At 11/14/12 02:11 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

1) You instill irrational fear.

2) You spread false information.

3) You vilify good men, while you are a vile basement dwelling neotard.

4) You pay no respects to our real world; you live in your conspiracy theorist dogmatic fantasy.

5) You have no facts about anything. You just have information you blow out of context. Like how you blow your boyfriend.

6) You have no position. No backbone. I only see you filterfeeding your sorry existence with a cloud of arrogance and ignorance floating above your pathetic lifestyle.

7) You have nothing to say, except sound like a pathological lying british fear mongerer.

cally conspired against us, while you sit on your sorry ass and sound like a monkey trying to put on a monocle.

9) You are a bitch.

10. You should be ashamed of yourself, but like Glenn Beck, you ride off of your tiny mental genitals.

I have literally done non of what you are trying to erroneously claim. Please cite your sources to all your wild unsubstantiated claims otherwise please let it be.

At 11/14/12 02:27 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: I have literally done non of what you are trying to erroneously claim. Please cite your sources to all your wild unsubstantiated claims otherwise please let it be.

You are an unaware conspiracy theorist against imaginary conspiracy theorists, just like the Christians are generally the demons, while what they live to protect themselves from - is their own lunacy.

If the Quran is to be banned, then so should the Bible and Tanakh. All three can be used by extremist for hate and violence.

At 11/14/12 02:56 AM, LordJaric wrote: If the Quran is to be banned, then so should the Bible and Tanakh. All three can be used by extremist for hate and violence.

For sure !

At 11/14/12 02:56 AM, LordJaric wrote: If the Quran is to be banned, then so should the Bible and Tanakh. All three can be used by extremist for hate and violence.

Yes, ban fantasies, to bring people real life. Solid plan. Except... People are too cowardly to accept reality for what it is. That's the problem.

At 11/14/12 02:58 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 11/14/12 02:56 AM, LordJaric wrote: If the Quran is to be banned, then so should the Bible and Tanakh. All three can be used by extremist for hate and violence.

People are too cowardly to accept reality for what it is. That's the problem.

Reality is what we make it !

At 11/14/12 02:57 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 11/14/12 02:56 AM, LordJaric wrote: If the Quran is to be banned, then so should the Bible and Tanakh. All three can be used by extremist for hate and violence.

For sure !

I wasn't being serous. I was point out the problem of signaling out a group for actions that anyone can comit. It doesn't even have to be religous reasons. It can be political to downright stupidity over works of fiction. Point being anyone can use anything to justify there actions.

At 11/14/12 03:10 AM, LordJaric wrote:

I wasn't being serous. I was point out the problem of signaling out a group for actions that anyone can comit. It doesn't even have to be religous reasons. It can be political to downright stupidity over works of fiction. Point being anyone can use anything to justify there actions.

Everyone also knows the dif between right and wrong.

At 11/14/12 03:13 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: Everyone also knows the dif between right and wrong.

Depends on whose point of view you are talking about.

At 11/14/12 12:30 AM, Ministrel wrote: Have none of you ever read the Quran anyway? Messages of hate are allover the place:

Oh dear, unsourced copypasta. Not exactly the best way to go about accusatively asking people if they've read the Quran. I wanted to go over every quote point-by-point, but I ran out of room, so I'll just cover the biggest screw-ups and make a general statement on the rest.

QurâEUTMan 47:33 âEUoeBelievers, obey Allah, and obey the Messenger. Do not falter; become faint-hearted, or weak-kneed, crying for peace.âEU

I plugged this into Google and all that came up was anti-Muslim material - not exactly a neutral point of view. So I decided to look up the chapter and verse by number in hopes of finding a less biased source. The Skeptics' Annotated Quran seemed like a good place to start; internetmosque.net turned out even better, offering 17 different translations per verse with admirable empiricism. (Skeptics' appears to use the Pickthal translation.)

What you cited is a mashup of 47:33 and 47:35, not even a proper quote. Let's see if we can't rectify that:

33. "O ye who believe! Obey Allah and obey the messenger, and render not your actions vain." 34. "Lo! those who disbelieve and turn from the way of Allah and then die disbelievers, Allah surely will not pardon them." 35. "So do not falter and cry out for peace when ye (will be) the uppermost, and Allah is with you, and He will not grudge (the reward of) your actions."

Not seeing anything overtly aggressive here. Let's move on.

QurâEUTMan 2:191 âEUoe...kill the disbelievers wherever we find themâEU

Ah, ellipses. Gotta love 'em. Let's look at the entire verse, framed in its preceding and following verses for context:

190. "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors." 191. "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers." 192. "But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

So the verse in question is not about making war, but about fighting those who make war upon you. Interesting.

