No more "we might never know that Muslim terrorist's motivation"

[Joy4Uall]

Can you say that Osama Bin Laden is likely in HELL right now? Or is he getting 72 virgins in Paradise?
If, just say if, Osama is basking in Paradise (just say), could you join me in saying that we think that Allah is not as ethical as we would be?

In Islam, a persons final destination is only between them and God.

We are not privy to that information, and do not speculate on it. ....

A harsh critic of Islam would say that you are the mental slave of the invisible friend of a 7th century pedophile/warlord - if you can't think for yourself ethically.
We prefer to be able to think for ourselves.

Have a great night.

 

[Joy4Uall]

Can you say that Osama Bin Laden is likely in HELL right now? Or is he getting 72 virgins in Paradise?
If, just say if, Osama is basking in Paradise (just say), could you join me in saying that we think that Allah is not as ethical as we would be?

In Islam, a persons final destination is only between them and God.

We are not privy to that information, and do not speculate on it. ....

You're "outsourcing" your ethical decision making - there is a better way, we believe. Believe in YOURSELF enough, enough to be able to make those tough ethical decisions - the world will be a better place when you can do that. Don't "outsource" those decisions to the 7th century.

I value these chats we've had, SM.

 

[Sunni Man]

1. Do you demand that your children do well in science class?
2. Do you believe Mohammad when he said he rode on a flying horse with wings and a human head in his "night journey"?

Muslims believe in science, as long as it agrees with the Quran.

We believe in Muhammad's night journey.

btw The human head/face on the horse was a product of later artist's depictions in paintings, not the Quran. ..

 

[Joy4Uall]

Can you say that Osama Bin Laden is likely in HELL right now? Or is he getting 72 virgins in Paradise?
If, just say if, Osama is basking in Paradise (just say), could you join me in saying that we think that Allah is not as ethical as we would be?

In Islam, a persons final destination is only between them and God.

We are not privy to that information, and do not speculate on it. ....

Scientific Humanists have the strongest moral backbone.
I believe that you can do that too.

 

[Sunni Man]

A Scientific Humanist can make ethical judgments more clearly than people from other belief systems can - your reply (no offense) is one example. We don't have to hedge, to fudge, when it comes to morality.

 

[Joy4Uall]

1. Do you demand that your children do well in science class?
2. Do you believe Mohammad when he said he rode on a flying horse with wings and a human head in his "night journey"?

Muslims believe in science, as long as it agrees with the Quran.

We believe in Muhammad's night journey.

btw The human head/face on the horse was a product of later artist's depictions in paintings, not the Quran. ..

What unscientific thing, hypothetically here, would there have to be in the Qur'an (again hypothetically) for you to doubt that unscientific thing? Think of some unscientific thing (just make something up) that would cause you to say "whoa, I don't believe the Qur'an on that claim".
For us it would be "Mohammad splitting the moon", for starters - or invisible "jinns" and "angels", since scientific evidence, to a court-room level of evidence, does not exists for those. So like in the religion of Zeus (you and I BOTH DON'T believe unscientific claims in that religion!), there are unscientific things that we don't believe because their is not a court-room level of evidence for them.

Have a great night.

 

[Joy4Uall]

A Scientific Humanist can make ethical judgments more clearly than people from other belief systems can - your reply (no offense) is one example. We don't have to hedge, to fudge, when it comes to morality.

A Church Lady meme is always a good choice, I believe.

My favorite is when she's interviewing "Jimmy Swaggert":
Watch Church Chat: Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggart from Saturday Night Live on NBC.com

 

[Joy4Uall]

1. Do you demand that your children do well in science class?
2. Do you believe Mohammad when he said he rode on a flying horse with wings and a human head in his "night journey"?

....

We believe in Muhammad's night journey.

.....

In your opinion, how does this story compare to, say, the flying giant eagle that Gandelf rode on in the Lord of The Rings, evidence-wise?

 

[Clementine]

100+ verses in the Islamic texts exhort the faithful to wage Jihad against non-believers, so the Islamic texts might have to always be suspect #1 when it comes to trying to determine the motivation of a particular Muslim terrorist - until we get more info - if we ever get more info. The terrorist is dead, so we often won't know.
"We might never know that Muslim terrorist's motivation" can't be used anymore.
Instead, our position should be "until shown otherwise, we have to assume that this Muslim terrorist was simply following some of the 100+ verses in his religion relating to Jihad - including the promise of 72 virgins in Paradise to those that wage jihad for Allah."

