Is Islamophobia any more justified than anti-Semitism?
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
TheKing wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
TheKing wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
TheKing wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
It's essential to put things in correct perspective.
In Judaism, there is no religious mandate to conquer the world. Did God tell the Jews to commit genocide? There was a time where they were to possess a land promised to them and basically drive out all who chose not to join them but did not leave. Aside from this, there is no standing mandate in Judaism to commit genocide or enslavement of "non-believers." At most, they are commanded to not tolerate the "infidel" in their midst lest they corrupt the nation.
In Christianity, there is no religious mandate to conquer the world. Spread the gospel? Yes. Spread it via threat of death? No. The Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, etc. were all the result of power-hungry leaders of ONE DENOMINATION of Christianity who distorted the teachings of the Bible (to an illiterate population) to perform heinous acts.
However, with Islam, the teachings of the Qur'an are clear. Infidels are to either be killed or enslaved. Thankfully, many Muslims do not choose to follow those teachings, but as the Qur'an is laid out, the mandate remains and is embraced by a very significant portion of those who believe in Islam, and where Sharia law is imposed, there is little to no tolerance for the non-believer.
While it may sound like circular reasoning, the only thing people should be intolerant of is intolerance itself. I don't have to approve of a person choosing to live a gay lifestyle or hold different spiritual beliefs from my own, but I do not have the right to persecute or harm them because they won't conform to my world view.
Islam actively teaches the eradication or enslavement of those who will not convert. That makes it an ideology that should be eradicated from the face of the earth. If left to grow and thrive, it will be a source of violence and bloodshed for as long as it exists.
In Judaism, there is no religious mandate to conquer the world. Did God tell the Jews to commit genocide? There was a time where they were to possess a land promised to them and basically drive out all who chose not to join them but did not leave. Aside from this, there is no standing mandate in Judaism to commit genocide or enslavement of "non-believers." At most, they are commanded to not tolerate the "infidel" in their midst lest they corrupt the nation.
In Christianity, there is no religious mandate to conquer the world. Spread the gospel? Yes. Spread it via threat of death? No. The Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, etc. were all the result of power-hungry leaders of ONE DENOMINATION of Christianity who distorted the teachings of the Bible (to an illiterate population) to perform heinous acts.
However, with Islam, the teachings of the Qur'an are clear. Infidels are to either be killed or enslaved. Thankfully, many Muslims do not choose to follow those teachings, but as the Qur'an is laid out, the mandate remains and is embraced by a very significant portion of those who believe in Islam, and where Sharia law is imposed, there is little to no tolerance for the non-believer.
While it may sound like circular reasoning, the only thing people should be intolerant of is intolerance itself. I don't have to approve of a person choosing to live a gay lifestyle or hold different spiritual beliefs from my own, but I do not have the right to persecute or harm them because they won't conform to my world view.
Islam actively teaches the eradication or enslavement of those who will not convert. That makes it an ideology that should be eradicated from the face of the earth. If left to grow and thrive, it will be a source of violence and bloodshed for as long as it exists.
not true, are you saying that when God told Joshua that Jericho was theirs by birth and to destroy everything that breathed including humans, plants, and animals that he wasn't telling them to destroy in his name? the New Testament clearly talks about a global jihad in Revelations Jesus comes from the sky with a sword coming out of his mouth to destroy all the nonbelievers, i saw a poll on the news last year that said 44% of Americans believe Jesus will return in their lifetime and with so many people preparing for the "Second Coming" im surprised things aren't escalating out of control
Actually, it's the fundies and holy rollers who buy into that violent notion of the end times. Not so with us Mainline Christians.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
nevertheless the Bible does have a section that mirrors a Global Jihad and it's in the New Testament, not Old
Please give me exact examples. I ask, because a lot of what evangelicals say is in the Bible, in particular Revelations, really isn't there.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Upon the first trumpet sound, hail and fire, mixed with blood, is thrown to the Earth burning up a third of the trees on the planet, and all green grass. (Revelation 8:7)
By the second trumpet sounding, it queues something like a great burning mountain that plunges into the sea and wipes out a third of all sea life and ships. A third of the oceans will become blood. (Revelation 8:8-9)
By the sound of the third trumpet, a great star called Wormwood falls to the Earth poisoning a third of the planet's freshwater sources, such as rivers and springs. Men have died from drinking its bitter taste. (Revelation 8:10-11)
Following the sounding of the fourth trumpet, a third of the light that shines from the Sun, moon and stars became dark from these celestial bodies being "struck". This catastrophe caused completedarkness for a third of a day, during the day, even through night hours.(Revelation 8:12)
