Merry Rama-dung

[Roudy]

Neh, Muslims have been killling each other and non Muslims since the beginnings of Islam when Mohammad raided Caravan's during Ramadan.

What source are you using for this statement? It is also worth noting that Ramadan wasn't always around as a holy month and was derived scripturally after the Battle of Badr, so raids that took place over that month prior to the Battle of Badr can't really be associated with the holy month since it wasn't established at that point.

In fact, if anything, the violence INCREASES during Ramadan, as Muslims reflect of the teachings of Islam and what they are supposed to do as devout Muslims.

As devout Muslims they aren't supposed to engage in fighting during the four holy months at all really. It comes straight from the Quran, so I'm not sure how you are really arguing against it from a theological and scriptural point of view.

There are many things Muslims should and shouldn't do if you're talking about strict scriptural sense. Problem with the Koran is that the book contradicts itself in may places and that's probably because Mohammad was a schizophrenic that displayed many personalities. For example, I'm sure you've heard that there were "two Mohammad's" in the Koran, one before he rose to power, which he preached acceptance of people of the book, etc., and one after, which he turns into a homicidal maniac. So while there are some verses that preach non violence, if you read a little further, you will see the exact opposite being instructed.

 

[Osomir]

Problem with the Koran is that the book contradicts itself in may places and that's probably because Mohammad was a schizophrenic that displayed many personalities.

I disagree; contextuality is a major part in theological examination of any religious text and the same is especially true for the Quran, especially with post-Hijra scriptural revelations that often deal with specific events. I can understand how you might form your opinion from a casual reading of it, but that is why the discipline of theological examination mandates more than just a casual reading of scripture and also requires a solid background in history and language.

 

[Roudy]

Problem with the Koran is that the book contradicts itself in may places and that's probably because Mohammad was a schizophrenic that displayed many personalities.

I disagree; contextuality is a major part in theological examination of any religious text and the same is especially true for the Quran, especially with post-Hijra scriptural revelations that often deal with specific events. I can understand how you might form your opinion from a casual reading of it, but that is why the discipline of theological examination mandates more than just a casual reading of scripture and also requires a solid background in history and language.

Mohammad turned violent later on in the Koran, and that's because he no longer needed to be accommodate those who were stronger or more powerful than he was. That is a fact. So while he preached tolerance towards people of the Book in the beginning, later on he commands his followers to force the same people of the Book to either submit (convert), pay a special tax and live as second class citizens, or DIE. This offer only extended to Jews and Christians the rest died.

 

[Kondor3]

The Q'uran is a mess... badly thrown-together... nearly zero attention to chronological sequencing... more contradictory declarations of principles than you can shake a stick at... self-excusing of The Founder's more outrageous and grotesque and barbaric behaviors... so repetitive and juvenile in many places so as to make it impossible for many Literate nonbelievers to even take it halfway seriously... rambling and all over the philosophical map... much of it intended for citation and memorization by illiterate nomads... something more intelligent could have been done with much of the material, but the Old Boy had pretty much burned himself out by then and wasn't up to the task of tweaking what he'd begun... pity... it really would have benefitted from a second pass... but they're stuck with what they have.

 

[Osomir]

Mohammad turned violent later on in the Koran, and that's because he no longer needed to be accommodate those who were stronger or more powerful than he was. That is a fact. So while he preached tolerance towards people of the Book in the beginning, later on he commands his followers to force the same people of the Book to either submit (convert), pay a special tax and live as second class citizens, or DIE. This offer only extended to Jews and Christians the rest died.

Except they didn't die. In fact, When Muhammad took Mecca (late in his life) he broke every pre-Islamic social custom by NOT loting the city and putting the population to the sword / exacting revenge on the population. It was such a shocking decree that it almost cost him the support of some of his closest follwoers. So that incident doesn't really fit well into your theological narrative.

 

[Sunshine]

Not all Muslims are murderous.

Being Muslim doesn't mean you're going to go out and kill people.

You know every religion has its extremists.

