on vengence and on listing rules of daily actions. the new testiment supersded this book for Christians and replaced vengence with forgiveness and daily actions with moral actions (in other words the Christian God dosen't care what kind of hat you wear or what pieces of your body you slice and dice)

Looking at Christianity purely from an historical and intellectual slant, this philosophy stands out as revolutionary, especially for its time.

Weibing's post is correct in asserting that understanding these basic philosophies is important to understanding how and why things happen in the ME.

Both Islam and Judism are what I would call tribal religions - emphasis on body marking and exclusive behavirors that would tend to keep people from straying from the tribe (if only because no one else would want to 'date' them) as well as an us-and-them mentality (that manifests itself on earth as opposed to in heaven say.)

Now one can quickly point our vengeful Christians and love filled Muslims but that is not germane to the argument here. On can easily point out some serious transgressions by Buddists but that doesn't make Buddism a philosophy of violence or hatred. The discussion here is what is the basic underlying philosophy - I'm not even going to venture which is right and which i wrong.

Now there was an earllier post that claimed that many of the atrocities in Islamic society are not religion based but rather culturally based.

1) A society's culture and religion are often (surprise) linked.
2) One has to ask how the religion addresses the questionable behavior. Sadly many of these atrocities towards women, children and gays fit into this philosphy of vengence. Relgiious police for example, are linked towards the Koran's civil-religious call that its not 'render unto ceasar' but rather God and Man are linked on earth and all governments are and should be theocracies (gross simplification here but basically spot on).

Well, enough for now. Again, ~?{}! , spend some time finding out about things - more than a half inch deep.

brutality and religion
by Meyer London Friday September 12, 2003 09:23 AM


You can find plenty of this in what Christians refer to as the Old Testament. Storming Jerico, slaughtering various "Canaanites," enslaving women and children, stoning adultresses, - all approved of or even commanded by God, of course.


add your comments


ya right meyer
by john fish Friday September 12, 2003 10:34 AM


this happened today, not 2000 years ago, which is the age that some muslims wish to reside in, you know?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

u notice he didnt say "hey that was the past, it was wrong but theres nothign we can do about it now. lets concentrate on the present where atrocities are being committed as we speak"

instead, he made some snide comment about the backwardness of muslims and i cannot help u if you cannot see what he was implying

(well) "that happened 2000 years ago"

that is so clearly excusing them.

btw all of u who believe dinosaurs existed arent christian

so no point in u guys goin to church

well actually, i guess it does at least make ur neighboUrs think u are good christians

coz thats the only reason u guys go to church neway

Oh give me a break new X, at least you argue once ina while and sometimes well. Now you are into 'is not, is too' (and, btw, it is not - tha is not "so clearly excusing them.")

As to your postscript. That's a pretty lame act which simply shows ignorance.

I guess you now know why everyone does things.

i thought things were getting a bit interesting in the discussion truth be told. now we are back in kinder garten.

Oh give me a break new X, at least you argue once ina while and sometimes well. Now you are into 'is not, is too' (and, btw, it is not - tha is not "so clearly excusing them.")

As to your postscript. That's a pretty lame act which simply shows ignorance.

I guess you now know why everyone does things.

i thought things were getting a bit interesting in the discussion truth be told. now we are back in kinder garten.

basically men just like to kill each other. let them. more food for me

priests and pastors don't." What planet have you been living on? The majority of priests and pastors in Germany led their congregations in prayer for Hitler's military success. Rabbi Kahane and other religious fanatics have been instrumental in whipping up ant-Arab violence in Palestine. Croation Roman Catholic priests played a leading role in the slaughter of Orthodox and Communist Serbs during World War II, when they (the priests) were allied with the Nazis. Priests and the Papacy enthusiastically supported the murderous regime of Francisco Franco in Spain. Cardinal Spellman of New York and Cardinal McIntire of Los Angeles enthusiastically supported the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese by the U.S. Protestant ministers, especially Baptists and evangelicals, have been prominent as members or supporters of the Ku Klux Klan from its origings after the Civil War until today; they didn't raise a peep of protest when black men were burned alive by frenzied mobs. Opus Dei, a fanatical religious cult that originated in Franco's Spain, operates today with the approval of the current Pope and supports virtually every murderous thug, torturer and murderer in the world, as long as he is a right winger who has seized state power in the name of "law and order."

