I don't know why people think that when they immigrate to a new country they have the right to complain about their customs. There was an incident in Quebec that my teacher told me of. A Muslim woman was taking a french speaking class since she had just recently immigrated, in the class it was expected by the teacher that he be able to see the person's mouth who was talking to see if they were speaking with proper form (or whatever). The Muslim womam was wearing a burka and refused to remove it, even after numerous requests from the teacher. The teacher could not see her mouth, so he failed her for that part of the class. I am pretty sure that she took him to court, but I am not sure of the outcome.taylor888Figure out what the outcome was and get back to us! :)
Santa banned from school because of Muslims
This topic is locked from further discussion.
This is true, but you have to respect the person's religious beliefs. If they want to wear it, then hell let em wear it. But she shouldn't have taken him to court. That's just dumb. The guy can't just give her a free pass because of her religious headdress, now can he?I don't know why people think that when they immigrate to a new country they have the right to complain about their customs. There was an incident in Quebec that my teacher told me of. A Muslim woman was taking a french speaking class since she had just recently immigrated, in the class it was expected by the teacher that he be able to see the person's mouth who was talking to see if they were speaking with proper form (or whatever). The Muslim womam was wearing a burka and refused to remove it, even after numerous requests from the teacher. The teacher could not see her mouth, so he failed her for that part of the class. I am pretty sure that she took him to court, but I am not sure of the outcome.
taylor888
This is true, but you have to respect the person's religious beliefs.Cheesehead9099Why?
Darn... they should stay in their countries if they are not willing to change and adapt to the society they live in.I don't know why people think that when they immigrate to a new country they have the right to complain about their customs. There was an incident in Quebec that my teacher told me of. A Muslim woman was taking a french speaking class since she had just recently immigrated, in the class it was expected by the teacher that he be able to see the person's mouth who was talking to see if they were speaking with proper form (or whatever). The Muslim womam was wearing a burka and refused to remove it, even after numerous requests from the teacher. The teacher could not see her mouth, so he failed her for that part of the class. I am pretty sure that she took him to court, but I am not sure of the outcome.
taylor888
Of course it's a ****ing teaching. When God tells you he wants you to tax the **** out of unbelievers, it's a teaching. Simple as that.dromiceiomimusGod didn't tell anyone to do anything. Muhammad commanded his army to move only as far as the roman border, and that if they encounter anyone on the way who isn't one of them (the tribes who turned on them) that they should allow them to re-join or make them pay a tribute. Of course you just picked out the last part and made it appear as if that were a teaching for all non-muslims to be subjugated, which it isn't at all. I mean, obviously. :?
[QUOTE="dromiceiomimus"]Of course it's a ****ing teaching. When God tells you he wants you to tax the **** out of unbelievers, it's a teaching. Simple as that.Ninja-HippoGod didn't tell anyone to do anything. Muhammad commanded his army to move only as far as the roman border, and that if they encounter anyone on the way who isn't one of them (the tribes who turned on them) that they should allow them to re-join or make them pay a tribute. Of course you just picked out the last part and made it appear as if that were a teaching for all non-muslims to be subjugated, which it isn't at all. I mean, obviously. :? And your evidence that the verse only applied to its immediate historical surroundings is...?
[QUOTE="Cheesehead9099"]This is true, but you have to respect the person's religious beliefs.dromiceiomimusWhy? Because you shouldn't be a jackass?
Figure out what the outcome was and get back to us! :) The government won. Basically, the law states that if one cannot be properly identified by facial recognition, how are you supposed to know who the person is? On those grounds, Quebec banned face coverings on the grounds that identification becomes compromised.[QUOTE="taylor888"]I don't know why people think that when they immigrate to a new country they have the right to complain about their customs. There was an incident in Quebec that my teacher told me of. A Muslim woman was taking a french speaking class since she had just recently immigrated, in the class it was expected by the teacher that he be able to see the person's mouth who was talking to see if they were speaking with proper form (or whatever). The Muslim womam was wearing a burka and refused to remove it, even after numerous requests from the teacher. The teacher could not see her mouth, so he failed her for that part of the class. I am pretty sure that she took him to court, but I am not sure of the outcome.Hexagon_777
http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/peter_worthington/2010/03/29/13400986.html
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/07/28/14850246.html
[QUOTE="dromiceiomimus"][QUOTE="Cheesehead9099"]This is true, but you have to respect the person's religious beliefs.Cheesehead9099Why? Because you shouldn't be a jackass?*sigh* You continue to disappoint. Why should I respect Muslims' beliefs, when they believe I deserve an eternity of being roasted alive in hell just for not being one of them? Perhaps you have the requisite quantities of self-hatred to respect such ideas, but I don't.