Somehow the "extremists" in other religions as you call it (although there is no such thing as an extremist Muslim in my opinion) aren't going around killing, terrorizing, chopping people's heads / hands, stoning adulterers, hanging gays, executing those who convert out of Islam, etc. in the name of their religions.

Not all Muslims are terrorists but most terrorism today is done by Muslims. You've heard this one before. Now tell me when you hear about a bombing on the news what's the first thing that comes to you mind about the perpetrators?

I agree with the latter part of your post. My argument with you is that not every single Muslim out there is a wicked murderer. There needs to be more work on the part of civil Muslims to combat against the extremism of the radicals. Basically condemn them vigorously.

You can't possibly know that any more than someone else can know the reverse.

 

[Sunshine]

Not every Religion's sacred texts contain voluminous examples of their Founder declaring that it is permissible to make war and to kill and commit violence in their name of their vision of God, or to advance the cause of The Faith, or that those who die while fighting for The Faith get an express-ticket to Paradise.

Hmm....have you looked at the Old Testament recently?

How many Christians were there in the Old Testament?

 

[Osomir]

The Q'uran is a mess... badly thrown-together... nearly zero attention to chronological sequencing...

It isn't supposed to be sequenced chronologically and never has. It goes from longest to shortest Sura. Nor is it supposed to be a narrative like much of the Bible. It is more like hearing one side of a telephone call with the other side in this case being the situation on the ground when the revelation was made as revelations were often (especially in post-Hijra scripture) reactionary to specific events. This is also why a decent grasp of Islamic history is needed to best read the Quran.

As for its verbal structure it surrounds old Arabic styles of oral recitation tradition, which is one reason why it can be so easily sung in Arabic.

 

[Sunshine]

Just as an update on Ramadan, I was in two Islamic countries this Ramadan, Senegal and The Gambia.

In both, almost everyone seemed to be fasting. Meals were served around 7.45 pm, and most restaurants opened about the same time. In some places I could eat earlier, others not.

Certainly I had no problems buying water, getting lunch etc, and I also drank beers everywhere with no problems at all.

My advice to anyone thinking of travelling during Ramadan would be to go for it - you are unlikely to have any problems.

I know a guy who went to Cairo one year during Ramadan. He didn't realize it. At 6 a.m. their first day there they fired a cannon which woke him up. He said he thought they were under attack. LOL. No such excitement when I was there. But we had an armed escort.

 

[Kondor3]

The Q'uran is a mess... badly thrown-together... nearly zero attention to chronological sequencing...

It isn't supposed to be sequenced chronologically and never has. It goes from longest to shortest Sura. Nor is it supposed to be a narrative like much of the Bible. It is more like hearing one side of a telephone call with the other side in this case being the situation on the ground when the revelation was made as revelations were often (especially in post-Hijra scripture) reactionary to specific events. This is also why a decent grasp of Islamic history is needed to best read the Quran.

As for its verbal structure it surrounds old Arabic styles of oral recitation tradition, which is one reason why it can be so easily sung in Arabic.

No doubt.

Old oral recitation format was fine, I'm sure, for 632 A.D. -ish, and that much is obvious, based upon its success in that domain.

It's just that the rest of the Literate world had moved past such formatting centuries before the Q'uran had been set down, and that most of the Illiterate World of those times has caught-up and graduated into higher and more advanced forms of narration and literature, further aggravating the existence of such a 'gap'.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Back the original post -all of this is just a distraction designed to distance Barry from the heat that is on him. A reality that is clearly written within the posts in this thread.

 

[Saigon]

It's just that the rest of the Literate world had moved past such formatting centuries before the Q'uran had been set down, and that most of the Illiterate World of those times has caught-up and graduated into higher and more advanced forms of narration and literature, further aggravating the existence of such a 'gap'.

Wow....that must be about the most Americo-centric comment I've ever seen!!

Literature does not really "move past" literary forms - much modern literature in 2013 is of considerably less literary value than that written in 1913. Or do you think Dan Brown is as good a writer technically as Nabokov or Conrad?

