U.S. soldier uses Quran in target practice

[ConcordCowboy]

U.S. soldier uses Quran in target practice


Muslim holy book was found riddled with bullet holes at Baghdad range


BAGHDAD - U.S. military commanders have apologized to community leaders in Iraq after an American soldier used a copy of the Quran for shooting practice, moving quickly to calm anger among U.S.-allied tribesmen.

Bloody protests have sometimes been held across the Muslim world when the Islamic faith has been insulted.

The swift apology by the U.S. commanders appeared aimed at avoiding similar violence in Iraq.

The U.S. military said on Sunday the soldier, who was not identified, had been disciplined and ordered to leave Iraq after a copy of the Muslim holy book was found riddled with bullet holes at a shooting range near Baghdad on May 11.

The incident is deeply embarrassing for the U.S. military, which has been working hard to forge alliances with Sunni Arab tribes to fight al-Qaida in Iraq. It has credited such alliances with helping to sharply reduce violence in the country.

An Iraqi community leader told Reuters the apology by senior American military commanders had helped calm tensions.

Saeed al-Zubaie, head of a U.S.-allied Sunni Arab tribal council in the Radwaniya area near Baghdad where the Quran was found, said the book had been peppered with 14 bullet holes and offensive language had been scrawled inside.

"I was feeling bitterness, but as long as they apologized we are OK with them. Our anger has cooled," said Zubaie, adding that Sunni Arab tribal units who work alongside U.S. forces in the area had threatened to quit unless the military took action.

The U.S. television news network CNN said Major-General Jeffery Hammond, the commander of U.S. troops in Baghdad, and other officers were met by hundreds of protesters when they went to Radwaniya to deliver the apology.

"I am a man of honor, I am a man of character. You have my word this will never happen again," Hammond told the crowd, CNN reported.

Colonel Bill Buckner, a U.S. military spokesman described the shooting incident as "serious and deeply troubling."


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24693647/

[notherbob]

Not a problem;Obviously, Cpl. Klinger is still in the Army and he wanted out of Iraq.

[Jon88]

Muslims have done a lot worse than that. Namely blowing up innocent civilians while killing themselves at the same time. While it is wrong, they have bigger things to worry about.

[CowboyFan74]

Pics??

[Jon88]

Pics??

No way. That would cause mass rioting.

[Maikeru-sama]

Muslims have done a lot worse than that.

The same exact thing can be said about Christians.

[SuspectCorner]

The same exact thing can be said about Christians.

I can't name many religions that DON'T have blood on their hands...

[Danny White]

I heard that Al-Qaeda has taken a Bible hostage in retaliation.

[SultanOfSix]

I can't name many religions that DON'T have blood on their hands...

I wasn't aware that religions had hands.

[SuspectCorner]

I wasn't aware that religions had hands.

Just as they have "heads" - in the figurative sense. Don't play dumb with me. I've seen enough of your posts to know you're plenty smart enough to know what I was referring to...

[The30YardSlant]

I have zero problem with this. Far more horrid things have been done to us at the hands of those who hold that book as cannon.

It seems to me this soldier at least knows and acknowledges who we are REALLY at war with here, and it's not terrorism. Rather, it's the root of said terrorism.

[Cajuncowboy]

Muslims have done a lot worse than that. Namely blowing up innocent civilians while killing themselves at the same time. While it is wrong, they have bigger things to worry about.

It's not the Muslim religion doing this stuff. It's the lunatics that have a stranglehold on it in that area. Not all Muslims are like that. The majority of them would like to live in peace. The problem is that the majority of them are too afraid of the minority of them to put a stop to it within their own communities world wide.

[CowboyJeff]

No way. That would cause mass rioting.

:lmao2: :lmao:

[CowboyJeff]

It's not the Muslim religion doing this stuff. It's the lunatics that have a stranglehold on it in that area. Not all Muslims are like that. The majority of them would like to live in peace. The problem is that the majority of them are too afraid of the minority of them to put a stop to it within their own communities world wide.

:rolleyes:

[The30YardSlant]

It's not the Muslim religion doing this stuff. It's the lunatics that have a stranglehold on it in that area. Not all Muslims are like that. The majority of them would like to live in peace. The problem is that the majority of them are too afraid of the minority of them to put a stop to it within their own communities world wide.

Islam begets violence. It is a religion rooted in violence and one that advocates murder and intolerance.

No, not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists in today's world are Muslim, and many of those who arent terrorist quietly support those who are.

[SultanOfSix]

Just as they have "heads" - in the figurative sense. Don't play dumb with me. I've seen enough of your posts to know you're plenty smart enough to know what I was referring to...

It wasn't an attempt to play dumb. The point was people have been doing things "in the name" of religion for years. Most religious philosphies are peaceful ones, and when fighting does take place, it is usually due to aggression against those who adhere to them correctly, and therefore, can rarely can be blamed for bloodshed.

If I'm not mistaken, the monarchy, and typically the church, or any religious head that was the ruling power behind the scenes of such institutions, died centuries ago (and the few that exist now, rarely exert any type of political influence), whereas the past two or so centuries of secular humanism and its variant philosophies has produced more bloodshed, death and destruction, than the previous centuries of known human existence combined by orders of magnitude.

[Cajuncowboy]

:rolleyes:

It's true. I know it's hard to believe. The problem isn't the religion in itself, though I take issue with some of the calls for the killing of infidels, most of them don't want to be blown up for no good reason.

[Cajuncowboy]

Islam begets violence. It is a religion rooted in violence and one that advocates murder and intolerance.