[QUOTE="Cheesehead9099"][QUOTE="dromiceiomimus"]Why?dromiceiomimusBecause you shouldn't be a jackass?*sigh* You continue to disappoint. Why should I respect Muslims' beliefs, when they believe I deserve an eternity of being roasted alive in hell just for not being one of them? Perhaps you have the requisite quantities of self-hatred to respect such ideas, but I don't. The better question is; why should i respect them when they do not respect me? :s
[QUOTE="dromiceiomimus"][QUOTE="Cheesehead9099"]This is true, but you have to respect the person's religious beliefs.Cheesehead9099Why? Because you shouldn't be a jackass? Are all religious beliefs automatically deserving of respect simply because people believe them and hold them dear?
[QUOTE="Cheesehead9099"][QUOTE="dromiceiomimus"]Why?RhazaknaBecause you shouldn't be a jackass? Are all religious beliefs automatically deserving of respect simply because people believe them and hold them dear?
Beliefs don't deserve respect, they just are, people deserve respect.
Are all religious beliefs automatically deserving of respect simply because people believe them and hold them dear?[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Cheesehead9099"] Because you shouldn't be a jackass?bachilders
Beliefs don't deserve respect, they just are, people deserve respect.
Why?Are all religious beliefs automatically deserving of respect simply because people believe them and hold them dear?[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Cheesehead9099"] Because you shouldn't be a jackass?bachilders
Beliefs don't deserve respect, they just are, people deserve respect.
Respect is earned. Automatically respecting everyone makes the whole concept of "respect" useless.
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="dromiceiomimus"]Of course it's a ****ing teaching. When God tells you he wants you to tax the **** out of unbelievers, it's a teaching. Simple as that.dromiceiomimusGod didn't tell anyone to do anything. Muhammad commanded his army to move only as far as the roman border, and that if they encounter anyone on the way who isn't one of them (the tribes who turned on them) that they should allow them to re-join or make them pay a tribute. Of course you just picked out the last part and made it appear as if that were a teaching for all non-muslims to be subjugated, which it isn't at all. I mean, obviously. :? And your evidence that the verse only applied to its immediate historical surroundings is...? That it's immediate historical surroundings are before and after it? :? It's literally taken straight out of the story. It's the very definition of cherry picking. At zero point at all is that a teaching.
EDIT: and seriously, you know you've got it wrong when a dude who is anti-religious is having to explain to you the contents of a holy book. :P
[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"][QUOTE="dromiceiomimus"]Hah - alright, so I'm fanatically opposed to misogyny and homophobia and antisemitism and slavery. Is that bad? I think it's something to be proud of.dromiceiomimus
I like when people try to act like the only reason they're intolerant of Islam is because they're so tolerant of other differences in life.
Intolerance is intolerance.
Do you have a better explanation? What evidence do you have that I'm lying about my motives?Lack of knowledge on the subject or just a flat out dislike for muslims because of how a small minority acts.
And your evidence that the verse only applied to its immediate historical surroundings is...? That it's immediate historical surroundings are before and after it? :? It's literally taken straight out of the story. It's the very definition of cherry picking. At zero point at all is that a teaching.[QUOTE="dromiceiomimus"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] God didn't tell anyone to do anything. Muhammad commanded his army to move only as far as the roman border, and that if they encounter anyone on the way who isn't one of them (the tribes who turned on them) that they should allow them to re-join or make them pay a tribute. Of course you just picked out the last part and made it appear as if that were a teaching for all non-muslims to be subjugated, which it isn't at all. I mean, obviously. :? Ninja-Hippo
EDIT: and seriously, you know you've got it wrong when a dude who is anti-religious is having to explain to you the contents of a holy book. :P
Oh, please. Just because there is a historical context doesn't mean it applies only to that context. That's like saying that the Ten Commandments only apply to people stood on Mount Sinai. You'll have to do a lot better than that, especially when a Hadith states that the Jizya will be abolished only at the time of the Second Coming.Do you have a better explanation? What evidence do you have that I'm lying about my motives?[QUOTE="dromiceiomimus"][QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]
I like when people try to act like the only reason they're intolerant of Islam is because they're so tolerant of other differences in life.