QurâEUTMan 22:19-22 âEUoefight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagemâEU âEUoefor them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rodsâEU

Not seeing anything about seizing, beleaguering, or lying in wait in the other translations. Let me see if I can track it down...ah, here we go; it's in a completely different chapter.

9:5. "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

You should really avoid these mashup quotes. It makes you look uninformed.

QurâEUTMan 8:7 "Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: "Wipe the infidels (non-Muslims) out to the last." "

I fixed the botched code in the quote above just to show how skewed this translation is:

7. "And when Allah promised you one of the two bands (of the enemy) that it should be yours, and ye longed that other than the armed one might be yours. And Allah willed that He should cause the Truth to triumph by His words, and cut the root of the disbelievers."

Interesting word, 'and.' Also note the lack of quotes. This isn't so much a commandment to destroy nonbelievers as an admonition to Muslims that their faith will be tested.

QurâEUTMan 47:4 âEUoeStrike off the heads of the disbelieversâEU; and after making a âEUoewide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives.âEU

4. "Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain."

When ye meet in battle. That's important, because the conditions for battle are made clear in 2:190 (quoted above) as only fighting an aggressor, and not being the aggressor.

QurâEUTMan 9:3 âEUoeAllah is not bound by any contract or treaty with non-Muslims, nor is His Apostle.âEU

I'm going to respond to this with a subsequent verse:

9:7. "How can there be a treaty with Allah and with His messenger for the idolaters save those with whom ye made a treaty at the Inviolable Place of Worship ? So long as they are true to you, be true to them. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty."

So Allah is not bound to the treaties of non-Muslim men, but the Muslims who made the treaty ARE bound to it, as long as the non-Muslim party upholds its end of the agreement. Again, interesting.

-----

The rest of the quotes you offered (and the list overall) were either an obvious twisting of words by the translator, or no worse than what one finds in the Old and New Testaments (descriptions of hell, acts of God, etcetera). So no, I don't see the Quran as Muslim hate speech, any more than I see the Bible as Christian hate speech, though hateful rhetoric has certainly come from people who adhere to either. If you plan on banning one book, you should probably plan on banning the other if you intend to be seen as fair.

At 11/14/12 04:38 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: If you plan on banning one book, you should probably plan on banning the other if you intend to be seen as fair.

I wish it could be done. Eliminate all religious texts, erase the memories of all religion. Eventually they might return in some form or another, but never the same. By the time religion returned science would have been able to progress beautifully.

Then we better ban the Bible as well. A lot of hate speech in that one. However you can't entirely ban either one in the United States. Our Constitution, that being the first amendment entails that.

"Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137:9, New Yestament.

There are so many reasons why the Qu'ran shouldn't be banned that I don't know where to begin. Suffice to say, no, it shouldn't be.

All books should be banned, because they are a waste of paper.

Except pop-up books, which are awesome.

At 11/13/12 08:54 PM, Ministrel wrote:

Shouldn't Quran be banned because the book is hatefull?

If you ban the Quran, then you have to ban guns as well, and your right wing friends won't like that.
Guns don't kill, people kill. Just like the Quran doesn't kill, extremists do.

At 11/14/12 12:30 AM, Ministrel wrote: Have none of you ever read the Quran anyway? Messages of hate are allover the place:

Let me guess: never read the Bible.

At 11/13/12 09:48 PM, LemonCrush wrote: No religious text should be banned.

;;;;
Unless IMO all religious text is banned.

But what I believe should be done, is all religious text no matter whether the religious group is still active or defunct ....all of it should be labeled & found in libraries under "Fiction"

Because that's all any of it is, unproven works of often obscure authors & fiction is IMO where it belongs.

Have any of you ever read anything about the beginings of the writing of the Koran ?
What about the bible ?
Both religious texts (which have been rewritten & edited many times in their historys) were not written by Jesus or Mohammed the Prophet, it is a matter of record some of the so called original writings were eaten by a goat for the Koran.... I wonder how that was replaced ?
You know I have an idea on that, men wrote what "THEY WANTED " in their religion & that is what is in all of them , the ideas & wishes of the writers at the time AKA fictional writings about an unprovable construct in order to gain control & riches from the sheeple ....I'm sorry I meant the "faithful"

At 11/14/12 11:43 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Unless IMO all religious text is banned.

But what I believe should be done, is all religious text no matter whether the religious group is still active or defunct ....all of it should be labeled & found in libraries under "Fiction"

Like any other text, it's up to the reader to decide how they interpret it. I mean, if someone wants to base their religious beliefs on Green Eggs and Ham, who cares.