No, not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists in today's world are Muslim, and many of those who arent terrorist quietly support those who are.

Will not argue that at all, however, many is not the majority.

[SultanOfSix]

Islam begets violence. It is a religion rooted in violence and one that advocates murder and intolerance.

No, not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists in today's world are Muslim, and many of those who arent terrorist quietly support those who are.

Football begets violence. It is a sport rooted in violence and one that advocates disfigurement, pain, and suffering to those who participate in it.

No, not all football players are people who like to hurt others, but almost all football players in today's world are people who often injure and do hurt others, and many of those who aren't football players, i.e. the fans of the sport, quietly support those who do.

[The30YardSlant]

Will not argue that at all, however, many is not the majority.

Maybe, maybe not, the point is that it is a religion that advocates violence against anyone and everyone that doesnt agree with you. People often argue that the bible does the same, and that is just factually incorrect and shows a high level of ignorance with regards to religion.

The bible NEVER promotes the killing of innocent people because they do agree with everything you believe in. There are instances in which God's people or God himself promoted violence against people who were deliberatly staining his name or directly threatened his people, but unlike Allah, the christian God does not support the baseless murder of the innocent masses.

[The30YardSlant]

Football begets violence. It is a sport rooted in violence and one that advocates disfigurement, pain, and suffering to those who participate in it.

No, not all football players are people who like to hurt others, but almost all football players in today's world are people who often injure and do hurt others, and many of those who aren't football players, i.e. the fans of the sport, quietly support those who do.

This may very well be the single worst attempt at an analogy I've ever had the misfortune of reading

I honestly cannot believe you posted this with the intent of making a serious point. Shame on you.

[Cajuncowboy]

Maybe, maybe not, the point is that it is a religion that advocates violence against anyone and everyone that doesnt agree with you. People often argue that the bible does the same, and that is just factually incorrect and shows a high level of ignorance with regards to religion.

The bible NEVER promotes the killing of innocent people because they do agree with everything you believe in. There are instances in which God's people or God himself promoted violence against people who were deliberatly staining his name or directly threatened his people, but unlike Allah, the christian God does not support the baseless murder of the innocent masses.

Again, no argument from me regarding the message. I was referring to the people in general. Most of them would rather live in peace. It is the radicals who partake of that religion and who take the message and apply it. Those are the ones who are the terrorists. I would imagine, though I won't speak for him, that even Sultanofsix doesn't believe that part of the Koran should be applied.

[SultanOfSix]

This may very well be the single worst attempt at an analogy I've ever had the misfortune of reading

I honestly cannot believe you posted this with the intent of making a serious point. Shame on you.

Well, if it was so, blame yourself.

They were mimicing your statements, which were even more non-factual and atrocious.

[The30YardSlant]

Well, if it was so, blame yourself.

They were mimicing your statements, which were even more non-factual and atrocious.

Instead of making silly and non-sequitur comparisons, why not tell me what you feel to be incorrect with regards to my post?

Do you wish to argue that Islam's holy book does not advocate the murder of the "infidels", even if they be otherwise innocent of any crime?

That the vast majority of the world's terrorists and terrorists groups are rooted in the Islamic faith?

That terrorism is widely supported outside of those who actually partake in the terrorism itself?

Because if so, I can provide page after page with evidence to support all my claims.

[DragonCowboy]

I have zero problem with this. Far more horrid things have been done to us at the hands of those who hold that book as cannon.

It seems to me this soldier at least knows and acknowledges who we are REALLY at war with here, and it's not terrorism. Rather, it's the root of said terrorism.

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Islam begets violence. It is a religion rooted in violence and one that advocates murder and intolerance.

No, not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists in today's world are Muslim, and many of those who arent terrorist quietly support those who are.

Islam does not beget violence. You're probably referring to "jihad". Jihad was a concept created to stop infighting among the various Arab tribes. It was an attempt to get the Muslims to spiritually become closer to God by purging the evils and infidelity within themselves. Yes, they do talk about "jihad" as a 'struggle against infidels', but this was mainly to stop the Muslims from fighting each other. Of course, this term was twisted by the leaders of Muslim countries, mosques, etc.

A "struggle against infidels" can be interpreted in MANY different ways. It CAN be interpreted as a holy war against all infidels (but who started the Crusades?), and it can also be interpreted as a defense of the Islamic state.

It's ironic that you say that Muslims are instructed by the Qu'ran to be intolerant. Muslim COUNTRIES are intolerant. For goodness sakes, when the Islamic state was growing around 700 AD, Janissaries were Christians infantrymen who were allowed to keep their religion.

I totally agree that there are people who abuse power in the name of Islam, and there are many Muslims who support terrorism, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that Islam itself is the root of all evil. It's the people who interpret it.

Being Hindu, I think I'm fairly unbiased on stuff about Muslims/Christians.

I don't think it's right for that soldier to use the Qu'ran as target practice, but I think it'd be VERY stupid for Arab tribes to back out of fighting just because of this. Considering everything that's happened since 9/11, of course people still have anger towards the terrorists (as do I) and Muslim countries in general. I just think that it's very unprofessional to use the holy book of a religion as target practice.

99 times out of 100, it's the people, not religion, that's the source of problems.

[SuspectCorner]

It wasn't an attempt to play dumb. The point was people have been doing things "in the name" of religion for years. Most religious philosphies are peaceful ones, and when fighting does take place, it is usually due to aggression against those who adhere to them correctly, and therefore, can rarely can be blamed for bloodshed.