Intolerance is intolerance.
Pixel-Pirate
Lack of knowledge on the subject or just a flat out dislike for muslims because of how a small minority acts.
And what evidence do you have that that is the case, rather than what I claim to be the reason?You're right -- the school should have a provision for kids whose parents don't want them exposed to Santa-related activities, for whatever reason, to take the day off... the thing that pisses me off the most is people coming to North America in droves from other realms and then having the gall to whine about certain aspects of our culture that they don't like... then if their minority needs aren't accommodated at every turn, they whine about intolerance and discrimination when they themselves are often the first people to be intolerant and discriminatory to begin with... it's ********67gt500
I don't see the problem. If there're gonna come here and live as Americans, then shouldn't they have the right to complain about **** that they don't like, just the same as any other American?
Or to put it another way, would it be more tolerable if it was a native-born citizen who was making the same complaint? Is the problem that it's an immigrant who's making the complaint, or is the problem that the complaint is just stupid?
i had enough of this ****. North America needs to stop with this ****. This is our country god damnit. stop bending backwards for these....dfgsdfdfg
Or to put it another way, would it be more tolerable if it was a native-born citizen who was making the same complaint? Is the problem that it's an immigrant who's making the complaint, or is the problem that the complaint is just stupid?MrGeezerWell, both; if you have stupid sensibilities and then move to a country where they'll be violated, you really have no basis on which to whine.
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]Or to put it another way, would it be more tolerable if it was a native-born citizen who was making the same complaint? Is the problem that it's an immigrant who's making the complaint, or is the problem that the complaint is just stupid?dromiceiomimusWell, both; if you have stupid sensibilities and then move to a country where they'll be violated, you really have no basis on which to whine.
Again, ANYONE could wake up tomorrow and decide that they don't want their kids being exposed to Santa claus. If a dude who was born and raised in Minnesota decides he doesn't want his kid participating in Santa based activities, does HE have more of a right to complain than the immigrant?
Well, both; if you have stupid sensibilities and then move to a country where they'll be violated, you really have no basis on which to whine.[QUOTE="dromiceiomimus"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]Or to put it another way, would it be more tolerable if it was a native-born citizen who was making the same complaint? Is the problem that it's an immigrant who's making the complaint, or is the problem that the complaint is just stupid?MrGeezer
Again, ANYONE could wake up tomorrow and decide that they don't want their kids being exposed to Santa claus. If a dude who was born and raised in Minnesota decides he doesn't want his kid participating in Santa based activities, does HE have more of a right to complain than the immigrant?
if its for religious reasons then no. if he thinks the santa is a perv then yaWell, both; if you have stupid sensibilities and then move to a country where they'll be violated, you really have no basis on which to whine.[QUOTE="dromiceiomimus"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]Or to put it another way, would it be more tolerable if it was a native-born citizen who was making the same complaint? Is the problem that it's an immigrant who's making the complaint, or is the problem that the complaint is just stupid?MrGeezer
Again, ANYONE could wake up tomorrow and decide that they don't want their kids being exposed to Santa claus. If a dude who was born and raised in Minnesota decides he doesn't want his kid participating in Santa based activities, does HE have more of a right to complain than the immigrant?
Marginally; it's not as if he consciously chose to live in a culture in which Santa-based activities are prevalent. Of course, it's still a stupid thing to do.Oh, please. Just because there is a historical context doesn't mean it applies only to that context. That's like saying that the Ten Commandments only apply to people stood on Mount Sinai. You'll have to do a lot better than that, especially when a Hadith states that the Jizya will be abolished only at the time of the Second Coming.dromiceiomimusIf you genuinely believe that when Muhammad told his army to march to the border of the roman empire and advised them that any traitors they encounter on the way should be allowed to re-join or pay a tax is the same thing as a teaching instructing that all non-muslim people be subjugated then that's your choice. I see no point in arguing it. I've told you what the actual correct story is rather than the cherry-picked verse that anti-muslim websites love to spread around, and to me it's simple common sense what that verse is all about.