Have any of you ever read anything about the beginings of the writing of the Koran ?
What about the bible ?
Both religious texts (which have been rewritten & edited many times in their historys) were not written by Jesus or Mohammed the Prophet, it is a matter of record some of the so called original writings were eaten by a goat for the Koran.... I wonder how that was replaced ?
You know I have an idea on that, men wrote what "THEY WANTED " in their religion & that is what is in all of them , the ideas & wishes of the writers at the time AKA fictional writings about an unprovable construct in order to gain control & riches from the sheeple ....I'm sorry I meant the "faithful"

That's all true, but who cares what people want to believe? It's their choice to believe whatever they want. If they want to believe in God, or Allah, or Zeus, or Masda, or fucking Woody Woodpecker, who cares?

Just because people are dumb/gullible doesn't mean things they read should be banned.

At 11/14/12 01:15 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

Just because people are dumb/gullible doesn't mean things they read should be banned.

Still hard to decide whom is the most gullible people who read books designed to oppress or people whom believe the media that's designed to oppress. WMDs come to mind.

At 11/14/12 01:15 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 11/14/12 11:43 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Unless IMO all religious text is banned.

Just because people are dumb/gullible doesn't mean things they read should be banned.

;;;;
I agree with you, if you reread my first post, I simply said that IF they are going to ban the Koran, then all religious text should be banned.
Not because I believe they should all be banned, It just doesn't make any sense to pick on one work of fiction .
Logically for me, you'd have to throw all of them on the fire .

And I really don't believe in burning books, THe ramblings of Hitler's Mein Kampf , L Ron Hubbard while not a fan, I see no reason others shouldn't have to waste some time attempting to wade throught them !

I jst believe a work of fiction should be properly labeled & available to anyone, if yer too stund to realise the Flying Spagetti Monster is the ultimate power in the cosmos ...that's not my problem ~;0

At 11/14/12 04:38 AM, Dawnslayer wrote:

At 11/14/12 12:30 AM, Ministrel wrote: Have none of you ever read the Quran anyway? Messages of hate are allover the place:

Oh dear, unsourced copypasta. Not exactly the best way to go about accusatively asking people if they've read the Quran. I wanted to go over every quote point-by-point, but I ran out of room, so I'll just cover the biggest screw-ups and make a general statement on the rest

It's ok, yes this is not the translation that fit the real meaning. But anti-muslim are not the only kind to quote the Quran like this, extremist and some imam do quote like this too. They often have hidden agenda. Are the poorly educated follower they have even true muslim anyway, or some wanna be follower of Allah? If only the Quran could be correctly teached without ambiguity all the time, I wouldn't make topic like this one.

I haven't read the Quran, but I think I have heard of some things about it.

1. The Noah's Ark stuff happens in the Quran, but Noah's wife was a nonbeliever and one of Noah's sons drowned for denying the Lord's message.

2. Things like not eating pork, death sentences for gays, etc. seem to have Jewish and Christian origins, with the gay interpretation coming from Leviticus 18 and 20 as an example.

3. Matthew 5:30, 18:8, etc. involves cutting off the hand if that hand causes one to sin. I feel that the Sharia amputations also have Biblical roots.

In other words, Islam and the Quran have their roots in the teachings and practices of the other Abrahamic religions.

Islam is the third of the Abrahamic religions (after Judaism and Christianity). What causes the Islamists to declare jihad and demand strict Sharia Law is an interpretation of the Quran and interpretation of the hadiths they follow.

In theory, a strict Jewish or Christian state could run in a manner similar to strict Islamic states. However, there is no present example of such a regime. Christians and Jews reformed themselves and chose to interpret their materials as symbolic, as a guidebook rather than has a rulebook, etc. Many Muslims have yet to take that journey into reform, and interpret in a way that supports violence.

It also doesn't help that their rogue, corrupt leaders often spin the Quran to support their ideologies and their desire for power.

At 11/15/12 01:46 AM, Th-e wrote: I haven't read the Quran, but I think I have heard of some things about it.

1. The Noah's Ark stuff happens in the Quran, but Noah's wife was a nonbeliever and one of Noah's sons drowned for denying the Lord's message.

2. Things like not eating pork, death sentences for gays, etc. seem to have Jewish and Christian origins, with the gay interpretation coming from Leviticus 18 and 20 as an example.

3. Matthew 5:30, 18:8, etc. involves cutting off the hand if that hand causes one to sin. I feel that the Sharia amputations also have Biblical roots.

In other words, Islam and the Quran have their roots in the teachings and practices of the other Abrahamic religions.

Islam is the third of the Abrahamic religions (after Judaism and Christianity). What causes the Islamists to declare jihad and demand strict Sharia Law is an interpretation of the Quran and interpretation of the hadiths they follow.

The similarity's in all Holy books overshadow the differences as they are all based off of the same astrotheological allegories with the incidentals being rather trivial just like politics LOL.