If I'm not mistaken, the monarchy, and typically the church, or any religious head that was the ruling power behind the scenes of such institutions, died centuries ago (and the few that exist now, rarely exert any type of political influence), whereas the past two or so centuries of secular humanism and its variant philosophies has produced more bloodshed, death and destruction, than the previous centuries of known human existence combined by orders of magnitude.

It's NEVER "religion" as set of beliefs - it's ALWAYS "religion" as A BODY OF PERSONS acting misguidely, and often ruthlessly, MISTAKENLY THINKING they are adhering to said set of beliefs.

And I don't know how you've been able to overlook recent events - but the cutoff date for this problem was most definitely NOT 200 years ago.

[SultanOfSix]

Instead of making silly and non-sequitur comparisons, why not tell me what you feel to be incorrect with regards to my post?

Pretty much the whole thing.

Do you wish to argue that Islam's holy book does not advocate the murder of the "infidels", even if they be otherwise innocent of any crime?

Advocate the "murder" of "infidels". Isn't that a loaded statement. "Murder" by definition implies taking away someone's life without justice, i.e. it is wrong.

Everytime I hear the word "infidel" it makes me laugh. It's a translation of the word "kafir", which loosely means disbeliever, but it has the connotation of one who "covers the truth", and also one who openly shows enmity and hostility to Muslims.

Islam allows no taking of life without strict due process.

That the vast majority of the world's terrorists and terrorists groups are rooted in the Islamic faith?

That terrorism is widely supported outside of those who actually partake in the terrorism itself?

Because if so, I can provide page after page with evidence to support all my claims.

You can't provide page after page of evidence. All you can provide is some listing of "terror groups" that someone has given you, none of which by those said sources would even remotely claim that it is the religion's fault that these groups act the way they do. Your reliance on faith concerning such things is inversely proportional to your knowledge of Islam.

[The30YardSlant]

Pretty much the whole thing.



Advocate the "murder" of "infidels". Isn't that a loaded statement. "Murder" by definition implies taking away someone's life without justice, i.e. it is wrong.

Everytime I hear the word "infidel" it makes me laugh. It's a translation of the word "kafir", which loosely means disbeliever, but it has the connotation of one who "covers the truth", and also one who openly shows enmity and hostility to Muslims.

Islam allows no taking of life without strict due process.



You can't provide page after page of evidence. All you can provide is some listing of "terror groups" that someone has given you, none of which by those said sources would even remotely claim that it is the religion's fault that these groups act the way they do. Your reliance on faith concerning such things is inversely proportional to your knowledge of Islam.

So basically, I'm wrong because you say so. Got it.

[DragonCowboy]

Instead of making silly and non-sequitur comparisons, why not tell me what you feel to be incorrect with regards to my post?

Do you wish to argue that Islam's holy book does not advocate the murder of the "infidels", even if they be otherwise innocent of any crime?

That the vast majority of the world's terrorists and terrorists groups are rooted in the Islamic faith?

That terrorism is widely supported outside of those who actually partake in the terrorism itself?

Because if so, I can provide page after page with evidence to support all my claims.

Also, I think this is another misconception.

Terrorists did NOT perform the 9/11 attacks because we were Christian. The World Trade Center symbolized capitalism. If it was an outburst against Christianity, they would've attacked the Vatican. They didn't like the fact that the United States was interfering in others' political problems (whether they should have or not is arguable). It wasn't because the United States is predominantly Christian...it's really tough to even say that the United States is a "Christian" country.

[Cajuncowboy]

Advocate the "murder" of "infidels". Isn't that a loaded statement. "Murder" by definition implies taking away someone's life without justice, i.e. it is wrong.

Everytime I hear the word "infidel" it makes me laugh. It's a translation of the word "kafir", which loosely means disbeliever, but it has the connotation of one who "covers the truth", and also one who openly shows enmity and hostility to Muslims.

Islam allows no taking of life without strict due process.



OK, so disbeliever. But it does call for the killing of those people. But as I said, I'm sure someone such as yourself doesn't advocate the application of that part of the Koran, right?

[SultanOfSix]

It's NEVER "religion" as set of beliefs - it's ALWAYS "religion" as A BODY OF PERSONS acting misguidely, and often ruthlessly, MISTAKENLY THINKING they are adhering to said set of beliefs.

And I don't know how you've been able to overlook recent events - but the cutoff date for this problem was most definitely NOT 200 years ago.

This attribution of some set of beliefs as the cause of something can be applied to virtually anything. WWI was certainly not religious, neither was WWII, neither was the Vietnam War, nor the Korean War, nor many other wars that pervaded last century. The US government itself has come up with "civilized" terms such as "casualties of war" to hide the notion of "innocent civilian deaths". Does that hide the blood on its hands?

I just don't get this constant attribution of religion as "the cause" of bloodshed, and that is what is intended by those who have some sort of bias against religion in its most common sense of the word. Religion is actually just a personal or an institutionalized set of beliefs. This parroting of blaming religion for "so much blood" has almost become like a Pavlovian response.

[SultanOfSix]

So basically, I'm wrong because you say so. Got it.

No. You're wrong because you're wrong. You ask me a question, rely on me as the source seeing that I'm Muslim, and then don't accept what I tell you? What's the point in asking the question then?

Perhaps you should pick up a book and read for yourself, although I'm thinking that might not help.

[The30YardSlant]

Also, I think this is another misconception.

Terrorists did NOT perform the 9/11 attacks because we were Christian. The World Trade Center symbolized capitalism. If it was an outburst against Christianity, they would've attacked the Vatican. They didn't like the fact that the United States was interfering in others' political problems (whether they should have or not is arguable). It wasn't because the United States is predominantly Christian...it's really tough to even say that the United States is a "Christian" country.