Marginally; it's not as if he consciously chose to live in a culture in which Santa-based activities are prevalent. Of course, it's still a stupid thing to do.dromiceiomimus
And if Santa Claus is a big enough problem for him, then there's nothing stopping him from getting the **** out of the country. Just like there was nothing stopping the immigrant from getting the **** out of HIS country.
But that's a pretty ridiculous standard when it comes to complaints, isn't it? A lot of these people complaining about political correctness in the USA are free to LEAVE the USA if it's a big enough problem for them. But you probably wouldn't walk up to someone who's complaining about political correctness in the USA and say to them, "you don't have any right to complain...if you don't like it, then get the hell out of my country."
And what evidence do you have that that is the case, rather than what I claim to be the reason?dromiceiomimusWell, because if i feared that muslims wanted to go about the world subjugating people i'd be quite relieved to have the actual full context of that passage explained to me, considering it demonstrates that that is not the case. I certainly wouldn't argue against that and insist that it IS the case and they ARE out to get me.
[QUOTE="HaloReachGOTY"]f its for religious reasons then no. if he thinks the santa is a perv then ya
MrGeezer
Then...once you establish that the validity of the complaint is due to the NATURE of the complaint, then don't make it an issue of where the person came from.
I'm actually not sure which is worse, arguing that someone doesn't have the right to complain about it on religious principle or ethnic principle. Frankly, I don't see the big deal, school is a place where people of many different cultures and viewpoints come and it is mandatory, I think anything done within school should be made as neutral as possible. Why can't the parents who do want their kids to see Santa organize a seperate event?
[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"][QUOTE="dromiceiomimus"]Do you have a better explanation? What evidence do you have that I'm lying about my motives?dromiceiomimus
Lack of knowledge on the subject or just a flat out dislike for muslims because of how a small minority acts.
And what evidence do you have that that is the case, rather than what I claim to be the reason?The fact you seem to know next to nothing of the religion and use the tired Islamophobe reasoning of "Well yes it's totally okay for Christians and Jews to ignore entire chapters of their book but not Muslims. Why? Well, uh....BECAUSE!"
You also seem to act like all Muslims are some terrible extremists who are out to get you.
And what evidence do you have that that is the case, rather than what I claim to be the reason?[QUOTE="dromiceiomimus"][QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]
Lack of knowledge on the subject or just a flat out dislike for muslims because of how a small minority acts.
Pixel-Pirate
The fact you seem to know next to nothing of the religion and use the tired Islamophobe reasoning of "Well yes it's totally okay for Christians and Jews to ignore entire chapters of their book but not Muslims. Why? Well, uh....BECAUSE!"
You also seem to act like all Muslims are some terrible extremists who are out to get you.
I stated quite explicitly why it is particularly impermissible for Muslims to throw out parts of their holy book. Perhaps you should try actually paying attention.[QUOTE="dromiceiomimus"]Oh, please. Just because there is a historical context doesn't mean it applies only to that context. That's like saying that the Ten Commandments only apply to people stood on Mount Sinai. You'll have to do a lot better than that, especially when a Hadith states that the Jizya will be abolished only at the time of the Second Coming.Ninja-HippoIf you genuinely believe that when Muhammad told his army to march to the border of the roman empire and advised them that any traitors they encounter on the way should be allowed to re-join or pay a tax is the same thing as a teaching instructing that all non-muslim people be subjugated then that's your choice. I see no point in arguing it. I've told you what the actual correct story is rather than the cherry-picked verse that anti-muslim websites love to spread around, and to me it's simple common sense what that verse is all about. I'm sorry, are you even reading the same book? It doesn't refer to 'traitors'. It refers to non-Muslims in general. Allah is telling Muhammad to levy a lax upon non-Muslims, and you have provided f***-all evidence that that isn't exactly what it means. There is no evidence whatsoever that by non-Muslims it means that tiny subset of non-Muslims to whom you think it is restricted, and the way in which the hadiths are littered with references to the Jizya as subjugatory tool of Muslim states makes it pretty damn clear that its application is far broader than you would so dearly love to believe.
I'm actually not sure which is worse, arguing that someone doesn't have the right to complain about it on religious principle or ethnic principle. Frankly, I don't see the big deal, school is a place where people of many different cultures and viewpoints come and it is mandatory, I think anything done within school should be made as neutral as possible. Why can't the parents who do want their kids to see Santa organize a seperate event?
theone86
I don't think there IS anything with the parents wanting to organize a separate event. My point is, if you look at people's complaints of the family who complained, you'll see two sentiments being repeated over and over...