Question: should this be our default position, or not?

Me, I'm certainly starting to lean this way.

You?

Sure, whatever. Any reason to go spend trillions on war in the ME.

I agree that bombing them is not the best way - just creates more terrorists in the long run. "My father was killed by cowardly infidels bombing him and his brave Mujahadin from 10,000 feet - so I will join the Jihad to avenge him and gain entry in Jannah!"

I think if we just gave them jobs and respected their laws here in the USA, we would not have anymore problems with these fine people.

And convert to Islam, making sure to obey sharia law to the letter. Then everything will be so cool. Well, if you're a guy. It will totally suck for us women.

 

[Joy4Uall]

100+ verses in the Islamic texts exhort the faithful to wage Jihad against non-believers, so the Islamic texts might have to always be suspect #1 when it comes to trying to determine the motivation of a particular Muslim terrorist - until we get more info - if we ever get more info. The terrorist is dead, so we often won't know.
"We might never know that Muslim terrorist's motivation" can't be used anymore.
Instead, our position should be "until shown otherwise, we have to assume that this Muslim terrorist was simply following some of the 100+ verses in his religion relating to Jihad - including the promise of 72 virgins in Paradise to those that wage jihad for Allah."

Question: should this be our default position, or not?

Me, I'm certainly starting to lean this way.

You?

Sure, whatever. Any reason to go spend trillions on war in the ME.

I agree that bombing them is not the best way - just creates more terrorists in the long run. "My father was killed by cowardly infidels bombing him and his brave Mujahadin from 10,000 feet - so I will join the Jihad to avenge him and gain entry in Jannah!"

I think if we just gave them jobs and respected their laws here in the USA, we would not have anymore problems with these fine people.

And convert to Islam, making sure to obey sharia law to the letter. Then everything will be so cool. Well, if you're a guy. It will totally suck for us women.

Mohammad approved of FGM, so if Sharia takes over, your daughter's naughty bits will be impacted.

 

[LeftofLeft]

100+ verses in the Islamic texts exhort the faithful to wage Jihad against non-believers, and there have been over 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11, so the Islamic texts might have to always be suspect #1 when it comes to trying to determine the motivation of a particular Muslim terrorist - until we get more info - if we ever get more info. The terrorist is dead, so we often won't know.
So "we might never know that Muslim terrorist's motivation" can't be used anymore.
Instead, our default position should be "until shown otherwise, we have to assume that this Muslim terrorist was simply following some of the 100+ verses in his religion relating to Jihad - including the enticing promise of 72 virgins in Paradise to those that wage jihad for Allah."

Question: should this be our default position, or not?

It's in the Quoran.



Me, I'm certainly starting to lean this way.

You?

 

[cnelsen]

All lost in misdirection. You cannot Quote these or any other verses from either book without the historic setting, AND the qualifying verses to set the arena of the statements AND the position of the persons involved. Most people believers or non believers have no idea what is transpiring when some person uses a verse to make a diametric statement.

OK, if "context" makes the most heinous act divine, what does it even mean to call it "God's Word"? And, context or not, religions found cultures. Religious texts therefore don't get a pass for "context".

 

[yiostheoy]

100+ verses in the Islamic texts exhort the faithful to wage Jihad against non-believers, and there have been over 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11, so the Islamic texts might have to always be suspect #1 when it comes to trying to determine the motivation of a particular Muslim terrorist - until we get more info - if we ever get more info. The terrorist is dead, so we often won't know.
So "we might never know that Muslim terrorist's motivation" can't be used anymore.
Instead, our default position should be "until shown otherwise, we have to assume that this Muslim terrorist was simply following some of the 100+ verses in his religion relating to Jihad - including the enticing promise of 72 virgins in Paradise to those that wage jihad for Allah."

Question: should this be our default position, or not?

Me, I'm certainly starting to lean this way.

You?

My 45ACP and me do not assume anything.

We go together everywhere 24/7/365.

We presume everybody else to be guilty until proved innocent.

 

[Clementine]

100+ verses in the Islamic texts exhort the faithful to wage Jihad against non-believers, so the Islamic texts might have to always be suspect #1 when it comes to trying to determine the motivation of a particular Muslim terrorist - until we get more info - if we ever get more info. The terrorist is dead, so we often won't know.
"We might never know that Muslim terrorist's motivation" can't be used anymore.
Instead, our position should be "until shown otherwise, we have to assume that this Muslim terrorist was simply following some of the 100+ verses in his religion relating to Jihad - including the promise of 72 virgins in Paradise to those that wage jihad for Allah."