I never said they did. I fully acknowledge they did it because it represents America, capitalism and freedom. Islamic "infidels" are not limited to those who don't agree with their faith, it encompasses everyone who doesnt buy into their core ideologies

And it's hard to argue that America isnt a christian state, considering 90% of all religious people in America are proclaimed christians.

[SultanOfSix]

OK, so disbeliever. But it does call for the killing of those people. But as I said, I'm sure someone such as yourself doesn't advocate the application of that part of the Koran, right?

No it doesn't. It calls for killing them when they fight you, i.e. when you are in a state of war with them. If Islam told its believers to kill every disbeliever it came into contact with, there was a point in time in the history of the world where most of the known world would know no other faith.

[DragonCowboy]

I never said they did. I fully acknowledge they did it because it represents America, capitalism and freedom. Islamic "infidels" are not limited to those who don't agree with their faith, it encompasses everyone who doesnt buy into their core ideologies

And it's hard to argue that America isnt a christian state, considering 90% of all religious people in America are proclaimed christians.

And whose ideologies? Did the Qu'ran specifically say "Thou shalt not enjoy freedom"? I doubt that it specifically said no capitalism. Again, the terrorists twisted the Qu'ran to abide by their specific beliefs (which most likely had nothing to do with the Qu'ran itself)

I said America couldn't really be considered a Christian state because for the most part the church is separated from the state.

[The30YardSlant]

No. You're wrong because you're wrong. You ask me a question, rely on me as the source seeing that I'm Muslim, and then don't accept what I tell you? What's the point in asking the question then?

Perhaps you should pick up a book and read for yourself, although I'm thinking that might not help.

You're problem is that you automatically assume I have no knowledge of Islam simply because I disagree with you and agree with something you perceive to be false.

I've read the Koran, as I've read the bible, the vedas, and several other religious texts. I find religion fascinating and have studied it both in my own time and in a college classroom.

I'm not speaking from a lack of knowledge

[SultanOfSix]

You're problem is that you automatically assume I have no knowledge of Islam simply because I disagree with you and agree with something you perceive to be false.

I've read the Koran, as I've read the bible, the vedas, and several other religious texts. I find religion fascinating and have studied it both in my own time and in a college classroom.

I'm not speaking from a lack of knowledge

Are you really this silly?

You made a claim that Islam begets violence, and that most Muslims support terrorists and you want me to seriously think you've read the Qur'an and know the Islamic belief system?

This coming from the same guy who believed that there was a "30 yard slant"?

[DragonCowboy]

No it doesn't. It calls for killing them when they fight you, i.e. when you are in a state of war with them. If Islam told its believers to kill every disbeliever it came into contact with, there was a point in time in the history of the world where most of the known world would know no other faith.

and the first muslim kingdom was VERY tolerant of christians.

akbar was also very tolerant of hindus in India.

[Cajuncowboy]

No it doesn't. It calls for killing them when they fight you, i.e. when you are in a state of war with them. If Islam told its believers to kill every disbeliever it came into contact with, there was a point in time in the history of the world where most of the known world would know no other faith.

In all candor, that's not what you said. Here is your quote....


Everytime I hear the word "infidel" it makes me laugh. It's a translation of the word "kafir", which loosely means disbeliever, but it has the connotation of one who "covers the truth", and also one who openly shows enmity and hostility to Muslims.

You said it means disbeliever, not someone at war with you.

I found this...

[B]And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

Is this an inaccurate quote from the koran?

[The30YardSlant]

I said America couldn't really be considered a Christian state because for the most part the church is separated from the state.

Not as much as we tend to think. You're kidding yourself if you don't think christian values have been used by numerous individuals in our history to make important political decisions.

Many of our presidents, including Bush, acknowledge that prayer plays a huge role in their lives and in the political decisions they make.

[DragonCowboy]

You're problem is that you automatically assume I have no knowledge of Islam simply because I disagree with you and agree with something you perceive to be false.

I've read the Koran, as I've read the bible, the vedas, and several other religious texts. I find religion fascinating and have studied it both in my own time and in a college classroom.

I'm not speaking from a lack of knowledge

did you read them in the original language, because it CAN make a difference.

[SuspectCorner]

This attribution of some set of beliefs as the cause of something can be applied to virtually anything. WWI was certainly not religious, neither was WWII, neither was the Vietnam War, nor the Korean War, nor many other wars that pervaded last century. The US government itself has come up with "civilized" terms such as "casualties of war" to hide the notion of "innocent civilian deaths". Does that hide the blood on its hands?

I just don't get this constant attribution of religion as "the cause" of bloodshed, and that is what is intended. It's almost become like a Pavlovian response.

I'm not being vague about it at all. You do NOT have to look deeply to locate the religious underpinnings to most major conflicts thoughout history. Most combatant nations seem to think they truly have God on their side.

And yes - politically (in)correct terms like "collateral damage" are just an attempt by administrations to insulate the public from the horrific realities of war in order to keep them pacified and compliant.

[DragonCowboy]

Not as much as we tend to think. You're kidding yourself if you don't think christian values have been used by numerous individuals in our history to make important political decisions.

Many of our presidents, including Bush, acknowledge that prayer plays a huge role in their lives and in the political decisions they make.

well, duh, but have we really made specific decisions based on religion or what the bible says?

for the most part, no.

[SultanOfSix]

You said it means disbeliever, not someone at war with you.

No I said "kafir" loosely means disbeliever. I said you can only kill those disbelievers who are at war with you. Just because you are a disbeliever doesn't give me the right to kill you.