At 11/15/12 03:00 AM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 11/13/12 11:34 PM, Warforger wrote: Hell Mein Kampf isn't even banned and I can walk into my School's library and check it out whenever I want to.

That pretty much sums it up, IMO. You can't ban a book just because it says bad things.

Mein Kampf is based on more logic than the new testament. The old testament was full of hate and horror and the new testament is candy coated fallacious shlock.

At 11/13/12 10:59 PM, WhitePowerUSA wrote: What about you? Have you really thought about the viciousness behind the words that these radical Islamists say? Do you think they're a minority.

still 0/10

At 11/15/12 01:12 AM, Ministrel wrote:

At 11/14/12 04:38 AM, Dawnslayer wrote:

At 11/14/12 12:30 AM, Ministrel wrote: Have none of you ever read the Quran anyway? Messages of hate are allover the place:

I wanted to go over every quote point-by-point, but I ran out of room, so I'll just cover the biggest screw-ups and make a general statement on the rest

It's ok, yes this is not the translation that fit the real meaning. But anti-muslim are not the only kind to quote the Quran like this, extremist and some imam do quote like this too. They often have hidden agenda. Are the poorly educated follower they have even true muslim anyway, or some wanna be follower of Allah? If only the Quran could be correctly teached without ambiguity all the time, I wouldn't make topic like this one.

So by your logic, a religious text should be banned on the basis that it is used to incite violence by a minority of fringe extremists? Again, by that same logic you would have to ban both the Quran and the Bible, and probably a few Buddhist teachings as well.

The irony is, by banning the Quran you would in effect be suppressing Islam, which according to what we know of the Quran is tantamount to an act of war against Muslims from their point of view, thereby compelling them to respond in force. It would engender exactly the sort of hostility you were trying to prevent in the first place. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the opposite course of action, demonstrating acceptance and tolerance by allowing Muslims to practice openly and read their religious texts, would in turn engender the opposite reaction...or at the very least leave any act of aggression without a cause the attacker can justify to saner people.

Where did I say complete ban? No... I'm talking about Quran current form. There's maybe a time for reform.

Saddly many muslim believe the Quran was written word by word by Allah itself. Like men never had to interpret is will and write it down. But on the other hand, many muslim are desenchanted with the current state of the faith and are probably already looking into it.

Could it be that controled transition from the old Quran to a new one from the most respected figure of today muslim world be the solution?

At 11/15/12 12:25 PM, Ministrel wrote: Where did I say complete ban? No... I'm talking about Quran current form. There's maybe a time for reform.

Banning one form is akin to banning all forms.

Saddly many muslim believe the Quran was written word by word by Allah itself. Like men never had to interpret is will and write it down. But on the other hand, many muslim are desenchanted with the current state of the faith and are probably already looking into it.

Want something fun so you can be hoisted with your own petard?

"Saddly many Christians believe the Bible was written word by word by God itself. Like men never had to interpret is [sic] will and write it down. But on the other hand, many Christians are desenchanted with the current state of the faith and are probably already looking into it."

Could it be that controled transition from the old Quran to a new one from the most respected figure of today muslim world be the solution?

No. The problems with the Muslim world are 100% geopolitical and 0% religious. Not until the geopolitical issues are resolved (the poverty, warlordism, and the us v. them mentlity) the Muslim world will be rife with problems.

Just you remember, 800 years ago the Muslim world was the shining beacon of light where the Chrisitan world was the center of fighting and conflict. Very little has actually changed about the core of both religions since then.

At 11/15/12 01:31 PM, Camarohusky wrote: "Saddly many Christians believe the Bible was written word by word by God itself. Like men never had to interpret is [sic] will and write it down. But on the other hand, many Christians are desenchanted with the current state of the faith and are probably already looking into it."

You realise this as happened in the Christians history right?

At 11/15/12 02:57 PM, Ministrel wrote:

At 11/15/12 01:31 PM, Camarohusky wrote: "Saddly many Christians believe the Bible was written word by word by God itself. Like men never had to interpret is [sic] will and write it down. But on the other hand, many Christians are desenchanted with the current state of the faith and are probably already looking into it."

You realise this as happened in the Christians history right?

I think the point Husky is trying to make is that a new interpretation of a religious text isn't likely to change anything. Christians disenfranchised with the King James Bible (and others) came up with the New Living Translation as an answer. For those people it worked, but the majority of English-speaking congregations still use King James.

Plus, the case of NLT is Christians re-interpreting their own scriptures; if an avowed atheist or a Muslim cleric rewrote the Bible and said 'yours is wrong, this one is better,' there would be an uproar, and possibly violence. A non-Muslim rewriting the Quran would have the same effect.