1) "They shouldn't have complained, because it was a stupid complaint."
2) "They shouldn't have complained because they're immigrants. And if they don't like how things are done in our country, then they need to shut up and go back to where they came from."
I'm not saying that the family's complaint WAS stupid. But if you look at the two most common criticisms of the family, those seem to be the two that keep popping up: either a criticism of the validity of the complaint itself, or a criticism about how the damn immigrants have the nerve to complain about our country.
[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"][QUOTE="dromiceiomimus"]And what evidence do you have that that is the case, rather than what I claim to be the reason?dromiceiomimus
The fact you seem to know next to nothing of the religion and use the tired Islamophobe reasoning of "Well yes it's totally okay for Christians and Jews to ignore entire chapters of their book but not Muslims. Why? Well, uh....BECAUSE!"
You also seem to act like all Muslims are some terrible extremists who are out to get you.
I stated quite explicitly why it is particularly impermissible for Muslims to throw out parts of their holy book. Perhaps you should try actually paying attention.I missed the post, but if your reason was that Muhammed wrote the Koran so every word in it must be true because of divine inspiration, then it's complete bull****. There are plenty of Christians and Jews who feel the same way about their holy books being divinely inspired. The fact is that every holy book is vague on some matters and every holy book is set within a cultural frame. Just about the entire exerceise of every religion out there is interpretation ofa holy book, and no religion has ever had complete agreement on interpretation. In fact, that argument is debunked simply by the presence of different factions within the Muslim faith, if there is no room for Muslims to interpret the Koran differenlty then there would be no need for different factions.
I'm sorry, are you even reading the same book? It doesn't refer to 'traitors'. It refers to non-Muslims in general. Allah is telling Muhammad to levy a lax upon non-Muslims, and you have provided f***-all evidence that that isn't exactly what it means. There is no evidence whatsoever that by non-Muslims it means that tiny subset of non-Muslims to whom you think it is restricted, and the way in which the hadiths are littered with references to the Jizya as subjugatory tool of Muslim states makes it pretty damn clear that its application is far broader than you would so dearly love to believe.dromiceiomimusIf you were reading the book right now you would know that it's nothing like what you're suggesting. :? This is such a typical verse out there on Islamaphobe websites, i'm just not buying that you've come out with this as an example of a supposedly bad verse from your own Quran reading. There's also absolutely no mention of Allah in it whatsoever. And the traitors ARE the non-muslims, they're all the arab tribes who turned on Muhammad and his men and let the roman empire through. For the last time, a bunch of arab tribes betrayed the muslims and let the holy roman empire through. The empire is defeated and pulls back. Muhammad then orders his men forward but only as far as the border with the holy roman empire. He tells them that on the way any non-muslims they encounter should be allowed to re-join or forced to pay tribute. ALL the non-muslims between them and Syria (where they were going) were the arab tribes who gave them up to the romans. Now if you pick out that ONE line from the entire story of the battles it's very easily projected as Muhammad telling all muslims to subjugate all non-muslims but that is not what it is saying at all. So you have nothing to worry about. Be happy.
I stated quite explicitly why it is particularly impermissible for Muslims to throw out parts of their holy book. Perhaps you should try actually paying attention.[QUOTE="dromiceiomimus"][QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]
The fact you seem to know next to nothing of the religion and use the tired Islamophobe reasoning of "Well yes it's totally okay for Christians and Jews to ignore entire chapters of their book but not Muslims. Why? Well, uh....BECAUSE!"
You also seem to act like all Muslims are some terrible extremists who are out to get you.
theone86
I missed the post, but if your reason was that Muhammed wrote the Koran so every word in it must be true because of divine inspiration, then it's complete bull****. There are plenty of Christians and Jews who feel the same way about their holy books being divinely inspired. The fact is that every holy book is vague on some matters and every holy book is set within a cultural frame. Just about the entire exerceise of every religion out there is interpretation ofa holy book, and no religion has ever had complete agreement on interpretation. In fact, that argument is debunked simply by the presence of different factions within the Muslim faith, if there is no room for Muslims to interpret the Koran differenlty then there would be no need for different factions.