And this is the entire quote, in context:

"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever you catch them and drive them out from whence they drove you out, for terrorism is worse than killing. But do not engage in combat with them at the sacred mosque unless they engage you in combat there. But if they combat against you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And combat them on until there is no more terrorism or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. But if they cease, don't let there be hostility except to those who practice oppression." Surah al-Baqarah: 190-193

[Cajuncowboy]

No I said "kafir" loosely means disbeliever. I said you can only kill those disbelievers who are at war with you. Just because you are a disbeliever doesn't give me the right to kill you.

And this is the entire quote, in context:

"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever you catch them and drive them out from whence they drove you out, for terrorism is worse than killing. But do not engage in combat with them at the sacred mosque unless they engage you in combat there. But if they combat against you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And combat them on until there is no more terrorism or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. But if they cease, don't let there be hostility except to those who practice oppression." Surah al-Baqarah: 190-193

And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

That's not what this says.

[The30YardSlant]

Are you really this silly?

You made a claim that Islam begets violence, and that most Muslims support terrorists and you want me to seriously think you've read the Qur'an and know the Islamic belief system?

This coming from the same guy who believed that there was a "30 yard slant"?

1: Islam DOES beget violence. If your own holy book (which includes 72 seperate references to the killing of so-called "infidels") isnt enough proof of this, then surely the incredible conversion rate away from Islam in the Western part of the world over the last decade would do the trick. It is estimated that in the last 10 years more people have converted from Islam than all other religions combined. Seems like a lot of people started seeing the light as soon as Islam's true colors became maintream.

2: I don't know if MOST Muslims support terrorism; I do know that MANY do. Not necessarily the terrorists actions, but I was SHOCKED when I went to study in the Middle East in the summer of 2006 how many people avidly agree with the terrorists ideals. The almost unanimous hatred for all things not Islamic (especially those rooted in American and christian ideologies) stunned me and, frankly, frightened me.

[DragonCowboy]

And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

That's not what this says.

Same quote. Different translation. Different meanings. It's really hard to translate a text and get the same meaning.

[The30YardSlant]

did you read them in the original language, because it CAN make a difference.

No, but I highly doubt many out there are fluent enough in old-world dialects to pull this off

[Cajuncowboy]

No I said "kafir" loosely means disbeliever. I said you can only kill those disbelievers who are at war with you. Just because you are a disbeliever doesn't give me the right to kill you.

And this is the entire quote, in context:

"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever you catch them and drive them out from whence they drove you out, for terrorism is worse than killing. But do not engage in combat with them at the sacred mosque unless they engage you in combat there. But if they combat against you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And combat them on until there is no more terrorism or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. But if they cease, don't let there be hostility except to those who practice oppression." Surah al-Baqarah: 190-193

So what this says is basically, only kill them if they are suppressing the faith? And combat on them until there is faith in allah. So what exactally do they consider oppression?

[DragonCowboy]

No, but I highly doubt many out there are fluent enough in old-world dialects to pull this off

Of course. My point is (and it's strengthened by CajunCowboy and SultanOfSix's quotes) that the English translations of these texts can be viewed in such different ways that sometimes the switching of one word with another can change the entire connotation of the text.

[DragonCowboy]

So what this says is basically, only kill them if they are suppressing the faith? And combat on them until there is faith in allah. So what exactally do they consider oppression?

Well, honestly, "oppression" is probably not defined by the Qu'ran. It's up to a person's (mis)interpretation of the word.

It could be all-out war or merely a person verbally disagreeing with you.

[The30YardSlant]

And whose ideologies? Did the Qu'ran specifically say "Thou shalt not enjoy freedom"? I doubt that it specifically said no capitalism. Again, the terrorists twisted the Qu'ran to abide by their specific beliefs (which most likely had nothing to do with the Qu'ran itself)

I said America couldn't really be considered a Christian state because for the most part the church is separated from the state.

You're trying to combine two seperate things.

Islam is a very intolerent belief system, whether that intolerance be directed at other religions or other cultures.

Obviously, the koran doesnt claim that freedom as we know it as evil (though it does denounce the freedom of choice among the simple minded masses in many instances), however the fact that the entire religion is based on intolerence and violence results in a large portion of believers who are intolerant and often violent towards those who don't agree with them on many different fronts.

[The30YardSlant]

Of course. My point is (and it's strengthened by CajunCowboy and SultanOfSix's quotes) that the English translations of these texts can be viewed in such different ways that sometimes the switching of one word with another can change the entire connotation of the text.

I agree, and every religious book has mistranslations. However, no other religious text I've read supports one single idea moreso than the koran's support of violence towards non-believers (aside from maybe the bible's emphasis on salvation through ).

The translations are not so horrid that they alter the very essence of the book. For example, many Hindu texts translated to English arent exceptionally accurate in regards to the specific wording, but the general theme is not altered at all. It's easy to read it in english and understand that it is a religion of peace and tolerance, whereas reading the koran gives off the exact opposite feeling.

[SultanOfSix]

So what this says is basically, only kill them if they are suppressing the faith? And combat on them until there is faith in allah. So what exactally do they consider oppression?

"In view of the preceding ordinance, the injunction "slay them wherever you may come upon them" is valid only within the context of hostilities already in progress (Razi), on the understanding that "those who wage war against you" are the aggressors or oppressors (a war of liberation being a war "in God's cause"). The translation, in this context, of fitnah as "oppression" is justified by the application of this term to any affliction which may cause man to go astray and to lose his faith in spiritual values (cf. Lisan al-Arab)."