Question: should this be our default position, or not?

Me, I'm certainly starting to lean this way.

You?

Sure, whatever. Any reason to go spend trillions on war in the ME.

I agree that bombing them is not the best way - just creates more terrorists in the long run. "My father was killed by cowardly infidels bombing him and his brave Mujahadin from 10,000 feet - so I will join the Jihad to avenge him and gain entry in Jannah!"

I think if we just gave them jobs and respected their laws here in the USA, we would not have anymore problems with these fine people.

And convert to Islam, making sure to obey sharia law to the letter. Then everything will be so cool. Well, if you're a guy. It will totally suck for us women.

Mohammad approved of FGM, so if Sharia takes over, your daughter's naughty bits will be impacted.

A Muslim doctor here in the U.S. just got in trouble for performing FGM procedures on young girls. The mothers voluntarily took them for the procedure and lied to them about what was going to happen. It's a custom with them and they see nothing wrong with it. I can think of a few procedures I'd like to do on some of the radicals.

 

[yiostheoy]

1. Do you demand that your children do well in science class?
2. Do you believe Mohammad when he said he rode on a flying horse with wings and a human head in his "night journey"?

Muslims believe in science, as long as it agrees with the Quran.

We believe in Muhammad's night journey.

btw The human head/face on the horse was a product of later artist's depictions in paintings, not the Quran. ..

The Vatican used to feel the same way that's why they insisted that the Earth is in the middle of the Universe.

Since then the Vatican has built their own astronomical observatory so they could be more sure about Jupiter, it's moons, and so forth.

Mecca should wise up likewise.

 

[yiostheoy]

Sure, whatever. Any reason to go spend trillions on war in the ME.

I agree that bombing them is not the best way - just creates more terrorists in the long run. "My father was killed by cowardly infidels bombing him and his brave Mujahadin from 10,000 feet - so I will join the Jihad to avenge him and gain entry in Jannah!"

I think if we just gave them jobs and respected their laws here in the USA, we would not have anymore problems with these fine people.

And convert to Islam, making sure to obey sharia law to the letter. Then everything will be so cool. Well, if you're a guy. It will totally suck for us women.

Mohammad approved of FGM, so if Sharia takes over, your daughter's naughty bits will be impacted.

A Muslim doctor here in the U.S. just got in trouble for performing FGM procedures on young girls. The mothers voluntarily took them for the procedure and lied to them about what was going to happen. It's a custom with them and they see nothing wrong with it. I can think of a few procedures I'd like to do on some of the radicals.

If you take away an Arab girlie's FGM parts that just forces her to open up her Hershey Bar Road for better stimulation, which is what male goat fokking Arabs prefer anyway.

 

[yiostheoy]

100+ verses in the Islamic texts exhort the faithful to wage Jihad against non-believers, and there have been over 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11, so the Islamic texts might have to always be suspect #1 when it comes to trying to determine the motivation of a particular Muslim terrorist - until we get more info - if we ever get more info. The terrorist is dead, so we often won't know.
So "we might never know that Muslim terrorist's motivation" can't be used anymore.
Instead, our default position should be "until shown otherwise, we have to assume that this Muslim terrorist was simply following some of the 100+ verses in his religion relating to Jihad - including the enticing promise of 72 virgins in Paradise to those that wage jihad for Allah."

Question: should this be our default position, or not?

Me, I'm certainly starting to lean this way.

You?

Seems your thread got off the topic of the Quran and onto Arab girlies' FGM parts instead.

 

[Clementine]

100+ verses in the Islamic texts exhort the faithful to wage Jihad against non-believers, and there have been over 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11, so the Islamic texts might have to always be suspect #1 when it comes to trying to determine the motivation of a particular Muslim terrorist - until we get more info - if we ever get more info. The terrorist is dead, so we often won't know.
So "we might never know that Muslim terrorist's motivation" can't be used anymore.
Instead, our default position should be "until shown otherwise, we have to assume that this Muslim terrorist was simply following some of the 100+ verses in his religion relating to Jihad - including the enticing promise of 72 virgins in Paradise to those that wage jihad for Allah."

Question: should this be our default position, or not?

Me, I'm certainly starting to lean this way.

You?

Seems your thread got off the topic of the Quran and onto Arab girlies' FGM parts instead.

Once the topic of how barbaric they are comes up, the examples are plenty.

I just don't see them often showing tolerance for others or asking for peace for all religions.