Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Never Forget...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    But back to Omar. She very carefully never condemns islamic terrorists. She will condemn white supremacists, Trump, and Israel. But she won't outright condemn or speak out against any islamic terrorists like Al Qaeda.
    At that point it becomes "some people did something."

    Leave a comment:


  • Charles
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    I could direct you to other sources with a far less rosy appraisal of miftah, and a few point out that many of those in positions of control still promote the "blood libel" claim whether or not the organization officially still does.
    I don't see how rosy appraisal applies to the description given though I don't doubt you could find those who would be more critical (and of course those who would be less).

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
    Hey, you're the one dressed as a pirate Sparko.
    But back to Omar. She very carefully never condemns islamic terrorists. She will condemn white supremacists, Trump, and Israel. But she won't outright condemn or speak out against any islamic terrorists like Al Qaeda.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Charles View Post
    Thanks. I read this rather interesting analysis: Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Miftah, and the problem of anti-Semitism within the movement for Palestinians' right to self-determination

    Some interesting quotes from the article in case anyone takes interest:
    I could direct you to other sources with a far less rosy appraisal of miftah, and a few point out that many of those in positions of control still promote the "blood libel" claim whether or not the organization officially still does.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
    It is a quote-mine because of the fact almost every single Islam Scholar worth their salt would quote you the simple verse that says that there's to be no force in conversion; They'd then make a discussion of those particular cases, and how they actually constitute a protection of people in that instance, in those circumstances, showing the later further development of dhimmi's. Which strikes me as a strong parallel to the Christians who labor intense with the exegesis of the old testament showing how people were given a chance to convert during the Canaanite conquest, and how them being enslaved and becoming second-class citizens for life was a grace.

    You really only see a lot of forced conversion with the rise of the rather violent Wahabi strain of Islam.
    That is one of the verses abrogated by the forced conversion verses. It is a practice called naskh ("abrogation") where later revelations supersede or nullify earlier once that they contradict.

    In fact, the doctrine of naskh is directly stated in the Qur'an itself (2:106)[1]: "Such of our revelation as we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof." So any later statement that contradicts an earlier one is thought to be better and abrogates the earlier statement[2] -- and nearly all Muslim scholars agree that the Surah Bara'ah (the ninth) was the very last surah in the Qur'an that was revealed (although a few say it was al-Nasr or surah 110) meaning what is contained in it abrogates virtually everything else.

    This practice caused Muhammad's opponents to declare that he was a calumniator and didn't receive inspiration from God because he changed his mind whenever he wished. While Muslims have no problem with this, it is recognized in the Qur'an itself that others do: "And when we put one revelation in place of another revelation – and Allah knows best what he reveals – they say, 'Lo! Thou art but inventing'” (16:101).


    As a further note, the concept of taqqiya (or idtirar) comes into play far too frequently among Islamic scholars when speaking to Western/infidel audiences and should be kept in mind.











    1. 2:106 isn't the only verse in the Qur'an that mentions the concept of naskh/"abrogation" (where a later pronouncement by Muhammad nullifies an earlier one). There are at least three others cited by Islamic scholars:
    • Surah 13:39: Allah abrogates or confirms whatsoever he will, for he has with him the Book of the Books.
    • Surah 16:101: And when we put one revelation in place of another revelation – and Allah knows best what he reveals – they say, 'Lo! Thou art but inventing'
    • Surah 17:86: Had we willed, we could take away what we have revealed to you, then you would find none to help you in recovering it from us.


    2. AFAICT, without exception, all Islamic religious scholars state that abrogation not only included the abolishing, dropping or replacing of a verse by another (often contradictory) verse, but it also includes abolishing a provision of a verse without eliminating its wording or text from the Qur'an. So the verses that were later repealed and replaced remain in the Qur'an but are no longer in effect.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
    The Bible has an entire section where God Himself called openly for genocide. And that it was explicit genocide as well, with even children being killed as part of the order.
    We are New Testament Christians, Leon -- a whole new Covenant. I am not bound by Old Testament customs and traditions and laws, and God never told Christians to murder people.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charles
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    I suggest that you look up Miftah, the group sponsoring their trip, which has, among other things, proudly praised female suicide bombers and routinely pushes the medieval blood libel (the long disproven myth that Jews ritually sacrifice Christian children at Passover in order to obtain blood for unleavened bread).
    Thanks. I read this rather interesting analysis: Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Miftah, and the problem of anti-Semitism within the movement for Palestinians' right to self-determination

    Some interesting quotes from the article in case anyone takes interest:

    Miftah's website has featured praise for Palestinian suicide bombers that have indiscriminately murdered civilians, an anti-Semitic treatise lifted from an American neo-Nazi website, and an article which claimed that the Jews use the blood of Christians during Passover — the eternally deployed "blood libel" against Jews. Miftah promptly apologized for the blood libel post, and blamed its publication on a junior staffer.
    Its founders include the late writer Edward Said, one of the most celebrated public intellectuals of the late 20th century, and its funders include the European Union, the United Nations, Oxfam, and a string of individual European governments. Its mission statement is to "promote the principles of democracy and good governance" in Palestine, and it is primarily focused on female empowerment and various sustainability projects.