[DragonCowboy]

You're trying to combine two seperate things.

Islam is a very intolerent belief system, whether that intolerance be directed at other religions or other cultures.

Obviously, the koran doesnt claim that freedom as we know it as evil (though it does denounce the freedom of choice among the simple minded masses in many instances), however the fact that the entire religion is based on intolerence and violence results in a large portion of believers who are intolerant and often violent towards those who don't agree with them on many different fronts.

I guess we can agree to disagree. Islam is not intolerant; the people are.

And quite honestly, I can point to many Christians who are intolerant, also.

Same with Hindus.

[SultanOfSix]

than the koran's support of violence towards non-believers (aside from maybe the bible's emphasis on salvation through ).


Yes, the same verses quoted over an over again, and out of context.

The most common one quoted in this very thread, once again quoted out of context. This shows me you have little, and only superficial knowledge of the Qur'an and Islam. You rely on weak, incendiary sources on the interent for your information, almost parroting them to a large degree, without actually studying the verses, the fiqh, commentaries, etc.

[DragonCowboy]

For example, many Hindu texts translated to English arent exceptionally accurate in regards to the specific wording, but the general theme is not altered at all. It's easy to read it in english and understand that it is a religion of peace and tolerance

heh, my dad (also a Hindu) still has problems with Hinduism. He feels that Hinduism, unlike Islam and Christianity, doesn't do enough to promote charity.

When Emperor Asoka (a Hindu) ruled India, he was considered one of the most ruthless leaders, ever.

Considering that India hasn't really invaded a foreign country in 8,000 years, it's easy to see why Hinduism is seen as tolerant.

But also, Hinduism has the whole caste system deal. Hinduism never promoted the caste system, but the people who wrote the texts also supported the caste system. Would that make Hinduism intolerant?

[The30YardSlant]

I guess we can agree to disagree. Islam is not intolerant; the people are.

And quite honestly, I can point to many Christians who are intolerant, also.

Same with Hindus.

I agree to an extent

As a christian, I am often ashamed of how intolerant my fellow christians are, and even how intolerant I can be at times. However, I know that I have sinned when I act in such a way and such actions don't please my God. The fact is, many Muslims believe they are CALLED to be intolerant by their God in the name of Islam. So yes, to an extent it is the people's interpretation that results in the intolerance, but when you have so many people from one faith act in such a way, you have to start looking at the uniting source behind the intolerance and violence.

I've found that Hindus are remarkably tolerant, however, and most wouldnt harm a fly. Their often passive nature is even more remarkable considering how close in proximity it's base is located to extreme amounts of violence. While I don't agree with all of their faith, I really admire their attempt to use words over violence.

The fact remains that there arent many christians or hindus or jews or buddists or mormons out there strapping bombs to their chests and blowing up school buildings. That can't simply be a coincidence, that the majority of the world's violence is centered in a region dominated by ONE religion and brought about by the followers of that religion. All religious books have potentially violent interpretations, and yet I can't remember the last time a large scale murderous act of terrorism was committed by a non-muslim since Timothy McVeigh

[The30YardSlant]

Yes, the same verses quoted over an over again, and out of context.

The most common one quoted in this very thread, once again quoted out of context. This shows me you have little, and only superficial knowledge of the Qur'an and Islam. You rely on weak, incendiary sources on the interent for your information, almost parroting them to a large degree, without actually studying the verses, the fiqh, commentaries, etc.

I havent commented on the quotes posted in this thread at all.

I can pull things out of context in every religious book every written, and yet only the Koran has resulted in widespread, unified acts of violence. Even the crusades were the work of a corrupt Catholic church and popes who had the common folk killed many times for even picking up a bible and not the result of actual textual interpretations. It would be one thing if Muslims were being dictated and ordered about like that, but they are not.

[SultanOfSix]

I havent commented on the quotes posted in this thread at all.

I can pull things out of context in every religious book every written, and yet only the Koran has resulted in widespread, unified acts of violence. Even the crusades were the work of a corrupt Catholic church and popes who had the common folk killed many times for even picking up a bible and not the result of actual textual interpretations. It would be one thing if Muslims were being dictated and ordered about like that, but they are not.

It doesn't matter whether you've commented on them or not. The fact is you've made wild claims and left them unsupported.

I'll just stick to my belief that your knowledge about Islam and the Qur'an is proportional to your knowledge of "slants" in football, and rely on what I know compared to what you know.

[The30YardSlant]

heh, my dad (also a Hindu) still has problems with Hinduism. He feels that Hinduism, unlike Islam and Christianity, doesn't do enough to promote charity.

When Emperor Asoka (a Hindu) ruled India, he was considered one of the most ruthless leaders, ever.

Considering that India hasn't really invaded a foreign country in 8,000 years, it's easy to see why Hinduism is seen as tolerant.

But also, Hinduism has the whole caste system deal. Hinduism never promoted the caste system, but the people who wrote the texts also supported the caste system. Would that make Hinduism intolerant?

I don't think so, if for no other reason that the caste system is not based on intolerance, but rather social well-being. Many people felt that an organized class system was the best way for society to function peacably. They didnt do it out of hatred for others (at least that wasnt the INITIAL intent), and often times even those low on the totem poll supported the system because it gave them a secure society.

And like I said, every religion has their bad seeds (the Hindus have Esoka, the christians have the string of corrupt popes in the middle ages, etc.), but no religion has anything like Islam

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Muslims have done a lot worse than that. Namely blowing up innocent civilians while killing themselves at the same time. While it is wrong, they have bigger things to worry about.

there you go, the "they did worse" counter argument. works for me.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I have zero problem with this. Far more horrid things have been done to us at the hands of those who hold that book as cannon.

