Derail from "Slaughter in Paris."

[Carrikature]

I think you're confused on who is claiming what. I agree with this and have said as much.

Well it seemshttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/h...l/nn2page1.stm

You made this one up out of whole cloth. What part of "criminals aren't religious" says "religion has no positive impact"?

http://fortune.com/2014/10/31/inequa...lth-income-us/

Seriously, stop putting words in my mouth. You've created a bunch of non-sequiturs and are acting as if they're my claims. They're not.


Which, again, I haven't disagreed with.

[shunyadragon]

And yet not a single one states or implies that Christians ought to go out and persecute them, correct? All you have cited are verses that some Christians would cite hundreds of years later in order to try to rationalize their behavior. Are you truly so dense as to not be able to see the difference?

So let's try again, please cite a verse where Christians are instructed to persecute anyone.

I have already done that. Your not only dense, but carrying a load of heavy bias.

[Carrikature]

You completely misunderstood what I wrote. I said the exact opposite: making the world a better place makes it less religious.

Yes, I know that's what you said. You also said "kill two birds with stone...eradicate religion." What, exactly, is the point in seeking to eradicate religion unless you think it's a net evil?

[rogue06]

I have already done that. Your not only dense, but carrying a load of heavy bias.

No shuny, you have not even come close. It is the same as if someone said that when you called me dense and biased that was exactly the same as saying I should be persecuted and attacked.

So were you saying that I should be persecuted?

[The Thinker]

Yes, I know that's what you said. You also said "kill two birds with stone...eradicate religion." What, exactly, is the point in seeking to eradicate religion unless you think it's a net evil?

When did I say "eradicate religion"?

[Andius]

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

And it is precisely because of those anomalies that I for one argue that it is unreasonable to correlate those two factors. I for one consider that there are enough anomalies to destroy such correlation, enough anomalies to resist the idea of making a "general theory" between IAHDI rankings and secularity, especially when researchers such as Zuckerman fall short in connecting the dots properly between the correlations (especially at institutional level, where it is critical to justify the correlations beyond the mere correlations).

Oh, I was referring to Norway. And the how the Church of Norway and the Government are actually still bound together (Despite their drifting apart in 1997 and 2012 revisions in their Constitution). And I was emphasizing how even Australia is nowhere close to the level of equality and development of Norway in matters of health, education, and income. And how it's ridiculously high rate of IDHI (and wink wink, one where funnily enough the Church is active in) has not brought about levels of secularity on the scale of Sweden or Estonia, which is why (amongst dozens of reasons) I don't find your argument of national Development spawning greater secularity compelling.

Well that clarifies things a lot more. I stand corrected.

Nonetheless, the argument of prosperity and education leading to greater secularity is an argument that I don't consider compelling nonetheless, at least when too much stock is placed on correlations.

Alright agreed, but still doesn't change his statement that secular societies can succeed, and one that I actually find no problem with and am in agreement with. And again see above, I don't consider compelling the thesis that prosperity and education erodes religion.

In a nutshell way too complicated of a subject, and one that I consider absolutely resists simple explanations. The whole truth resists simplicity gig.

[Carrikature]

When did I say "eradicate religion"?

Source: Your Own Blog

Destroy what we're against socially, economically, and politically, and we could help destroy religion as a convenient by-product of that.

© Copyright Original Source

[The Thinker]

Source: Your Own Blog

Destroy what we're against socially, economically, and politically, and we could help destroy religion as a convenient by-product of that.

© Copyright Original Source

Ok, but you quoted me saying something I didn't, and that is dishonest.

[Carrikature]

Ok, but you quoted me saying something I didn't, and that is dishonest.

I did no such thing. I always use the quote function for direct quotes. On top of that, you've admitted here that I wasn't even wrong about what you were saying.

[shunyadragon]

No shuny, you have not even come close. It is the same as if someone said that when you called me dense and biased that was exactly the same as saying I should be persecuted and attacked.

So were you saying that I should be persecuted?

Calling them Christ killers, enemies of the gospels, and evil.You are ignoring the facts.

[Tassman]

I think you're confused on who is claiming what. I agree with this and have said as much.




You made this one up out of whole cloth. What part of "criminals aren't religious" says "religion has no positive impact"?