I didn't claim there was no room for Muslims to interpret the Quran differently; I'm well aware that even people who believe their holy books are literally true can't agree on things. What I am claiming is that there's really no room for maneuvre in regards to the Quran being God's word: whether it is true or not is really the difference between Muhammad being God's messenger on earth, and Muhammad being either a fraud or a probable schizophrenic.[QUOTE="theone86"]
I'm actually not sure which is worse, arguing that someone doesn't have the right to complain about it on religious principle or ethnic principle. Frankly, I don't see the big deal, school is a place where people of many different cultures and viewpoints come and it is mandatory, I think anything done within school should be made as neutral as possible. Why can't the parents who do want their kids to see Santa organize a seperate event?
MrGeezer
I don't think there IS anything with the parents wanting to organize a separate event. My point is, if you look at people's complaints of the family who complained, you'll see two sentiments being repeated over and over...
1) "They shouldn't have complained, because it was a stupid complaint."
2) "They shouldn't have complained because they're immigrants. And if they don't like how things are done in our country, then they need to shut up and go back to where they came from."
I'm not saying that the family's complaint WAS stupid. But if you look at the two most common criticisms of the family, those seem to be the two that keep popping up: either a criticism of the validity of the complaint itself, or a criticism about how the damn immigrants have the nerve to complain about our country.
I'm actually a little confused at how this string of posts has panned out. With my previous post I was agreeing with you in the first sentence, the rest wasn't directed at you and was just my general viewpoint on the situation.
[QUOTE="dromiceiomimus"]I'm sorry, are you even reading the same book? It doesn't refer to 'traitors'. It refers to non-Muslims in general. Allah is telling Muhammad to levy a lax upon non-Muslims, and you have provided f***-all evidence that that isn't exactly what it means. There is no evidence whatsoever that by non-Muslims it means that tiny subset of non-Muslims to whom you think it is restricted, and the way in which the hadiths are littered with references to the Jizya as subjugatory tool of Muslim states makes it pretty damn clear that its application is far broader than you would so dearly love to believe.Ninja-HippoIf you were reading the book right now you would know that it's nothing like what you're suggesting. :? This is such a typical verse out there on Islamaphobe websites, i'm just not buying that you've come out with this as an example of a supposedly bad verse from your own Quran reading. There's also absolutely no mention of Allah in it whatsoever. And the traitors ARE the non-muslims, they're all the arab tribes who turned on Muhammad and his men and let the roman empire through. For the last time, a bunch of arab tribes betrayed the muslims and let the holy roman empire through. The empire is defeated and pulls back. Muhammad then orders his men forward but only as far as the border with the holy roman empire. He tells them that on the way any non-muslims they encounter should be allowed to re-join or forced to pay tribute. ALL the non-muslims between them and Syria (where they were going) were the arab tribes who gave them up to the romans. Now if you pick out that ONE line from the entire story of the battles it's very easily projected as Muhammad telling all muslims to subjugate all non-muslims but that is not what it is saying at all. So you have nothing to worry about. Be happy. Hint: it's a typical verse in Islamophobe websites because it's really, really good ammo. Also, um - you do realise that the idea is the Quran is God's word, right? I have this awful feeling that you think it's written from Muhammad's perspective, which would very much call into question the royal we that appears throughout. :?
[QUOTE="theone86"][QUOTE="dromiceiomimus"]I stated quite explicitly why it is particularly impermissible for Muslims to throw out parts of their holy book. Perhaps you should try actually paying attention.dromiceiomimus
I missed the post, but if your reason was that Muhammed wrote the Koran so every word in it must be true because of divine inspiration, then it's complete bull****. There are plenty of Christians and Jews who feel the same way about their holy books being divinely inspired. The fact is that every holy book is vague on some matters and every holy book is set within a cultural frame. Just about the entire exerceise of every religion out there is interpretation ofa holy book, and no religion has ever had complete agreement on interpretation. In fact, that argument is debunked simply by the presence of different factions within the Muslim faith, if there is no room for Muslims to interpret the Koran differenlty then there would be no need for different factions.