It seems to me this soldier at least knows and acknowledges who we are REALLY at war with here, and it's not terrorism. Rather, it's the root of said terrorism.

come on man, you want to say it, in your view it's a crusade against the muslims

[The30YardSlant]

come on man, you want to say it, in your view it's a crusade against the muslims

It is impossible to be at war with terror and not with Islam in today's society. It would be like going to war with communism in the 1950s and avoiding conflict with the Soviet Union and marxists.

Does that mean I advocate the genocide of Muslims? Of course not, just like we didnt advocate the genocide of the Japanese in 1945. Islam is, however, a serious threat to all cultures around the world and one that needs to be addressed. Until we get someone who has the sack to stand up and say what we all know to be true in a public forum, nothing is ever going to be accomplished. We can't "win" a war if we refuse to acknowledge who we are actually at war with. We are at war with Muslim ideology.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Islam does not advocate slaughter of inoccent people. What Terrorists groups pawn off as reasoning, in the name of Islam, is false. They are not following true Islamic teachings. Really, it's a shame. Islam is not all that different from Christianity. The two are very simular in many ways. This is really not a shock as they both originated from the same part of the world. Basiscally, the same ancestral roots, if you will. True Islam is very different then what we are seeing today from these terrorist groups IMO. Islam is being used as a means to an end IMO.

[quincyyyyy]

And like I said, every religion has their bad seeds (the Hindus have Esoka, the christians have the string of corrupt popes in the middle ages, etc.), but no religion has anything like Islam


Well what about the Crusaders and the Inquisition? Christians have been some of the most blood thirsty people out there.

[zrinkill]

Islam does not advocate slaughter of inoccent people. What Terrorists groups pawn off as reasoning, in the name of Islam, is false. They are not following true Islamic teachings. Really, it's a shame. Islam is not all that different from Christianity. The two are very simular in many ways. This is really not a shock as they both originated from the same part of the world. Basiscally, the same ancestral roots, if you will. True Islam is very different then what we are seeing today from these terrorist groups IMO. Islam is being used as a means to an end IMO.


Post of the day ...... anyone who has been in the region would agree with this.

[DFWJC]

Not too bright...kind of like the guys taking photos of Abu Gharaib. It's like shouting, "please let more people hate us, I beg you, please we are not hated enough yet!

That aside, there is no honest comparison at all between the level of radicalism between extreme Muslims and Christians. Both are loons, but the loony side of radical Islam dwarfs that of radical Christiandom.

[WoodysGirl]

Not too bright...kind of like the guys taking photos of Abu Gharaib. It's like shouting, "please let more people hate us, I beg you, please we are not hated enough yet!

That aside, there is no honest comparison at all between the level of radicalism between extreme Muslims and Christians. Both are loons, but the loony side of radical Islam dwarfs that of radical Christiandom.That's like saying your boo boo stinks more than my boo boo. All **** stinks, so what's the point of comparing.

[DFWJC]

That's like saying your boo boo stinks more than my boo boo. All **** stinks, so what's the point of comparing.

:laugh2: Ok well put. You know what the point was, but stink is stink...even if one is thousands that stink and the other is millions that stink.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Not too bright...kind of like the guys taking photos of Abu Gharaib. It's like shouting, "please let more people hate us, I beg you, please we are not hated enough yet!

That aside, there is no honest comparison at all between the level of radicalism between extreme Muslims and Christians. Both are loons, but the loony side of radical Islam dwarfs that of radical Christiandom.


I don't know. Yugoslovia showed me that atrocities commited in the name of Christianity or Islam are equally horrific. Bosnia was as bad as it gets with respects to this kind of treatment. I don't know that you can say one is worse then the other. Down through history, both have commited unspeakable atrocities against the other in the name of Christianity and Islam.

[Jordan55]

All it would take is one idiot to set back all the progress we have made, I know they were shipping him out, but did he get the tatoo on his forehead, you know the one that has the intials D.A, which does not stand for district attorney.
Dumb Donkey

[Jordan55]

For a little humor, just a joke

Three men - a Canadian farmer, Osama bin Laden and a KENTUCKY GENTLEMAN are all working together one day.

They come across a lantern and a Genie pops out of it.

'I will give each of you one wish, which is three wishes in total',
says the Genie.

The Canadian says, 'I am a farmer and my son will also farm. I want the land to be forever fertile in Canada .'

POOF! With the blink of the Genie's eye, the land in Canada was forever fertile for farming.

Osama was amazed, so he said, 'I want a wall around Afghanistan , Palestine , Iraq and Iran so that no infidels, Americans or Canadians can come into our precious land.'

POOF! Again, with the blink of the Genie's eye, there was a huge wall around those countries.

The Kentuckian says, 'I am very curious.

Please tell me more about this wall.'

The Genie explains, 'Well, it' s about 5,000 feet high, 5oo feet thick and completely surrounds the country. Nothing can get in or out; it's virtually impenetrable.'

The Kentuckian sits down on his Harley, cracks a beer, lites a cigar, smiles and says,

'Fill it with water.'

[Jordan55]

I wonder if we could still drill for Oil?

[quincyyyyy]

For a little humor, just a joke

Three men - a Canadian farmer, Osama bin Laden and a KENTUCKY GENTLEMAN are all working together one day.

They come across a lantern and a Genie pops out of it.

'I will give each of you one wish, which is three wishes in total',
says the Genie.

The Canadian says, 'I am a farmer and my son will also farm. I want the land to be forever fertile in Canada .'