The fifth trumpetprompts a personified star to fall from heaven. The star is given the key to the bottomless pit. After opening it, the smoke that rises out, darkens the air and blocks the sunlight. Then from out of the smoke, the Locustswere unleashed. They were scorpion tailed warhorses, having a man's face with lion's teeth. Their hair was long like that of a womans' and flew with locust-like wings. They were crowned with golden crowns and protected with iron-like breastplates. They were commanded by their king, Abaddon, to torment any man who does not have the seal of God on their forehead, by using their scorpion-like tails. It was also made clear to them that they must not kill anyone during their five month mission of torment. (Revelation 9:1-12)
Five months after the fifth trumpet blast, the sixth one sounds.[7]This is the "Second woe", where four angels are released from their binds to the "great river Euphrates". They command a brute force of 200 million mounted troops whose horses dissipate plague from out of their mouths, most notably: fire, smoke, and brimstone. The mounted horsemen wore breastplates with the color of fire, hyacinth, and brimstone. The horses had a lion's head and their tails were like a serpent, even with a snake head. They are responsible for the deaths of a third of mankind who are striken by the plague that emanated from these armies. (Revelation 9:13-21)
The sound of the seventh trumpetsignals the "Third woe". This is the final trumpet sound and the final woe. Loud voices in heaven proclaim Christ as ruler forever and ever under the "Kingdom of our Lord". Thanks is given to God, the Almightyand praise for the wrath that came, the dead who were judged, and the bond-servants rewarded. The temple of God in heaven then opened and the Ark of the covenant appeared in His temple. Then lightning and peals of thunder occurred followed by an earthquake and a great hailstorm. (Revelation 11:15-19)
these are just the 7 trumpet bearing angels, then there are still the four horsemen of the apocalypse, the whore of babylon, the beast of the sea, the beast of the earth, and the dragon
and the bowls
Seven angels are given a golden bowl, from the Four Living Creatures, that contains the wrath of God. (15:6-8) Seven bowls are poured onto Earth: First Bowl: A "foul and loathsome sore" afflicts the followers of the beast. (16:1-2) Second Bowl: The sea turns to blood and everything within it dies. (16:3) Third Bowl: All fresh water turns to blood. (16:4-7) Fourth Bowl: The sun scorches the Earth with intense heat. (16:8-9) Fifth Bowl: There is total darkness and great pain in the Beast's kingdom. (16:10-11) Sixth Bowl: Preparations are made for the final battle between the forces of good and evil. (16:12-16) Seventh Bowl: A great earthquake: "every island fled away and the mountains were not found." (16:17-21)
and all this was planned and facilitated by God, this is allegedly the worst global genocide that will ever happen
all this death and destruction is to destroy everyone who is not Christian, hell afterwards everyone who doesn't believe is thrown into a lake of fire
the evidence for my claims comes from the Holy Book you parade about, can you say the same?
all of these are found in Revelations i got them from the internet but crossed referenced them with my personal King James bible
I perhaps should have been more explanatory - while evangelicals read so much into Revelations that it's pretty much the center piece of their theology, most Mainline denominations in fact have no doctrines based on this book. In fact, both Luther and Calvin personally doubted if Revelations was even divinely inspired. Mainline churches tend to treat Revelations as a minor book with very little important to say.
One important fact about the book is that it's written in the apocryphal style out of Persia, with picturesque language meant to hide the meaning of the text from the uninitiated. Most mainline denominations today feel that most of Revelations deals with things that were past, or what was currently happening in the 1st century. For instance, mention of 666, and The Beast are considered references to the Roman Emperor Nero, who had persecuted the early church. So, it's more of an interpretation of the book that might lead one to expect a global apocalypse... or not.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
MCalavera wrote:
rombomb2 wrote:
...all of the English translations were translated by people whose first language was not English nor Arabic. They are Pakistani. So the level of mistranslation is astounding.
I can read and understand Arabic. Give me a relevant ayeh in Arabic and let's examine it within "context".
Q:113/5
Arabic text - مِنَ الْجِنَّةِ وَالنَّاسِ
English translation - "From the evil of the envier when he envies."
Lets consider each word and its definition:
مِنَ - From
الْجِنَّةِ - the Jinn (as in demons)
وَ - and
النَّاسِ - the people
So the real translation is "From the demons and the people."
Why is the word demon taken out? Was it intentional or not? Either way, the translation is way off.
MCalavera wrote:
Anyway, what does this have to do with violence?
My point was not about violence. It was about mistranslation. And with mistranslation, misunderstandings are plenty.
MCalavera wrote:
Also, in Islam, a Jinn is not necessarily an evil being.
I don't know what you mean. I don't know of this. Please show us the Arabic dictionary definition.
MCalavera wrote:
Give me the link to that source because the verse I'm reading says it differently in Arabic:
It says:
Wa min sharri 7asidin iza 7asada
My own translation:
And from the evil of an envier if he envied.
It says:
Wa min sharri 7asidin iza 7asada
My own translation:
And from the evil of an envier if he envied.
مِنَ الْجِنَّةِ وَالنَّاسِ
http://searchtruth.com/
Choose Yusif Ali English Translation.
rombomb2 wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Anyway, what does this have to do with violence?
My point was not about violence. It was about mistranslation. And with mistranslation, misunderstandings are plenty.
MCalavera wrote:
Also, in Islam, a Jinn is not necessarily an evil being.
I don't know what you mean. I don't know of this. Please show us the Arabic dictionary definition.
