The Holy Quran Experiment

[Bronzeage]

What does the Qur'an have to do with any of this? The story of Muhammad consolidating his power in a series of wars is not preserved in the Qur'an; it's part of the tradition. And yes, tradition says he kept waging war against those fellow Arabs and Jews who did not yet accept his status as a prophet. He calls them infidels. The Qur'an is mostly just exhortations, all presented as quotations from Allah himself, although some do incite to violence.

So how do you explain all the Christian empires? There's no shortage of Christian kings trying to make themselves emperor of Europe. And when the pope didn't cooperate they'd put a puppet pope on S:t Peter's throne. Or just invent some new variant of Christianity. I fail to see any difference at all?

I think you and Barbos are connecting imaginary dots.

The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, so labels don't count for a lot. Seriously, was Ivan really all that terrible?

 

[bilby]

So how do you explain all the Christian empires? There's no shortage of Christian kings trying to make themselves emperor of Europe. And when the pope didn't cooperate they'd put a puppet pope on S:t Peter's throne. Or just invent some new variant of Christianity. I fail to see any difference at all?

I think you and Barbos are connecting imaginary dots.

The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, so labels don't count for a lot. Seriously, was Ivan really all that terrible?

It wasn't an Empire either.

I saw Dancing with the Tsars the other night. Peter and Catherine were great, but Ivan was terrible.

 

[Barbarian]

What does the Qur'an have to do with any of this? The story of Muhammad consolidating his power in a series of wars is not preserved in the Qur'an; it's part of the tradition. And yes, tradition says he kept waging war against those fellow Arabs and Jews who did not yet accept his status as a prophet. He calls them infidels. The Qur'an is mostly just exhortations, all presented as quotations from Allah himself, although some do incite to violence.

So how do you explain all the Christian empires? There's no shortage of Christian kings trying to make themselves emperor of Europe. And when the pope didn't cooperate they'd put a puppet pope on S:t Peter's throne. Or just invent some new variant of Christianity. I fail to see any difference at all?

I do not understand why do you think I have to either defend Christianity or concede that Islam is peaceful. The historical pattern we see is merely a matter of these insanities having phases, and they are indistinguishable from each other on their bad days. Christianity can be just as bad as Islam and a Christian theocracy is just as bad as ISIS - for me there'd be no essential difference between living in sixteenth century Spain or today's Raqqa, and Europe before the Enlightenment was hell on Earth as far as I am concerned.

I think you and Barbos are connecting imaginary dots.

And I think your reply had nothing to do with my post, to wit, that being arrogant about your interlocutor's need to read the Qur'an was completely misdirected as the Muhammad-the-warlord image is NOT based on the Qur'an.

 

[DBT]

Ivan was about as terrible as it's possible to be, close enough to the nastiness level of Vlad, et al.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So how do you explain all the Christian empires? There's no shortage of Christian kings trying to make themselves emperor of Europe. And when the pope didn't cooperate they'd put a puppet pope on S:t Peter's throne. Or just invent some new variant of Christianity. I fail to see any difference at all?

I do not understand why do you think I have to either defend Christianity or concede that Islam is peaceful. The historical pattern we see is merely a matter of these insanities having phases, and they are indistinguishable from each other on their bad days. Christianity can be just as bad as Islam and a Christian theocracy is just as bad as ISIS - for me there'd be no essential difference between living in sixteenth century Spain or today's Raqqa, and Europe before the Enlightenment was hell on Earth as far as I am concerned.

I think you and Barbos are connecting imaginary dots.

And I think your reply had nothing to do with my post, to wit, that being arrogant about your interlocutor's need to read the Qur'an was completely misdirected as the Muhammad-the-warlord image is NOT based on the Qur'an.

Then what is your point? My argument is that people (any people) want power. If there's a window of opportunity to seize power those that can will. And then justify it, after the fact with whatever bullshit excuse is handy.

My argument is that staring at religion is a red herring. The problem is human nature. All humans. Muslims are no different than the rest of us. Unless we see it that way we have no hope of destroying ISIS.

ISIS redeeming quality, above all, in the eyes of their supporters is that they're not Assad or Masum.

 

[barbos]

Ivan was about as terrible as it's possible to be, close enough to the nastiness level of Vlad, et al.

As terrible as the rest of tsars.

 

[Barbarian]

My argument is that staring at religion is a red herring. The problem is human nature. All humans. Muslims are no different than the rest of us. Unless we see it that way we have no hope of destroying ISIS.

The problem cannot be human nature because then I should have it too, and I never felt the need to establish a caliphate. The problem is one's worldview; surely you don't claim it does not matter how one interprets the world? And religion is one of the most all-encompassing types of worldview. How do you even start to justify the claim that it does not cause different behavior?