Just because someone claims to be a Christian (follower of Christ) doesn't mean they are one. If someone does something in the name of Christ, but it's not something of which Christ would approve, then that person is not really acting on behalf of Christ. If someone teaches something in the name of Christ, but it's not something of which Christ would approve, then that person is not really teaching as Christ would have them.

But, on the other hand, imans who preach violence are showing the true nature of their murderous religion.

Nowhere in the N.T. will you find where Christians are to kill those who do not name the name of Christ.

The Qu'ran clearly points out that those who do not submit to Allah or to the prophet Mohammed are infidels and are to be killed.

"When the sacred months are past; kill those who join other god with Allah wherever ye shall find them, and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush; but if they shall convert and observe prayer and pay the obligatory alms let them go their way." Qu'ran, Sura 9:5

And the Bible says that it was a good idea to massacre the Canaanites and steal their land, and Saint Paul tells the slaves that it is their duty to obey their masters - of course, these defenses of slavery, land theft and mass murder say nothing about the basis of the religion. Now, the Koran, as we all know, is a different story - because we didn't learn it at Sunday School or in classes down at the synagogue.

Believe what you will.
You're going to anyway.

And the Bible says that it was a good idea to massacre the Canaanites and steal their land, and Saint Paul tells the slaves that it is their duty to obey their masters

1) Cannanites is old testiment. Just the point many have been trying to make.

2) Regarding St. Paul. This also makes the point. The Christian religion does not argue for 'heaven on earth' it does not argue for religious interference with government. Accept what is here and work to live a personally good life. Paul is not preaching in favor of slavery, he is preaching for emphasis on what is inner.

Now you can believe it or not or you can say that he should have argued that slaves revolt. Be that as it may, this example very forcefully argues the point that Christianity is a pacifist religion, one that should argue for peace. St. Paul, by the way, backed his words with action and went to his death quietly, not even cursing those who killed him.

Now I am not a Christian, simply because I don't believe one can identify a specific God, but my, what an exciting concept it is.

A question you should ask and try to answer with more than just emotional outbursts, is this:

Someone earlier stated that a person who commits aggression is by definition no longer a Christian.

Could you say the same thing for these imans you mention? Are they condemned by their own teaching much as a minister preaching racial injustace is?

Again, look at the whole context of the doctrine, not isolated incidents.

johnshop, you display remarkable clarity in your post. in light of this, i am inclined to ask, why bother believing in it at all anymore? or, in other words, you are aware of and well informed about the mythical aspect of religious narratives like the new testament or koran, so what is the difference between the new testament, and say, edith hamilton's mythology? why do religious people attribute any truth to a particular holy text, while discounting the rest, even if fully aware that millions, nay, billions of other human beings are equally certain that a different holy book is the right one?

posters to this thread, both pro- and anti-religion, might be interested in reading joshi's book "god's defenders: what they believe and why they are wrong." it is *not* a balanced or even particularly eloquent exploration of atheism, but it does get a person thinking.

looking forward to people's responses.

there's no need for it anymore!

Yeah, right, someone who urges slaves to obey their masters is in no way legitimatizing the institution of slavery. And when he urged women to obey their husbands he wasn't legitimatizing patriarchy, either.
Islam does not endorse terrorism. But then again, Christianity and Judaism don't endorse it either - but this did not prevent such events as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the burning of Tokyo and Dresden with incendiaries, or the 1982 bombing of the civilian areas of Beirut by the Israeli air force. Of course, none of that was terrorism - it was counterterrorism. So was the storming of Jerico and the massacre of Jerusalem's population during the First Crusade.

meyer, u see philosophy only one millemeter deep.

that's too bad. get past your hang ups. read. look deeper. don't hate.

maybe you'll be happier.

I hope that doesn't represent the length of the reading that you have done on the subject of religion and violence. Trying to avoid the reality that both Christianity and Judasim have endorsed violence from their beginnings, or that Islam is somehow more inclined to resort to violence than those two religions, will only tie you up in contortions and contradictions. Give it up - and give up your attitude of cultural and ethical superiotity over people in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

Every religion has had some period of ORGANIZED and DOCTRINAL periods of violence.