I tried looking for one online but couldn't find any. Nevertheless, the Qur'an itself often puts both people and jinns together in one statement and treats them as both morally on equal levels. Just as not every person is evil in the Qur'an, not every Jinn is evil in the Qur'an.
You don't need a dictionary to see that.
rombomb2 wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Give me the link to that source because the verse I'm reading says it differently in Arabic:
It says:
Wa min sharri 7asidin iza 7asada
My own translation:
And from the evil of an envier if he envied.
It says:
Wa min sharri 7asidin iza 7asada
My own translation:
And from the evil of an envier if he envied.
مِنَ الْجِنَّةِ وَالنَّاسِ
http://searchtruth.com/
Choose Yusif Ali English Translation.
Link and instruction unhelpful. Nevertheless, I managed to access the Yusuf Ali English Translation page for Surah 113:
http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_disp ... anslator=2
And from the mischief of the envious one as he practises envy.
I don't see the "mina ljinnati wannasi" bit.
MCalavera wrote:
rombomb2 wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Anyway, what does this have to do with violence?
My point was not about violence. It was about mistranslation. And with mistranslation, misunderstandings are plenty.
MCalavera wrote:
Also, in Islam, a Jinn is not necessarily an evil being.
I don't know what you mean. I don't know of this. Please show us the Arabic dictionary definition.
I tried looking for one online but couldn't find any. Nevertheless, the Qur'an itself often puts both people and jinns together in one statement and treats them as both morally on equal levels. Just as not every person is evil in the Qur'an, not every Jinn is evil in the Qur'an.
You don't need a dictionary to see that.
I'm confused. Why do you think that the English translation is missing the word jinn? Why omit the word demon? Do you think that the term demon equates to the term envier?
Do you realize that if the English translation actually had the word demon there instead of envier, that fewer Westerners would have converted to Islam? Why? Because Westerners don't believe in demons. And for those of you that want to suggest that Christianity and Judaism also have demons in their holy books, then know that Western cultural knowledge does not believe in demons. But the Arabic culture knowledge still believes in demons. And I'm referring to common knowledge; I'm not saying everybody fits into these categories.
MCalavera wrote:
rombomb2 wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Give me the link to that source because the verse I'm reading says it differently in Arabic:
It says:
Wa min sharri 7asidin iza 7asada
My own translation:
And from the evil of an envier if he envied.
It says:
Wa min sharri 7asidin iza 7asada
My own translation:
And from the evil of an envier if he envied.
مِنَ الْجِنَّةِ وَالنَّاسِ
http://searchtruth.com/
Choose Yusif Ali English Translation.
Link and instruction unhelpful. Nevertheless, I managed to access the Yusuf Ali English Translation page for Surah 113:
http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_disp ... anslator=2
And from the mischief of the envious one as he practises envy.
I don't see the "mina ljinnati wannasi" bit.
Exactly. The Arabic mentions jinn, which are demons. The English transaction omits the jinn. This completely changes the meaning.
rombomb2 wrote:
I'm confused. Why do you think that the English translation is missing the word jinn? Why omit the word demon? Do you think that the term demon equates to the term envier?
No, the Arabic says "7asid" not "jinna" in that verse. "7asid" means "envier". The translation is accurate.
Also, not all jinns are "shayateen" (demons). In the Qur'an, there are good jinns just as there are good people.
Notice how in various verses in the Qur'an, jinns and people are lumped together into one phrase, indicating moral equality between the two groups.
rombomb2 wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
rombomb2 wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Give me the link to that source because the verse I'm reading says it differently in Arabic:
It says:
Wa min sharri 7asidin iza 7asada
My own translation:
And from the evil of an envier if he envied.
It says:
Wa min sharri 7asidin iza 7asada
My own translation:
And from the evil of an envier if he envied.
مِنَ الْجِنَّةِ وَالنَّاسِ
http://searchtruth.com/
Choose Yusif Ali English Translation.
Link and instruction unhelpful. Nevertheless, I managed to access the Yusuf Ali English Translation page for Surah 113:
http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_disp ... anslator=2
And from the mischief of the envious one as he practises envy.
I don't see the "mina ljinnati wannasi" bit.
Exactly. The Arabic mentions jinn, which are demons. The English transaction omits the jinn. This completely changes the meaning.
Wrong. The Arabic doesn't say "ljinnati" according to the page linked to. You've been misled.
TheKing wrote:
not true, are you saying that when God told Joshua that Jericho was theirs by birth and to destroy everything that breathed including humans, plants, and animals that he wasn't telling them to destroy in his name? the New Testament clearly talks about a global jihad in Revelations Jesus comes from the sky with a sword coming out of his mouth to destroy all the nonbelievers, i saw a poll on the news last year that said 44% of Americans believe Jesus will return in their lifetime and with so many people preparing for the "Second Coming" im surprised things aren't escalating out of control
Ah, but did I not acknowledge that OUTSIDE of that one time in Old Testament history, there is no standing mandate to commit genocide?
And what you cite from Revelation is not a mandate of Christians to commit genocide. It is a prophecy of a human/supernatural battle in the end of human history.