I didn't claim there was no room for Muslims to interpret the Quran differently; I'm well aware that even people who believe their holy books are literally true can't agree on things. What I am claiming is that there's really no room for maneuvre in regards to the Quran being God's word: whether it is true or not is really the difference between Muhammad being God's messenger on earth, and Muhammad being either a fraud or a probable schizophrenic.But every religion with a holy book believes it's divinely inspired, that's why it's called a HOLY book. Jewish people believe that Moses spoke directly to god when writing the ten commandments, Christians believe that Mary was visited by an angel, there are verses in the Bible that claim god inspired the writers of the Bible divinely, how does that differ from any other religion?
theone86Sure, point taken, but the claims in, say, the Bible that it is God's word can only be known to be true if we take it as a given that the Bible is God's word; it is logically consistent for a Christian to reject passages of the Bible as long as they reject every passage of the Bible that claims that every passage of the Bible is the word of God. Moreover, they can do this without defaming their religion's central prophet in the process, which is (unfortunately) not the case in Islam.
I didn't claim there was no room for Muslims to interpret the Quran differently; I'm well aware that even people who believe their holy books are literally true can't agree on things. What I am claiming is that there's really no room for maneuvre in regards to the Quran being God's word: whether it is true or not is really the difference between Muhammad being God's messenger on earth, and Muhammad being either a fraud or a probable schizophrenic.[QUOTE="dromiceiomimus"][QUOTE="theone86"]
I missed the post, but if your reason was that Muhammed wrote the Koran so every word in it must be true because of divine inspiration, then it's complete bull****. There are plenty of Christians and Jews who feel the same way about their holy books being divinely inspired. The fact is that every holy book is vague on some matters and every holy book is set within a cultural frame. Just about the entire exerceise of every religion out there is interpretation ofa holy book, and no religion has ever had complete agreement on interpretation. In fact, that argument is debunked simply by the presence of different factions within the Muslim faith, if there is no room for Muslims to interpret the Koran differenlty then there would be no need for different factions.
theone86
But every religion with a holy book believes it's divinely inspired, that's why it's called a HOLY book. Jewish people believe that Moses spoke directly to god when writing the ten commandments, Christians believe that Mary was visited by an angel, there are verses in the Bible that claim god inspired the writers of the Bible divinely, how does that differ from any other religion?
The Quran is not like thge Bible. The Bible was written over a massive period of time, and contributed to by several authors with many different perspectives. the Quran was written in Muhammad's lifetime, and is supposed to be the revealed and final word of God through Gabriel. Errors in the Quran hold more weight than in the bible, because of the lack of pluralistic authorship.Hint: it's a typical verse in Islamophobe websites because it's really, really good ammo. Also, um - you do realise that the idea is the Quran is God's word, right? I have this awful feeling that you think it's written from Muhammad's perspective, which would very much call into question the royal we that appears throughout. :?dromiceiomimusBut it's NOT good ammo because it's a cherry picked line from a story about a battle, and in no way whatsoever a preaching. :? It's just a nice and evil sounding line to get people riled up. And you realize that practically every holy book has *stories* as well as teachings, yes? You realize that there are whole passages in the bible, the quran and the torah which aren't TEACHING but just stories about Jesus, Moses or whoever else it may be? That line is from a *story* - an account of a battle between muhammad and the holy roman empire. It's like taking the story of Jesus sending possessed pigs into a lake and saying that must demand that people drown pigs.
[QUOTE="theone86"]dromiceiomimusSure, point taken, but the claims in, say, the Bible that it is God's word can only be known to be true if we take it as a given that the Bible is God's word; it is logically consistent for a Christian to reject passages of the Bible as long as they reject every passage of the Bible that claims that every passage of the Bible is the word of God. Moreover, they can do this without defaming their religion's central prophet in the process, which is (unfortunately) not the case in Islam.
Well, for one Jews cannot do that without defaming their central prophet. Two, it does not really matter who the prophet in question is, every holy book was written through prophets and therefore questioning the validity of certain parts as the word of god leaves open every single other part as susceptible to the same questioning, therefore questioning a "minor" prophet is just as well as attacking the "central" prophet. Thirdly, which passages are subject to questioning is a matter of interpretation, which again is a central theme of any religion. Lastly, why is it not possible to question that Islam is the direct word of god? Yes, Muhammed was their central prophet, but he was just a man. You can question whether or not the Koran holds divine inspiration in a literal sense or in the sense of god working through Muhammed in a less direct manner as Christians say god works through them when they do good works. In short, this is a faulty argument, every religion holds the validity of their book as the word of god, just how literally they take that is a matter of interpretation in Islam as it is in any other religion.