Seriously, stop putting words in my mouth. You've created a bunch of non-sequiturs and are acting as if they're my claims. They're not.




Which, again, I haven't disagreed with.

[Tassman]

And it is precisely because of those anomalies that I for one argue that it is unreasonable to correlate those two factors. I for one consider that there are enough anomalies to destroy such correlation, enough anomalies to resist the idea of making a "general theory" between IAHDI rankings and secularity, especially when researchers such as Zuckerman fall short in connecting the dots properly between the correlations (especially at institutional level, where it is critical to justify the correlations beyond the mere correlations).

Oh, I was referring to Norway. And the how the Church of Norway and the Government are actually still bound together (Despite their drifting apart in 1997 and 2012 revisions in their Constitution). And I was emphasizing how even Australia is nowhere close to the level of equality and development of Norway in matters of health, education, and income. And how it's ridiculously high rate of IDHI (and wink wink, one where funnily enough the Church is active in) has not brought about levels of secularity on the scale of Sweden or Estonia, which is why (amongst dozens of reasons) I don't find your argument of national Development spawning greater secularity compelling.

The Church of Norway as with the Church of England has long been the established church of the land. But in both instances the people are quite indifferent to it as indicated by the Adherents.com statistics.

Presumably Australia ranks no. 2 in the IHDI because it fulfils the required criteria. And religion plays no part in governance at any level. Several Australian prime-ministers have been overtly atheist including one of the most popular prime-ministers ever, Bob Hawke. I doubt an atheist would make it past first base in US politics.

Oh now you want to insert crime rate? Look Tass, choose a parameter and focus on it okay? If you want to talk about another parameter, by all means start a different thread, I'm fine with that. However, you are wasting time and energy debating with me if you are going to be unwarrantingly adding parameter after parameter trying to argue in general matter how prosperity brings about secularity in societies. One aspect at a time Tass, particulars is what I prefer, especially since the assertion of prosperity having a higher propensity to bring about secularity is about as oversimplified as asserting that market economies have a higher propensity to bring about national prosperity.

Well that clarifies things a lot more. I stand corrected.

That's courteous of you, thank you.

Nonetheless, the argument of prosperity and education leading to greater secularity is an argument that I don't consider compelling nonetheless, at least when too much stock is placed on correlations.

Nevertheless the correlation is there.

Alright agreed, but still doesn't change his statement that secular societies can succeed, and one that I actually find no problem with and am in agreement with. And again see above, I don't consider compelling the thesis that prosperity and education erodes religion.

In a nutshell way too complicated of a subject, and one that I consider absolutely resists simple explanations. The whole truth resists simplicity gig.

[mrcurious]

Surah 256, like the other passages that called for peace and tolerance, were later abrogated (superseded or repealed) by surah 9:5 (Ayat al-Sayf or the Verse of the Sword).

The doctrine of abrogation is stated in the Qur'an itself (2:106): "Such of our revelation as we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof." So a later statement that contradicts an earlier one is thought to be better and abrogates the earlier statement^[1][verse] of the sword."

Today, the conservative Muhammad Saalih Al-Munajjid^[3], who's fatawas (edicts or rulings) circulate throughout the Islamic world and are taken very seriously, in discussing surah 2:256 ("Let there be no compulsion in religion"), quoted Surahs 8:39, 9:29 along with 9:5 and declared "these and similar verses abrogate those saying there is no compulsion to become Muslim."

So warfare against non-Muslims until they were converted or utterly oppressed was mandated by Muhammad.

This is confirmed by what we read in the Hadiths including the ones venerated as being authoritative like the Sahih Muslim and Sahih al-Bukhari:

Sahih Muslim 1:33: The Messenger of Allah said: "I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay zakat."

Sahih al-Bukhari 2:24: "Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."

Sahih al-Bukhari 8:387: "Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.'"

Sahih al-Bukhari 60:80: "The Verse:--'You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.' means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam."