Literature evolves locally, dependent on cultural tastes more than anything else.

There is no reason at all why the Koran, nor the Holy Books of Hindu or Buddhism, should conform to western literary styles or tastes. To insist they do so is to entirely miss the point. Or do you think western literature has also "moved past" Chinua Achebe, Chaim Potok, Salman Rushdie or Haruki Murakami?

 

[Roudy]

Back the original post -all of this is just a distraction designed to distance Barry from the heat that is on him. A reality that is clearly written within the posts in this thread.

I see a hint of justification for spying on Americans in this fiasco, I have to admit. Americans have never been watched and spied on like this. Drip by drip all of our rights are eroding and we are turning into a police state.

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiHVhSdT308]5.5 Reasons I Love Ramadan - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Kondor3]

It's just that the rest of the Literate world had moved past such formatting centuries before the Q'uran had been set down, and that most of the Illiterate World of those times has caught-up and graduated into higher and more advanced forms of narration and literature, further aggravating the existence of such a 'gap'.

Wow....that must be about the most Americo-centric comment I've ever seen!!

I'll settle for Literate-centric rather than America-centric; there are a variety of literary forms embedded in cultures across the world which are all superior to a haphazard binding of random snippets of a repetitive nature designed to be memorized by Illiterates.

"...Literature does not really 'move past' literary forms..."

Given that the literary forms of various mainstream cultures have evolved from earlier and more primitive forms and variations, I'm inclined to disagree at first glance, and to stand by the earlier comment.

"...much modern literature in 2013 is of considerably less literary value than that written in 1913. Or do you think Dan Brown is as good a writer technically as Nabokov or Conrad?..."

We are talking on the Macro Level here... spanning centuries and milennia and many generations... or do you think, generally speaking, that the Modern Literature of 2013 is inferior to that of the year 600 A.D. ?

"...Literature evolves locally, dependent on cultural tastes more than anything else..."

Agreed.

"...There is no reason at all why the Koran, nor the Holy Books of Hindu or Buddhism, should conform to western literary styles or tastes..."

Quite true.

But the haphazard construction of the Q'uran and its failure to sequence chronologically or even topically (and organizing by length, instead!) are so far beyond the pale as to render it 'messy' and 'untidy' and 'disorganized' in the eyes of most Outsiders.

Muslims defend this so-called 'organization' simply because it's their own Holy Book, but, viewed dispassionately and objectively, it's legitimate to call it "a mess", and "disorganized", and slapped-together in a less-than-intelligent or less-than-optimal fashion.

 

[Saigon]

Kondor -

Certainly I would agree that most 'outsiders' would view both the Talmud, Mahaburata and Koran as being messy. I found all three inexplicable, and have never spent a lot of time on either as a result.

But I'm reluctant to criticise any of the three as being in some way inferior to the Bible or, say The Book of Mormon simply because of the time and place they were written it. To western eyes, The Book of Mormon is always going to be easier reading than the Mahaburata, but I'm not sure what that means, really. It doesn't make me want to become a Mormon, anyway.

I dare say many Indians consider the Bible fairly peculiar as well...

 

[Surfer]

The Koran COMMANDS Muslimes to kill/convert Christians and Jews. It is a vile book of violence, deceit, death and destruction.

Islam: Making a True Difference in the World - One Body at a Time

Muslimes have committed 21,370 deadly acts of terror SINCE 911.
Muslimes have wounded 3,000 people during this Ramadan.
Muslimes are demonic monsters!

 

[Osomir]

The Koran COMMANDS Muslimes to kill/convert Christians and Jews. It is a vile book of violence, deceit, death and destruction.

Even Al Qaeda doesn't agree with your interpretaion.

 

[Surfer]

Even Al Qaeda doesn't agree with your interpretaion.

What is "interpretaion"??

 

[Osomir]

Even Al Qaeda doesn't agree with your interpretaion.

What is "interpretaion"??

Not surprised that you lack the apparent mental capacity to process typos.

Keep on keeping on though I guess.