All but Islam have these periods centuries in their past.

Islam is the ONLY religion TODAY that still has calls to violence coming DIRECTLY from it's LEADERS, not just from pockets of rogue members.

As far as I'm concerned, ALL organized religions have massive problems and I'm certainly not a big fan of any of them. That said, it's just a simple observation that Islam still actively promotes and mandates violence as a basic tennent of it's faith.

meyer,
you make a statement that makes some sense and then you wreck it with your stupid and emotional assumption that all who disagree with you do so for racist reasons.

you should learn when to stop.

islam does not mandate violence as a basic tenet of its faith

the basic tenets of islam are the five pillars of islam

1)admission that there is no god but allah and muhammed was the messenger of allah

2)pray 5 times daily

3)give alms to the poor

4)fast during ramadan

5)haj (if one can afford it)

Good post New X..

All fine points and I apologize for naming violence as one of the official tenents.

"1)admission that there is no god but allah and muhammed was the messenger of allah"

Here, however, is where things get a little dodgy for the rest of us.

Sometimes this one sorta comes out as "take up thy sword against the infidel".

The Christian faith has the same sort of stuff "no god but the only God", graven images, that sort of thing..

I am a person that believes anyone has the RIGHT to believe in ANY god they want to as long as they don't bomb me because I don't believe in theirs or they wake me up at 8:30 on Saturday morning and try to "convert" me.

The biggest difference in the modern world is the role of this Religion (capital R) on earth. Christianity today pretty much accepts personal redemption and a seperation of church and state to various degrees.

Personal redemption means its actions of the individuals that count and coerced good works don't really count. Similiarly there has been a decided movement away from physical manifestations of faith i.e. God doesn't really care what hat you wear today.

Islamic faith is still heavy on physial manifestation of action - take a haj, Pork is sinful, dogs are unclean, women cover up. Not denying that they preach personal redemption also but acts that a modern Christian would consider meaningless without intent are held as important. True, years and years ago Christians held similiar beliefs - confession forgives sins even without repentence for example was believed by many although never taught by an organized church as valid.

Related to this is the role of Church and State. The most that the vast majority of modern christians would see for the state is as a kind of conduit for the basic values of its citizens, that is basic morality can be translated to laws.

Islam today is still strongly influenced by an inability to see how Religion and state can be seperated. They are too linked to be viewed alone.

that is why Islamic Republics or kingdoms usually either have religious police or have regular police to patrol for violations of 'ritualistic' acts such as breaking the fast too early during ramadam. In most if not all "Islamic" countries conversion of Moslems by non-muslems but not vice-versa is prohibited, and punishable, by law.

Ironially, Islam and Judism are closely linked in these aspects. These two religions are very, very similiar. It is Christianity which is an outlier. In fact, I would take a grossly over-simplified step of saying that Christianity and Confucism (minus the obvious fact of religion vs philosophy) have more in common than Islam and Christianity.

Now before you jump all over me, these are my personal observations of religions - none of which I either belong to or were raised in - well, semi-confucist in a vague way. Also, if anyone wants to take the cheap argument that appears on this thread so quickly that anyone who disagrees with someone else does so because they are a racist, well, I'm not white for whatever that counts.

My interest in all this comes from studies of ideology - starting as a young pioneer in china. Maoist ideology, various relgions etc. I have found Christianity and Buddism and to some smaller extent true maoism, when each are cut away to their written baseline and the actual practices ignore, to be the standouts.

By the way, there is one question I hope someone can answer.
Does Islam have a tradition of mainstream pacifist sects as Christianity and Hinduism do? Are their Quakers to match the Sunnis? I have found a few pacifist writers of course but no real organized groups. I have a theory that this is due to Islam's linkage to the State but I would love to be proven wrong and find tribes or villages or sects that embrace pacificism.

Mandatory English Language , seal up our borders !!!!

and export all those whiny little ragtops wearing their dirty ass NIGHT Shirts back to their mud hut and their dirty land.