    As is often the case with entities pushing for revolution, Miftah can't be defined solely by its most disagreeable aspects. Yet its critics are hardly engaged in convenient cherry-picking.
    The congresswomen's outright dismissal of legitimate concerns about Miftah may have been crass, but it is not devoid of reasoning. President Trump has turned a blind eye to Israel's human rights violations and treated the Palestinian people as though they don't exist.

    Leave a comment:


  • Leonhard
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    Do you see any swords?
    Hey, you're the one dressed as a pirate Sparko.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
    Seriously? You're not being ironic right now or larping?
    Do you see any swords?

    Leave a comment:


  • Leonhard
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    She just said she will never forget it and expressed sympathy for the victims.

    Sounds very carefully worded to me. Probably written by some marketing staffer.
    Seriously? You're not being ironic right now or larping?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
    She's condemned the terrorism, you're just mad she doesn't blame it on Islam.
    Actually she didn't.

    September 11th was an attack on all of us.

    We will never forget the thousands of Americans who lost their lives in the largest terror attack on U.S. soil.

    I will continue to fight to make sure we care for the first responders and families who lost loved ones.
    She just said she will never forget it and expressed sympathy for the victims.

    Sounds very carefully worded to me. Probably written by some marketing staffer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Leonhard
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    You don't have to "quote mine" anything. The verses ordering the forcible conversion are among the very last and abrogated any verses encouraging peaceful co-existence.
    It is a quote-mine because of the fact almost every single Islam Scholar worth their salt would quote you the simple verse that says that there's to be no force in conversion; They'd then make a discussion of those particular cases, and how they actually constitute a protection of people in that instance, in those circumstances, showing the later further development of dhimmi's. Which strikes me as a strong parallel to the Christians who labor intense with the exegesis of the old testament showing how people were given a chance to convert during the Canaanite conquest, and how them being enslaved and becoming second-class citizens for life was a grace.

    You really only see a lot of forced conversion with the rise of the rather violent Wahabi strain of Islam.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charles
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    You literally had to deliberately ignore the quote in the image that ox was asking about.
    That is not an actual quote. It is a part of a sentence.

    However, talking about ignoring, you have to ignore the twitter post I made you aware of in order to justify the manipulation in the picture.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
    And I can easily imagine some weird Christian sect believing that because God commanded genocide, then genocide cannot be evil. And use that to defend completely annihilating some other group in a civil war, such as the Hutu who tried to completely destroy the Tutsi in Rwanda. I would disagree with them. Just as I see Islamic scholars making fairly good arguments doing with those who believe its not just to perpetrate religious war, or to kill infidels.

    At the very least if you wanna thinly quote-mine the Quran or Hadith, you've ceded all argument to atheists who strip-mine the Bible for "embarrassing" quotes. If we can go at it context-less and without an intellectual discussion, then the Bible also contains stuff like delinquent sons being stoned to death, homosexuals being stoned to death, people working on the sabbath being stoned to death, foreskins as marriage proposals are good, coloured sticks can cause sheeps offsprings wool to change color, etc...

    Is there a context in which those sentences are understood properly yes. And when atheists don't give us the time to learn this context we accuse them rightfully of being bigoted and ignorant.

    But when we won't listen to Islamic scholars with the same fervor that we're listened to?
    You don't have to "quote mine" anything. The verses ordering the forcible conversion are among the very last and abrogated any verses encouraging peaceful co-existence.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charles
    replied
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    Is the listed support for Al Qaeda post 9/11 more attributable to anti-Americanism or to an actual, consistently violent worldview? (I'm working under the assumption here that the two can be separated, though I understand this is a point many will not be willing to grant.)

    I know a family friend who moved to Europe and is a professor in a secular Scandanavian country. He personally told me that he asked a class shortly after 9/11 who thought America got what it deserved, and hands shot up everywhere.
    I have talked to very many anti-American people over the years (I know some would think I am one myself. I am not). I have found them condemning everything, even McDonald's (how dare they?). George Bush could hardly finish a sentence before they started. And, surprise, surprise, Trump did not change that for the better. However, I have never heard anyone saying America got what it deserved. They all seemed very aware - as one should always be also in cases of war - that the people who died were individual people of intrinsic worth.

    There were two minutes of silence all over the University I went to and everyone had deep respect.

    I know this is my experience and not statistics or something I can conclude is the case everywhere. I felt like sharing it anyway.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
16 responses
75 views
0 likes
Last Post Mountain Man  
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
52 responses
262 views
0 likes
Last Post Mountain Man  
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
25 responses
108 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
33 responses
195 views
0 likes
Last Post Roy
by Roy
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
83 responses
348 views
0 likes
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Working...
X