 

[DrZoidberg]

My argument is that staring at religion is a red herring. The problem is human nature. All humans. Muslims are no different than the rest of us. Unless we see it that way we have no hope of destroying ISIS.

The problem cannot be human nature because then I should have it too, and I never felt the need to establish a caliphate. The problem is one's worldview; surely you don't claim it does not matter how one interprets the world? And religion is one of the most all-encompassing types of worldview. How do you even start to justify the claim that it does not cause different behavior?

Maybe there's an issue of opportunity here? The human mind is great at self delusion and justifications. Maybe you haven't been in a position to place yourself as a dictator over anyone or anything and therefore haven't felt the urge? There's a saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely".

I think your attitude is the most dangerous one there is. You tell yourself that you're above abusing power if you would get it and that you don't yearn to have it. Of course you would. We all would. The only thing keeping politcians from abusing power is the balance of power. If they abuse their power they are held accountable. The idea that there are people who can handle power is what's wrong with ISIS. Muslims who think that Islamic dictators are different from any other kind of dictator. Communists thought the same about their working class leaders who, due to belonging to their special category never would abuse power once they got it. It's just human.

And there's no shortage of examples from history. When ex Yugoslavia fell apart the bad guys were the "Christian" Serbs. Was it because they were Christian or was it because they simply had more money, weapons and manpower than the Bosnians? The Nazis were Christian. Hitler used the Bible to justify everything he did. Was that some moral failing of Christianity or just because cunts drunk on power are fucking cunts drunk on power? The Swedish king Gustavus Adolphus II used Christianity as an excuse to rape and pillage half of "Catholic" Europe. Do you think he did it because he was Christian or just because he could and grasped at any excuse no matter how flimsy? About a third of the Mongol army was Christian. Another third were Buddhist. The most brutal army and empire that has ever existed. Because they were Christian and Buddhist, or just because they could?

Here's a tip. Don't think you're above temptation and corruption. If you assume you have the same weaknesses and failings as most people you'll be better at calling yourself on the lies you'll tell yourself to justify your more questionable actions. We've all done them. Just some friendly advice.

 

[TSwizzle]

ISIS redeeming quality, above all, in the eyes of their supporters is that they're not Assad or Masum.

Do you seriously believe that for the thousands of foreign muslim fighters in ISIS ranks that it's all about ousting Assad ?

 

[DrZoidberg]

ISIS redeeming quality, above all, in the eyes of their supporters is that they're not Assad or Masum.

Do you seriously believe that for the thousands of foreign muslim fighters in ISIS ranks that it's all about ousting Assad ?

No, of course not. I was talking about their Middle-Eastern supporters.

Here's my theory on the foreign Jihadis. People travelling great distances to be "part of something greater than themselves" is not unique for Islam. It's a feature of humanity. There's a category of humans who like this kind of adventure. In the 90'ies there was a stream of Swedes fighting in Bosnia against the Serbs. Mercenaries. There's right now a bunch of Swedes who have travelled down to fight against ISIS. There's a huge monument in central Stockholm of the rather large contingent of Swedish anarchists who travelled to fight Franco in the 1930'ies. These kinds of wars with an ideological side suited for attracting foreigners only happens once in a generation or so. This time, Islam is the flavour of the day. But they're not unique nor uniquely bad.

 

[Barbarian]

The problem cannot be human nature because then I should have it too, and I never felt the need to establish a caliphate. The problem is one's worldview; surely you don't claim it does not matter how one interprets the world? And religion is one of the most all-encompassing types of worldview. How do you even start to justify the claim that it does not cause different behavior?

Maybe there's an issue of opportunity here? The human mind is great at self delusion and justifications. Maybe you haven't been in a position to place yourself as a dictator over anyone or anything and therefore haven't felt the urge? There's a saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely".

I think your attitude is the most dangerous one there is. You tell yourself that you're above abusing power if you would get it and that you don't yearn to have it. Of course you would. We all would. The only thing keeping politcians from abusing power is the balance of power. If they abuse their power they are held accountable. The idea that there are people who can handle power is what's wrong with ISIS. Muslims who think that Islamic dictators are different from any other kind of dictator. Communists thought the same about their working class leaders who, due to belonging to their special category never would abuse power once they got it. It's just human.

And there's no shortage of examples from history. When ex Yugoslavia fell apart the bad guys were the "Christian" Serbs. Was it because they were Christian or was it because they simply had more money, weapons and manpower than the Bosnians? The Nazis were Christian. Hitler used the Bible to justify everything he did. Was that some moral failing of Christianity or just because cunts drunk on power are fucking cunts drunk on power? The Swedish king Gustavus Adolphus II used Christianity as an excuse to rape and pillage half of "Catholic" Europe. Do you think he did it because he was Christian or just because he could and grasped at any excuse no matter how flimsy? About a third of the Mongol army was Christian. Another third were Buddhist. The most brutal army and empire that has ever existed. Because they were Christian and Buddhist, or just because they could?