POOF! With the blink of the Genie's eye, the land in Canada was forever fertile for farming.

Osama was amazed, so he said, 'I want a wall around Afghanistan , Palestine , Iraq and Iran so that no infidels, Americans or Canadians can come into our precious land.'

POOF! Again, with the blink of the Genie's eye, there was a huge wall around those countries.

The Kentuckian says, 'I am very curious.

Please tell me more about this wall.'

The Genie explains, 'Well, it' s about 5,000 feet high, 5oo feet thick and completely surrounds the country. Nothing can get in or out; it's virtually impenetrable.'

The Kentuckian sits down on his Harley, cracks a beer, lites a cigar, smiles and says,

'Fill it with water.'


Not surprised a conservative would make a joke about genocide.

[Hostile]

For a little humor, just a joke

Three men - a Canadian farmer, Osama bin Laden and a KENTUCKY GENTLEMAN are all working together one day.

They come across a lantern and a Genie pops out of it.

'I will give each of you one wish, which is three wishes in total',
says the Genie.

The Canadian says, 'I am a farmer and my son will also farm. I want the land to be forever fertile in Canada .'

POOF! With the blink of the Genie's eye, the land in Canada was forever fertile for farming.

Osama was amazed, so he said, 'I want a wall around Afghanistan , Palestine , Iraq and Iran so that no infidels, Americans or Canadians can come into our precious land.'

POOF! Again, with the blink of the Genie's eye, there was a huge wall around those countries.

The Kentuckian says, 'I am very curious.

Please tell me more about this wall.'

The Genie explains, 'Well, it' s about 5,000 feet high, 5oo feet thick and completely surrounds the country. Nothing can get in or out; it's virtually impenetrable.'

The Kentuckian sits down on his Harley, cracks a beer, lites a cigar, smiles and says,

'Fill it with water.':laugh2:

Not bad. Not bad at all.

[DFWJC]

I don't know. Yugoslovia showed me that atrocities commited in the name of Christianity or Islam are equally horrific. Bosnia was as bad as it gets with respects to this kind of treatment. I don't know that you can say one is worse then the other. Down through history, both have commited unspeakable atrocities against the other in the name of Christianity and Islam.

There sure have been some unspeakable atrocities in the name of religion. No one can argue that. What is amazing is how low that number is compared to atrocities committed that are not related to religion.

One of the biggest and most popular misconceptions is that religion of any sort is behind most of the mass slaughter that has occurred over the years. I hear this all the time. It is not true...not even close. In fact, it can be argued that the number is 2%.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atrocities.html

[quincyyyyy]

There sure have been some unspeakable atrocities in the name of religion. No one can argue that. What is amazing is how low that number is compared to atrocities committed that are not related to religion.

One of the biggest and most popular misconceptions is that religion of any sort is behind most of the mass slaughter that has occurred over the years. I hear this all the time. It is not true...not even close. In fact, it can be argued that the number is 2%.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atrocities.html


Some idiot must have made that table, because just by glancing over it it said the Aztecs were not religious wars, which is totally wrong. And the holocaust was definitely religious. The Nazis made special effort to target Jews for extermination and not Christians. There were definitely religious undertones there.

Secondly, almost all the supposed atrocities mentioned by the non-religious causes were not committed in the name of atheism, they were committed in the name of some cultural group or political group. Basically what this site is doing is ascribing every atrocity that wasn't committed in the name of a religious group to atheists, which is ludicrous.

Thirdly, The republic of Spain were fighting fascists lead by Francisco Franco who was supported by both the Nazis and the Catholic Church. The fact that the table was listing the Spanish Republic as the aggressors, shows the extreme bias and lack of credibility of whoever made it. Show me a statistic by a legitimate website then I'll believe you.

[burmafrd]

Blaming religion is a lot easier then blaming the people and their leaders.

[CowboyFan74]

Blaming religion is a lot easier then blaming the people and their leaders.

Yeah kinda like blaming guns for killing people;)

[quincyyyyy]

Yeah kinda like blaming guns for killing people;)


Nukes don't kill people, people kill people. Hence we should give everyone Nukes... Great logic!

[Cochese]

1: Islam DOES beget violence. If your own holy book (which includes 72 seperate references to the killing of so-called "infidels") isnt enough proof of this, then surely the incredible conversion rate away from Islam in the Western part of the world over the last decade would do the trick. It is estimated that in the last 10 years more people have converted from Islam than all other religions combined. Seems like a lot of people started seeing the light as soon as Islam's true colors became maintream.
.

I really dont think it does, I have had a Quran dropped off at my door recently, thanks to a Muslim group who is sick of characterizations like these. There is nothing in the text that incites hatred of America, nothing in the text that encourages terrorist acts.

[Hostile]

I really dont think it does, I have had a Quran dropped off at my door recently, thanks to a Muslim group who is sick of characterizations like these. There is nothing in the text that incites hatred of America, nothing in the text that encourages terrorist acts.I 100% agree. It is the translation of it by radicals that is the danger. No different than some translations I have seen of the Bible by radical "Christian" groups. Is there a difference in severity of the radical groups? I suppose that depends on your particular view of the situation. Atrocities have been committed in the name of religion for centuries. Neither Islam, nor the Quran are to blame for the acts of radicals. IMO.

[Rackat]

Yeah kinda like blaming guns for killing people;)
Or knives.


"Your honor, the alleged victim repeatedly fell on my client's knife until dead. My client was just standing there minding his own business when the alleged victim rounded the corner into the alley. The alleged victim noticed the knife and, through no action of my client, started repeatedly falling on the knife."