Video Seems to Show Beheading of American

[Durandal]

And I also said that the koran states that the christian and jews are your brothers, and I listed the SB quotes on where many of the quotes of "retribution"is taken to be in the afterlife, as opposed to in the mortal realm.

Retribution will unquestionably be taken in the afterlife, but the quotes I've posted make it clear that such retribution is acceptable in this life as well.

Which means, that its a matter of interpetation, and as I said, the culture and lack of education is more important in the depicton of militant islam.

I'll grant you that the culture there isn't exactly conducive to progress, but Islam is a major part of that culture. It is true that there are progressive Muslim countries, but the presence of Islam in the government automatically appeals legislation to something that is, by definition, written in stone.

Fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.

Take them and kill them wherever ye find them. Against such We have given you clear warrant.

Where is the "only in the afterlife" portion of these two quotes?

The first one is a mistranslation, and the actual word is Strive in the way of Allah.

So what? It still says "be he slain or victorious," which strongly implies that fighting is a part of striving. And what about the second one, which gives explicit warrant to kill unbelievers whenever they are found?

Its an encouragement for you to remain faithful despite persecution. You do know that verse was written when Mohamad was being chased around the desert, right?

I might agree, if it didn't include the "be he slain or victorious" part. It implies that Muslims should fight when they are being persecuted, and that's precisely what the terrorists are (or believe they are) doing.

No. Islam was Part of the golden age. The ending portion, but still part of it.

But did it contribute at all to the Arab Golden Age? There was a whole culture in place before that which was responsible for the advances that the Arabs made.

Is it your argument that Islam,is the main cause of the various barbaric practices like mutialiation, lack of women sufferage and etc etc in the Middle East?

Yes. Such practices can be easily traced back to the Qur'an's placement of women in society.

What main argument? That Islamic laws, barbaric in nature does not emate from the Koran directly? That at best, they were influenced by the Hadith of Mohamad? That your points, that the Koran is directly responsible for such laws is baseless?

They may or may not come directly from the Qur'an, but that's not really the point. In the case of women, as an example, the Qur'an makes it clear that they are second-class citizens and literally inferior to men. So while the Qur'an may not explicitly command that women's clitorises be removed, it completely removes the equal treatment of women as a possibility.

It would be more accurate to blame the patriachal nature of Arab soceity for women woes, than it would be to blame the Koran, which actually advanced the fate of women back during the Middle Ages.

That's not exactly a difficult thing to do. It may have elevated their status back then, but their new status was still below men. The fact that Islam made the same shit smell prettier centuries ago does not change the fact that the shit still smells today.

Unfortunately, the book was written in the Middle Ages and it still remains there. However, it does nothing to prevent society from moving on from that age.

It does nothing to encourage such progression either. The simple fact that it's regarded as a holy book by Muslims makes it necessary for them to reconcile every new proposition with its barbarism, which essentially discourages progression. That's the part that the culture plays in this, but don't pretend that Islam itself (which created the culture that needs to run everything by its beliefs) doesn't play an equal, if not larger role, in the atrocities taking place there.

If you mean that the Koran is responsible for creating or maintaining a patrichial society,then I say you're nuts, as that society already existed back in the age of gentiles and there's nothing there to prevent women from being empowered in society. Half a man?Sure, but when they can be leaders, merchants, enter the mosque and their entire role in life is not to cater to man base needs, that's not a patriach society.

The patriarchal society existed well before Islam, but Islam reinforced it and gave it new life. Women's rights should be a fucking no-brainer, but because of religious holy books like the Qur'an and the Bible, it isn't. It's something that women have to fight for because they're not automatically accorded equality.

Islam is a very effective tool that can be (and has been) used to keep women subservient with very little effort. The culture over there regards it as holy writ, and it contains several verses which make it abundantly clear that women are inferior. Combined with the intertwining of religion and government that is routine in that region, and women's rights in a country are an exception, not the rule.

[Durandal]

Okay, that's been fixed.

[PainRack]

I sent the relevent quotes to MUIS and am awaiting their reply.(yeah, i know, i should had done this yesterday)

I'll grant you that the culture there isn't exactly conducive to progress, but Islam is a major part of that culture. It is true that there are progressive Muslim countries, but the presence of Islam in the government automatically appeals legislation to something that is, by definition, written in stone.

My question is again this.

Is it the Koran itself that is to blame, or is it the culture? May I remind you that so called "unislamic nations", ranging from Egypt to Morocco to the former Congo all have unequal human rights?

And that this culture is not solely limited to the influence of Islam?

So what? It still says "be he slain or victorious," which strongly implies that fighting is a part of striving. And what about the second one, which gives explicit warrant to kill unbelievers whenever they are found?

Be the Muslim slain, or victorious. As in whether he's killed or he surivives.

I'm awaiting MUIS reply.

But did it contribute at all to the Arab Golden Age? There was a whole culture in place before that which was responsible for the advances that the Arabs made.

Of course not. But neither was Islam wholly responsible for the culture that followed. That's what I'm saying. As a cause, Islam played a catalyst at most.

Yes. Such practices can be easily traced back to the Qur'an's placement of women in society.

How? The Koran orginal placement of women inflated their orginal status in society.

The problem lies in the fact that they remained in that status, which was Middle Ages time, not 21st century.

Anyway, I concede that the conservative outlook of Islam had not advanced progress in women status.

[Durandal]

My question is again this.

Is it the Koran itself that is to blame, or is it the culture? May I remind you that so called "unislamic nations", ranging from Egypt to Morocco to the former Congo all have unequal human rights?

And that this culture is not solely limited to the influence of Islam?

You're twisting my argument around, yet again. I never said that backward culture with unequal rights for women is exclusive to Islam; I said that Islam encourages such conditions.

Be the Muslim slain, or victorious. As in whether he's killed or he surivives.

I'm awaiting MUIS reply.

"Slain or victorious" strongly implies fighting, or at least conflict. It's kill or be killed. If you're trying to say that the quote is referring to something else, like an internal struggle, then please provide evidence.

Again, if you want to interpret these quotes beyond face value, you must provide a valid reason to do so. Otherwise, the simplest interpretation is the best one, and the simplest interpretation is a face-value one.

Of course not. But neither was Islam wholly responsible for the culture that followed. That's what I'm saying. As a cause, Islam played a catalyst at most.

But it has kept those countries in their backward, 6th century mentality. Islam acts like a fucking ball and chain. If you have to interpret the beliefs of the religion ridiculously liberally to justify equal rights for all people, then the religion has a problem.

How? The Koran orginal placement of women inflated their orginal status in society.

You're not getting the point. Islam may have originally improved women's standing in society when it was first introduced, but it still kept them below men, and it has continued to keep them at that level. "It improved their standing centuries ago" doesn't do anything to change the fact that their standing today is below that of men, and that placement has justified the atrocities being committed against women in fundamentalist Islam countries.

The fact that women were worse off before Islam is a red herring. The fact is that they are placed below men in the hierarchy of society, period. That is what creates the problems.

The problem lies in the fact that they remained in that status, which was Middle Ages time, not 21st century.

Yes, and there is absolutely nothing in the whole fucking Qur'an which would encourage the continued advancement of women's rights.