Crime Salman rushdie attacked on stage

[Deleted member 577981]

The whole argument fails because people are judging historical people by contemporary laws and norms. It’s a classic mistake if you’re not very good ar historical thinking. What Muhammed allegedly did wasn’t that abnormal if you take the historical context in mind. Kings, religious leaders, emperors, warlords were all killing and pillaging.

i agree here but if we are evaluating the religious claim that he is the perfect man, the perfect ideal man of god then these kinds of criticisms are very fair. there are two ways you can take mohamed according to my beginners understanding. either as an imperfect man who was a prophet or as the ideal and perfect man. when considering the former your argument makes somes sense but not when considering the latter.

 

[moosaev]

The whole argument fails because people are judging historical people by contemporary laws and norms. It’s a classic mistake if you’re not very good ar historical thinking. What Muhammed allegedly did wasn’t that abnormal if you take the historical context in mind. Kings, religious leaders, emperors, warlords were all killing and pillaging.

I agree, but I'll emphasize that what he did would be considered fair by TODAY'S standards. The US routinely kills al qaeda/isis propagandists. Anwar Awlaki (a US citizen) was droned despite there being no evidence he actually took part in any terrorist attacks. He was killed because of his role in "inspiring" various terrorists. How is that different from what Prophet Muhammad ordering the killing of influential poets who were agitating for the Meccan army to destroy the Muslims? No difference whatsoever.

 

[moosaev]

i agree here but if we are evaluating the religious claim that he is the perfect man, the perfect ideal man of god then these kinds of criticisms are very fair. there are two ways you can take mohamed according to my beginners understanding. either as an imperfect man who was a prophet or as the ideal and perfect man. when considering the former your argument makes somes sense but not when considering the latter.

Ordering someone's killing in no way disqualifies someone from being the perfect man. If killing one person saves 5,000 lives, would you do it?

 

[Deleted member 577981]

I think the drone program in general is murder, but only because of the callous way it’s being executed. If you could tell me an ISIS leader or propagandist could be killed by a drone strike without collateral damage, I’d be fine with it. I’m against the drone program because it’s callously executed and it's never ending. And it goes without saying that the killings Prophet Mohammed ordered were individual hits, collateral wasn’t allowed. So I’m fine with it. The real world isn’t pretty man, sometimes unpleasant things have to be done for the greater good. Islam is not a pacifist religion, but the principle is to reduce harm and avoid violence when possible, however when the community is under attack it's considered a religious obligation to defend yourself ferociously.

you are too quick... i deleted that post because i think basically what you think about it too. there are instances where it is ok. i responded to a different point you made btw im interested in your response.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

Ordering someone's killing in no way disqualifies someone from being the perfect man. If killing one person saves 5,000 lives, would you do it?

i must respectfully disagree with you on this point. i think it does change things greatly if you are talking about a divinely perfect man in the way that some of islam is speaking about mohamed.... i also have serious objections to the 9 year old girl if we are talking about the perfect ideal man of god.

i would expect the ideal man of god, truly backed by gods power as an example to all human beings for all time to behave differently in both of those situations.

 

[moosaev]

i must respectfully disagree with you on this point. i think it does change things greatly if you are talking about a divinely perfect man in the way that islam is speaking about mohamed.... i also have serious objections to the 9 year old girl if we are talking about the perfect ideal man of god.

i would expect the ideal man of god, truly backed by gods power as an example to all human beings for all time to behave differently in both of those situations.

Being a non-violent pacifist isn't moral in my opinion and doesn't correlate with being a perfect man. Show me a person who isn't willing to kill a bad person to save 5,000 people and i'll show you a narcissist who's only interested in their self image as someone "good". Good doesn't always mean clean, sometimes you have to do dirty things to do good.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

Yeah that’s why I’m always suspicious about christians being critical on Islam. It often stems from Islamophobia or trying to paint a better picture of Christianity at the expense of Islam. I always try to find out if it’s a christian or an atheist to try to asses what drives people to act that way or say those things.

As I said though I think even a lot of the athetist movement seems to have been co-opted by islamophobia, you don't need to be a hardline christian to be an islamophobe. I mean I'd consider myself critical of religion generally and especially fundamentalist religion but we've obviously seen that its possible for secular oppression of religion to be highly immoral and overly brutal often based on racism as the core, you don't have to back hardline islam to realise that this kind of racism is immoral and dangerous.

Again I think its a mistake to believe that Christianity and islam are in opposition in our societies, often I think they will work hand to hand to try and increase the power of religion as it benefits them both. From a UK perspective for example I would be against faith schools but thats not just an issue with Islam but Christianity and Judaism as well.

Plus of course I think the outrage on the subject tends to be very much used for political ends, tends to play up negative aspects of the Iranian government and downplay those of the Saudi's and other western allies.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

What you're describing isn't an ideal man, you're describing an angel. Being a non-violent pacifist isn't moral in my opinion. Show me a person who isn't willing to kill someone bad to save 5,000 people and i'll show you a narcissist who's only interested in their self image as someone "good". Good doesn't always mean clean, sometimes you have to do dirty things to do good.

yes we have established that you disagree. i can see where you are coming from but i cannot and do not accept the reasoning you give here. i think there have been better examples from history (like the buddha for instance) on this front if we are talking about a man who is MORE than just a prophet.

if we are discussing a prophet who is imperfect i can see his actions fitting the role but not if we are talking about the ideal backed by gods power as an example for all time. the 9 year old girl? that does not fit the perfect man role for me by a a metric ton of miles. but neither does involvement in murder for political reasons.

im still wondering about the context here though. do you know it? who started the conflict? did somebody take someone else's land? how did it really begin? i need to know that to know what i think here.