Aside from the Hadiths, Ibn Ishaq (704-767/8, regarded as the earliest and most thorough of Islam's historians), who wrote the Sīrat Rasūl Allāh ("Life of the Messenger of God") relates that,

The text makes clear that the al-Harith^[2] were only taught about Islam afterTafsir al-Tabari and his historical chronicle Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk ("History of the Prophets and Kings") recounts in volume 9 of his History

In volume 10 Tabari quotes Al-Hubab ibn al-Mundhir ibn Zayd (an advisor of Muhammad and who participated during in the meeting at saqifah during the Succession to Muhammad), who was supporting one group of Muslims in their quest for leadership after Muhammad's death, as saying:

"For you are more deserving of this authority than they are, as it was by your swords that those who were not yet converted came to obey this religion."

Finally, I'll cite Umdat as-Salik wa 'Uddat an-Nasik^[4]. It has something to say about jihad and forced conversion that is relevant to this discussion:

And the hadith reported by Muslim,

1. 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

2. Actually the Ghassanids with Al-Harith ibn Jabalah being their king.

3. Popularly known for his attacks on Mickey Mouse, calling women who drive prostitutes and blaming the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami on immorality.

4. He is still so widely esteemed and revered that Jabhat al-Nusra (a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria) demolished his tomb earlier this year because they viewed it as sacrilegious.

I find it quite amazing, you quote a verse COMPLETELY out of context and saying that since sura 9 is one of the last suras revealed then it abrogates ALL verses of peace. Lets analyze this just a bit and put things in a bit of context so we can all see what verse 9:5 is speaking of.

9:3 And [it is] an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and [so is] His Messenger. So if you repent, that is best for you; but if you turn away - then know that you will not cause failure to Allah . And give tidings to those who disbelieve of a painful punishment.

So I have a question here maybe the "experts" who you were quoting, or even yourself can help us answer: Why, if Muhammad is truly powerful at this point and Islam is established, and since this supposedly is an evil religion that is spread by the sword, would he give the polytheists a chance to repent? Why not just kill them all regardless if they repented or not? If you believe this is the last sura and it abrogates every other peaceful verse regarding war, why wouldn't this sura flat out say kill all the polytheists regardless?

now lets go to verse 4 which you skipped as well:

9:4 Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

So again I'm confused here. Why would a so called evil, tryannical, suppressive, forceful religion let the polytheists who didn't violate the peace treaty made at hudaibiya, live? Why didn't the verse say, let them live if they become muslims if not kill them?

Now 9:5
And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

So clearly the ones who have violated the treaty, if they repent pray, and give to the poor they get to live. Also there is a 4 month period for them to repent, the Muslims didn't fight them in the times of sacred months. I don't know if you can put the dots together, but it was a certain group of polytheists who broke the treaty FIRST, the ones that didn't were left alone. Seems very practical, you don't attack me I don't attack you. But if you attack me I will attack you.

And then you skipped 9:6 so conveniently:
And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.

Ok Ok, How you can build your case here I don't know. This chapter supposedly abrogates other peaceful verses but here Allah says if the polytheists come to the muslims for protection the muslims are to protect them so they can HEAR (note, it doesn't say convert) the words of God.

9:7 How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

I can't believe this! Allah tells the Muslims to honor their treaty!!! Where is the forceful conversion or not, death by the sword?! Where are the evil verses?!!!

But here is the defining verse, so you can really see the scope of 9:5 had you bothered to actually read it instead of going to an anti-muslim website and cherry pick your verses to try and make a quite deceiving claim.

9:13 Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers.

So let me get this straight, you have a problem with killing a certain group of polytheists who started the killing first? Just what do you expect?! Let them continue to be slaughtered and not defend themselves. Quoting sura 9 worked COMPLETELY against you. You quoted a chapter that was revealed during a time of war.

But just in case you want to know for certainty who started this battle, maybe you should have read a bit farther along:

[shunyadragon]

[verse]

As before with the Bible, your selective one-sided citation of the Quran, like the Bible, is used to justify the biased view of the justification of what you.

It sort of reminds me of how YEC and OEC believers justify their selective dishonest view of science to justify what the believe.

The post by 'mrcurious' clearly demonstrates this. In reality Judaism, Christianity and Islam are ancient world views with a scripture that is a minefield of selective justification to make it comfortable for believers to make it fit today's world.

[Carrikature]

Which is why criminals tend to not be religious?