Here's a tip. Don't think you're above temptation and corruption. If you assume you have the same weaknesses and failings as most people you'll be better at calling yourself on the lies you'll tell yourself to justify your more questionable actions. We've all done them. Just some friendly advice.

I really don't appreciate your slanders here, nor your presumption to give me advice in lieu of addressing my points.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Maybe there's an issue of opportunity here? The human mind is great at self delusion and justifications. Maybe you haven't been in a position to place yourself as a dictator over anyone or anything and therefore haven't felt the urge? There's a saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely".

I think your attitude is the most dangerous one there is. You tell yourself that you're above abusing power if you would get it and that you don't yearn to have it. Of course you would. We all would. The only thing keeping politcians from abusing power is the balance of power. If they abuse their power they are held accountable. The idea that there are people who can handle power is what's wrong with ISIS. Muslims who think that Islamic dictators are different from any other kind of dictator. Communists thought the same about their working class leaders who, due to belonging to their special category never would abuse power once they got it. It's just human.

And there's no shortage of examples from history. When ex Yugoslavia fell apart the bad guys were the "Christian" Serbs. Was it because they were Christian or was it because they simply had more money, weapons and manpower than the Bosnians? The Nazis were Christian. Hitler used the Bible to justify everything he did. Was that some moral failing of Christianity or just because cunts drunk on power are fucking cunts drunk on power? The Swedish king Gustavus Adolphus II used Christianity as an excuse to rape and pillage half of "Catholic" Europe. Do you think he did it because he was Christian or just because he could and grasped at any excuse no matter how flimsy? About a third of the Mongol army was Christian. Another third were Buddhist. The most brutal army and empire that has ever existed. Because they were Christian and Buddhist, or just because they could?

Here's a tip. Don't think you're above temptation and corruption. If you assume you have the same weaknesses and failings as most people you'll be better at calling yourself on the lies you'll tell yourself to justify your more questionable actions. We've all done them. Just some friendly advice.

I really don't appreciate your slanders here, nor your presumption to give me advice in lieu of addressing my points.

ha ha... aren't you the sensitive one. Too close to home?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

/mod

 

[hinduwoman]

yes, this is something I do not get. If their faith is really so important to them then why do not people actually read the texts?

 

[DrZoidberg]

yes, this is something I do not get. If their faith is really so important to them then why do not people actually read the texts?

It's actually not that hard to understand. The holy texts of any religion is a fetish. It's a sacred object rather than the contents being important. They're mostly just gibberish anyway. The context of all of them is lost. Unless you are a researcher.

The teachings of any religion is irrelevant. Also, as proven by Plato in the Euthyphro dilemma. Morals don't come from religion. They come from somewhere else, and they find the morals they already have in their holy text. Sometimes they need to squint a lot, perhaps hold the book upside down or do a numerological study or a metaphorical reading.

 

[Malintent]

You all do, of course, understand that Christianity is rooted in the New Testament, and not the Old Testament, right? Every single quote read was from the Old Testament.. so this is not "Christianity versus Islam".. this is "Judaism versus Islam".

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You all do, of course, understand that Christianity is rooted in the New Testament, and not the Old Testament, right? Every single quote read was from the Old Testament.. so this is not "Christianity versus Islam".. this is "Judaism versus Islam".

You're talking about Christianity. The religion who's main guy specifically says of the Old Testament "Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished". You can't disassociate the Old Testament from Christian philosophy. Christian philosophy is very clear about the fact that everything in the Old Testament is an integral part of it. This is why you get Christians causing such a hubbub about homosexuality and witches and the like - it's because they consider the Old Testament verses to be an important part of their religion.

 

[DBT]

yes, this is something I do not get. If their faith is really so important to them then why do not people actually read the texts?

It's the good bits they find attractive. Like taking out an insurance policy...who reads all the fine print? See what you want to see and disregard the rest.

 

[J842P]

You all do, of course, understand that Christianity is rooted in the New Testament, and not the Old Testament, right? Every single quote read was from the Old Testament.. so this is not "Christianity versus Islam".. this is "Judaism versus Islam".

Christians accept the Old Testament as sacred scripture, and indeed, they point to it to denounce things like homosexuality.

 

[funinspace]

You all do, of course, understand that Christianity is rooted in the New Testament, and not the Old Testament, right? Every single quote read was from the Old Testament.. so this is not "Christianity versus Islam".. this is "Judaism versus Islam".

Fundagelicals are very fond of quoting quite a bit of the OT to justify their views....