 

[AristotleAmadopolis]

Because he was never a political or military leader. All the prophets in the Old Testament that were actually temporal leaders (Moses, Solomon, David, etc) did kill people. Comparing Jesus to Mohammed makes no sense, they played different roles had different responsibilities and different challenges.

Lol military/political leader that claims to talk on behalf of a loving peaceful god yet is a killer. Makes sense.

 

[AristotleAmadopolis]

Nice try twisting my words. They weren’t “speaking out against Islam”, they were agitating for the Meccan army to attack and kill every single Muslim man woman and child. Poetry in Arabia back then was TV, movies and internet rolled into one, poets were extremely influential. They absolutely deserved to die for what they did and the type or danger they put Muslims in. Nobody would bat an eye if the US killed an ISIS propagandist, same difference. And you wouldn’t give a shit if that ISIS member was a nursing mother or an old man either lol.

did the teacher who was violently beheaded by a savage in France recently deserve to die?

 

[moosaev]

did the teacher who was violently beheaded by a savage in France recently deserve to die?

Obviously he didn't, he wasn't a threat to anyone.

 

[moosaev]

Lol military/political leader that claims to talk on behalf of a loving peaceful god yet is a killer. Makes sense.

Killing is not a bad thing in and of itself, if you kill someone who's murdering innocent women & children for example, is that bad? Of course not. Nobody ever claimed the Prophet Mohammed was a pacifist, or that islam is a pacifist religion.

 

[AristotleAmadopolis]

Obviously he didn't, he wasn't a threat to anyone.

Gotta ask since youre in here condoning other killings

 

[Deleted member 577981]

Killing is not a bad thing in and of itself, if you kill someone who's murdering innocent women & children for example, is that bad? Of course not. Nobody ever claimed the Prophet Mohammed was a pacifist, or that islam is a pacifist religion.

your use of the word "obviously" is not a necessary use imo. many countries religions and people have deemed the death penalty to be illegal and immoral for instance. i dont want to argue about it but just wanted to point out that the use of the word "obvious" here is misplaced as the matter is definitely NOT settled for humanity.

 

[AristotleAmadopolis]

Killing is not a bad thing in and of itself, if you kill someone who's murdering innocent women & children for example, is that bad? Of course not. Nobody ever claimed the Prophet Mohammed was a pacifist, or that islam is a pacifist religion.

Again. You have two fellas who claim to represent the same god but one is a murderer while the other is not.

 

[moosaev]

yes we have established that you disagree. i can see where you are coming from but i cannot and do not accept the reasoning you give here. i think there have been better examples from history (like the buddha for instance) on this front if we are talking about a man who is MORE than just a prophet.

if we are discussing a prophet who is imperfect i can see his actions fitting the role but not if we are talking about the ideal backed by gods power as an example for all time. the 9 year old girl? that does not fit the perfect man role for me by a a metric ton of miles. but neither does involvement in murder for political reasons.

im still wondering about the context here though. do you know it? who started the conflict? did somebody take someone else's land? how did it really begin? i need to know that to know what i think here.

Go do your research on the conflict, the Meccans were badly persecuting the Muslims and the Muslim community ended up making a pilgrimage to Medina (this is why medina is also a holy city), long story short the Prophet set up an administration in Medina and the Meccans weren't having it so they attacked Medina several times in an effort to wipe out the muslim community. The Meccans were literally trying to genocide all Muslims, it was in this context that he fought back and started assassinating people and doing other things to secure the safety of the Muslims.

 

[moosaev]

Again. You have two fellas who claim to represent the same god but one is a murderer while the other is not.

Don't Christians believe in David and Solomon? They were murderers by your definition too. Yet they were followers of God according to Christians. Make it make sense lol.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

Go do your research on the conflict, the Meccans were badly persecuting the Muslims and the Muslim community ended up making a pilgrimage to Medina (this is why medina is also a holy city), long story short the Prophet set up an administration in Medina and the Meccans weren't having it so they attacked Medina several times in an effort to wipe out the muslim community. The Meccans were literally trying to genocide Prophet Muhammad's followers, it was in this context that he fought back and started assassinating people and doing other things to secure the safety of the Muslims.

ill have to look into it more deeply and see where it lands. were the muslims just being little angels in this context. did they encroach on any lands that were not theirs? preach a violent message towards outgroups etc?

 

[moosaev]

ill have to look into it more deeply and see where it lands. were the muslims just being little angels in this context. did they encroach on any lands that were not theirs? preach a violent message towards outgroups etc?

No, the early Muslims and Meccans were the same people. Prophet Mohammed was Meccan. He started preaching his religion and got many followers so the old guard weren't having it and they started killing and persecuting Muslims until they fled to another city. The Meccans still kept chasing them and trying to kill them then the Muslims started fighting back. 100% self defense.

 

[Ramon Antonio]

I never brought up data lol, I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of right wingers blatantly saying any data that doesn’t agree with then is manipulated. Did I accuse your data of being manipulated? No. I just didn’t think it was pertinent and was a non sequiter to the main conversation in that thread.

You accused all white people in the US of something much worse by claiming they are overrepresented in hate crimes without substantiating it. Then you go in other threads and complain about how people are demonizing Muslims unfairly. Might be a good time to look in the mirror because right now you come across as a huge hypocrite.