[QUOTE="theone86"][QUOTE="dromiceiomimus"]I didn't claim there was no room for Muslims to interpret the Quran differently; I'm well aware that even people who believe their holy books are literally true can't agree on things. What I am claiming is that there's really no room for maneuvre in regards to the Quran being God's word: whether it is true or not is really the difference between Muhammad being God's messenger on earth, and Muhammad being either a fraud or a probable schizophrenic.Rhazakna
But every religion with a holy book believes it's divinely inspired, that's why it's called a HOLY book. Jewish people believe that Moses spoke directly to god when writing the ten commandments, Christians believe that Mary was visited by an angel, there are verses in the Bible that claim god inspired the writers of the Bible divinely, how does that differ from any other religion?
The Quran is not like thge Bible. The Bible was written over a massive period of time, and contributed to by several authors with many different perspectives. the Quran was written in Muhammad's lifetime, and is supposed to be the revealed and final word of God through Gabriel. Errors in the Quran hold more weight than in the bible, because of the lack of pluralistic authorship.This isn't a question of errors, though, this is a question of if holy books are the divinely inspired word of god and every religion at least on an official level answers that question with a resounding yes.
Sure, point taken, but the claims in, say, the Bible that it is God's word can only be known to be true if we take it as a given that the Bible is God's word; it is logically consistent for a Christian to reject passages of the Bible as long as they reject every passage of the Bible that claims that every passage of the Bible is the word of God. Moreover, they can do this without defaming their religion's central prophet in the process, which is (unfortunately) not the case in Islam.[QUOTE="dromiceiomimus"][QUOTE="theone86"]theone86
Well, for one Jews cannot do that without defaming their central prophet. Two, it does not really matter who the prophet in question is, every holy book was written through prophets and therefore questioning the validity of certain parts as the word of god leaves open every single other part as susceptible to the same questioning, therefore questioning a "minor" prophet is just as well as attacking the "central" prophet. Thirdly, which passages are subject to questioning is a matter of interpretation, which again is a central theme of any religion. Lastly, why is it not possible to question that Islam is the direct word of god? Yes, Muhammed was their central prophet, but he was just a man. You can question whether or not the Koran holds divine inspiration in a literal sense or in the sense of god working through Muhammed in a less direct manner as Christians say god works through them when they do good works. In short, this is a faulty argument, every religion holds the validity of their book as the word of god, just how literally they take that is a matter of interpretation in Islam as it is in any other religion.
There is no "central prophet" in Judaism. Every Jewish person I've ever known thinks that the Old Testament is either largely or entirely metaphor and allegory, whereas that belief is less common amongst Christians and Muslims.
Yeah they're just called the books of Moses for fun. :PThere is no "central prophet" in Judaism.
Rhazakna
The Quran is not like thge Bible. The Bible was written over a massive period of time, and contributed to by several authors with many different perspectives. the Quran was written in Muhammad's lifetime, and is supposed to be the revealed and final word of God through Gabriel. Errors in the Quran hold more weight than in the bible, because of the lack of pluralistic authorship.[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="theone86"]
But every religion with a holy book believes it's divinely inspired, that's why it's called a HOLY book. Jewish people believe that Moses spoke directly to god when writing the ten commandments, Christians believe that Mary was visited by an angel, there are verses in the Bible that claim god inspired the writers of the Bible divinely, how does that differ from any other religion?
theone86
This isn't a question of errors, though, this is a question of if holy books are the divinely inspired word of god and every religion at least on an official level answers that question with a resounding yes.
Yes, but religious claims of divinely inspired books are not all equal. Rejecting part of the bible can make sense if you reject that particular author's perspective, but the same cannot be said of the Quran, since it didn't have multiple authors. In other words, questioning a part of the bible is the equivalent of questioning a particular author. Questioning the Quran is questioning Muhammad, the central figure of the Islamic religion, and supposedly god's last prophet on Earth.
Yeah they're just called the books of Moses for fun. :P[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]
There is no "central prophet" in Judaism.
Ninja-Hippo
You can call Moses the central prophet I suppose, but he is not like Muhammad or Jesus are to their respective religions. Judaism has no central figure in the way Christianity and Islam do.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment