Why is there a religion debate on a thread about Russia and Syria?

I don't know, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition!

Because BOG seems to think Russia is going to war against Islam and is praising Putin for it, even though Putin is going in to protect a regime controlled by Muslims who happen to be secular, aiding them against political rebels with both religious and secular motives (because realistically Russia isn't going to differentiate between ISIS and any other rebel group), as well as against any secular, Western country that threatens the regime with air strikes.

I'm pretty sure neither Islam or Christianity can coexist with the other if they are both following their book to a T.

I'm 100% sure

Out of curiosity, BOG, would you care to share which life experiences or muslin acquaitances you've had helped you shape your overall view of Islam?

Religion is like art. People get from it what they're looking for. For every verse in the Qur'an talking about killing unbelievers, there's another verse (or two) advocating peace and understanding. The problem is there are several mega-million dollar propaganda organizations whose sole purpose is to demonize Islam and Muslims in Western countries, and there's really no counter to it aside from individuals who take on the task as a hobby and find themselves constantly outgunned. There aren't many easy and convenient pro- (or even neutral-) Muslim resources to counter these organizations, while people like BOG have no shortage of websites with arguments they can simply cut and paste. The result is that people sitting on the sidelines see a constant stream of anti-Muslim invective (much of it exaggerated, some of it completely invented) and little or nothing to counter that mental image.

A copy/paste rebuttal of BOG's copy/paste of the "Pact of Umar":

http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/03/the-protocols-of-the-elders-of-mecca-the-final-word-on-the-pact-of-umar/

"I myself contacted several Muslim clerics, asking them about their opinion on the Pact of Umar. The majority of them responded that they had no knowledge of the document (i.e. “I’d have to look it up”), or had only heard the name in passing. In fact, the Pact of Umar has in the Islamic world fallen into such disuse and obscurity that the vast majority of Muslims have never heard of it. Those who do know what it is almost invariably heard of it first from critics of Islam; many of them will then look up the Muslim responses to these anti-Islam attacks. (How many Christians–including priests–have heard of the Church’s doctrine of Perpetual Servitude?)

The idea, furthered by lunatics like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, that Muslims are secretly instructed in the Pact of Umar (the “stealth Jihad” is coming to get you!) is not only conspiratorial but absurd. Ninety-nine percent of Muslims have never heard of it–until of course Robert Spencer et al. inform them of it...

Western scholarship itself considers the Pact of Umar to be a forgery, falsely attributed to Umar ibn al-Khattab. In fact, Umar was known for his relative mildness towards non-Muslim subjects, and the Umari Treaty is much more in line with his views than the Pact of Umar. It is known that generally “the [Four] Rightly Guided Caliphs left the people of the protected religions alone.”

For real though. I never cared much for a lot of Islam doctrine. Propaganda aside.

Don't worry, Yanik, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Wait, unless you're Catholic that actually should be a reason to worry. Nevermind my last post.

Tolstoy - I am not a bigot. I don’t pretend to be an expert in Islam, and never claimed to be. I continue to study. I am asking questions, to get to an understanding of a religion that is at the heart of most of the world’s conflicts. And unspeakable brutality carried out by people following the instructions on beheading and crucifixion in the Koran. As I understand it, a hadith is a saying or actions attributed to Mohamed, written by someone else, and not dictated by Mohamed. IIRC, the Isnad is something like the Imprimatur in the Catholic Church, that attests to its accuracy. I don’t know the difference between a strong or weak hadith. Enlighten me. This is something so very confusing about Islam – there is no single ‘church’ or Magisterium. I don’t know the distinctions in Sharia Law. I know that could probably be fatal – believing the ‘wrong’ thing, Sunni or Shia, can get you killed by the followers of the religion of peace.

Please give me some examples – specifics – when a Christian Church beheaded someone for adultery. If it wasn’t sanctioned by a church or happened in the last few centuries, it is not that relevant. There are bad people everywhere.

The thing about ISIS is that their actions seem to follow the commands from the Koran. I’m glad the majority of Muslims do not. That would be the case for mercenaries – their religion is money. The US sent armies to Iraq not to defend against invasion, but to stop a perceived threat. I strongly opposed that effort. I preferred Saddam and Quadaffy in charge. We wasted too much blood and treasure trying to bring liberty and freedom to a people who need to submit and are still living in the seventh century. I did have high hope when US troops entered Baghdad. I recall a scene of a large Iraqi hammering at the base of a statue of Saddam with a sledgehammer. I hoped they would embrace freedom and liberty. But the religion of death would not let the Shia, Sunni and Kurd live together.

Why don’t you take a crack at explaining the meaning of Sura 9:29. I’d be interested in your perspective.

Didn't Christian Stone to death women for adultery? I think i saw that in Life of Brian once...

In my humble opinion I see nothing wrong with the Russians taking a different stance to the West, and actually believe that giving them some headroom to regain some pride and territory (such the Crimea) is no bad thing. They have every right to pride and existence as any other nation.

The US democracy is also not terribly democratic and more closely resembles a plutocracy given the rampant corruption or the political process by big money and insidious lobby groups.

Who has greater claim to legitimacy? Neither I say.

As to the Islamic question - I am no religious scholar, but the Brits are to blame.

You do realize that Life of Brian is set before/at the beginning of Christianity, right? Those would be Jews.

Yes, Christians did some nasty stuff. Crusades, Inquisitions, witch burnings, etc. But, just as modern Islamic violence, you will generally find that these are more the result of extremism than mainstream belief.

Side note, the Spanish Inquisition is blown WAYYYYYYY out of proportion. According to a UN report, ISIS killed more than twice as many people in the first eight months of 2014 than died during the entire Spanish Inquisition. Not an excuse for what happened, just putting it in perspective.

"I am not a bigot"

I hate to break this to you, but yes, you are a bigot. Your whole post here reeks of ignorance and hatred. Someone posting claims similar to yours about Jews or Catholics or even Mormons would be run out on a rail.

" IIRC, the Isnad is something like the Imprimatur in the Catholic Church, that attests to its accuracy. I don’t know the difference between a strong or weak hadith."

The isnad is the chain of narrators, the list of people who orally transmitted the hadith until it was put down in writing a couple of centuries after Muhammed (allegedly) said or did it. The problem with all oral traditions like this is that people have a tendency to exaggerate, forget important details, or just plain make things up somewhere along the way. Unlike a lot of religious traditions, where the stories of olde tend to be taken at face value, the Muslim scholars who compiled the hadith collections recognized this and spent a lot of time documenting the chain of narrators and studying their lives to determine if they are considered reliable or unreliable (and there are differing opinions among experts). Hadiths are considered to have varying degrees of reliability, and many that were considered unreliable were committed to paper nonetheless in the name of being comprehensive. Anti-Muslim propagandists refuse to take this into consideration, and simply dig up whatever evil-sounding hadiths they can find without any consideration of how authentic they are considered (whether this is deliberate or out of ignorance is something we must all judge for ourselves).

"This is something so very confusing about Islam – there is no single ‘church’ or Magisterium. I don’t know the distinctions in Sharia Law."

If you don't know the distinctions, then you should shut the fuck up. People like you spouting half-truths and lies about to demonize already despised minorities and advocating their extermination have a lot of blood on your hands, historically speaking, even when they didn't take a sword or gun into their own hands.

"Please give me some examples – specifics – when a Christian Church beheaded someone for adultery."

Henry VIII, founder and head of the Church of England, had two of his wives beheaded for adultery.

"If it wasn’t sanctioned by a church or happened in the last few centuries, it is not that relevant. There are bad people everywhere."

So all of the bad deeds done in the last fourteen centuries done by Muslims are relevant to Islam as a religion, but anything done by Christians beyond a hundred years ago is not relevant to Christianity. Nice double standard there.

"The thing about ISIS is that their actions seem to follow the commands from the Koran"

A judgement you are wholly unqualified to make.

"The US sent armies to Iraq not to defend against invasion, but to stop a perceived threat"

If you are dumb enough to believe that even with the benefit of the last 12 years of hindsight, that explains quite a bit.

"Why don’t you take a crack at explaining the meaning of Sura 9:29. I’d be interested in your perspective. "

I'm not qualified to proffer an explanation, as I'm not fluent in Qur'an Arabic (and I note that all the standard translations differ in wording, which would suggest different explanations). But I would certainly recommend if you have a real interest that you seek out someone who *is* genuinely qualified.

The Spanish Inquisition was sanctioned by the Pope! The Catholic church which wielded enormous power and influence during its duration. How can you really claim that it was blown WAYYYYYYY out of proportion? ISIS is a rebellion. It has not shown any significant staying power as of yet. The comparison is flawed.

Additionally, ISIS has access to weapons much more deadly in the hands of a single individual. They have assault rifles while flintlock pistols were all the rage in the 16th century. The Catholic church had more important wars to wage among the monarchies of the time. A "better" comparison might be the number of ISIS beheadings vs the number of Spanish Inquisition burnings at the stake.

Henry the VIII was fond of beheading his wives on charges of adultery.

KingCyrus you have no sense of humour at all.

Also, for the record, you people calling others bigots for holding a differing opinion to yours should be ashamed of yourselves.

You mirror that which you despise.

"I am asking questions, to get to an understanding of a religion that is at the heart of most of the world’s conflicts."

Really, BOG? Would you be kind enough to point how exactly Islam is responsible for the ongoing civil war in Colombia or the crisis in Ukraine? Would you say Islam is to blame for the Korean War, the Vietnam War or the Algerian War of Independence?

Does the Rwandan genocide seems to you to be caused by muslins? Would you agree that Slobodan Milosevic was a victim of Western shortsightness after heroically guiding his nation against the most dangerous threat in the Balkans, that is, the muslin Bosnians? Were the members of the armed branch of the African National Congress fanatical muslins threatening the peaceful christian South Africa or were they rather selfless christians fighting an oppressive muslin regime?

How long do you expect us to take you seriously?

We really are looking in the wrong place if we are trying to explain terrorism by exploring the details of any religion. I would also suggest we are playing into the hands of the terrorist.

Few would disagree that football is a beautiful game, yet in the 70s and 80s people who supported their team would regularly fight people who supported another team and smash up trains and shopping centres in the process. The hooligans themselves may have thought they were fighting for their team, but does anyone here agree with them?

@Maniac In the '70s or '80s? Uh... Try just about every damn year with many many sports, not just football. Including in the good ol' USA.

And yeah, seriously, if Islam was as war-like as some people want to suggest, with 1.4 *billion* muslims, why are we not all dead yet? The whole thing is ridiculous.

Religion (of many kinds) is merely one of the many possible excuses people use for violent bullshit. FFS we even have some buddhist monks in Burma indulging in ethnic violence, and that's a religion extremely well known for being about as peaceful as you can get.

@'But the religion of death would not let the Shia, Sunni and Kurd live together. '

The Sunni and Shia forces in Iraq are supported by Iran and Saudi Arabia, both of which are competing for regional power - meanwhile the Kirds are supported mostly ny other Kurds (like the PKK in Turkey, which is currently back at war with Turkey) so you have three regional powers fighting for control.

Saudi Arabia, with its' US allies, Iran with Chinese/Russian allies, and Turkey (which is a member of NATO and the most secular and western of tue countries in the region)

Each with their own goal pulling Iraq in different directions.

Saudi Arabia and Turkey are directly supporting ISIS. The Saudis are an incredibly repressive regime who have been beheading and crucifying people quietly, and are on various UN human rights committee.

The are by far the least democratic - being that they are an absolute monarchy run by the House of Saud, which is in effect a tribe (not just a family). This is not a religion driving them towards war; it is regional politics.

Syria's old regime is too friendly with Iran (the Saudi's main opponent in the region) and Iraq's 'democratically' installed government was also too friendly with Iran. So ISIS is a perfect Saudi backed milita to shift the power balance away from Iran.

Iran meanwhile is technically a theocracy, but has a democratically elected government and most Iranians dislike their government - the country is far more westernised than most and the inhabitants are Persians not Arabs. The US gets a lot of negative propoganda from the government (since the 1979 revolution) by like i said most people hate the government and disagree with whatever the government says.

In Iran getting a nose job as a 16th birthday present is pretty common, because US cultural influence is still pretty strong there. When the government says Iraq is evil the people think Iraqis must be nice (like in the 80s when the US encouraged Iraq to invade Iran) when the government says Iraq is great then Iranian people think maybe it is not so great (like more recently, when a the Shia majority in Iraq left the government the being very pro-Iran, a natural ally)

The Kurds meanwhile are mostly screwed, despite having a secular, and sometimes heaily socialist leaning. They have no state, have suffered years of persecution in Turkey and Iran, have fought an independence campaign in Turkey which has killed tens of thousands over the last 40 or so years (NB one man's terrorist is another man's freedomfighter) And the Kurds in Iraq have only just gotten enough independence and oil revenue (in the federal Iraqi state, devolving them some power) that they are becoming a minor power in the region.

But mostly the conflict is Iran and Saudi Arabia fighting a proxy war, with Shia and Sunni militias being used to split the populations of Iraq and Syria and massive international backers - in the form of US/Nato airstrikes and Russian/Chinese millitrary advisors/air strikes. (Ignoring the fact that Turkey has been letting ISIS sell oil and bring in arms and send people across the border to hospitals, basically a tonne of material support - while being worried about the Kurds in Turkey and stopping Kurds from Syria crossing the border, trying to prevent the PKK from operating in Syria/Iraq)

If you ignore that massive side-effect; it wasn't religion which tore Iraq apart. It was politics.

And Ireland has had protestants ad catholics fighting for about 400 years. This isn't because the Christian religion is inherently more/less violent than Islam, it is for political reasons; with religion being used as a way to divide people.
Cheap tactic used by powerful people to further their aims...

@thorfi - fair point, I just recall hooliganism being much worse in 70s and 80s. The point remains that people who want to be violent use their joint association with something as an excuse. Religion doesn't cause violence, it is merely used by people as an excuse for violence and as a means of encouraging others. The danger lies in the escalation. Once Milwall fans beat up an Arsenal fan, the Arsenal fans want revenge, then Milwall think they are being targeted and appeal to wider supporters to fight back, etc, etc

Unfortunately, I have no solutions to football hooliganism or religious violence.

Interesting analogy with sports teams there.

Sports allow us a 'civilised' form of ritual violence (you get to be violent while playing a sport, in ways which would be considered assault off the pitch) and fans of the team see themselves supporting their tribe. This kind of tribalism and violence is the norm across most human cultures, but we have mostly made it ritualised and peaceful; that is constrained to a set of rules with refs controlling the play and everyone volunteering to get involved. EXCEPT when the tribalism of the supporters spills over into violence off the pitch. The kind of football hooligan-ism seen in the UK in the 70 and 80s, and the kind of rioting seen in the US after big games.

It is tribal violence just as much as those people who use a religion as their tribe. We find a group to identify with and are willing to go to war to protect that identity.

Doesn't matter if it is local/national sports team, religious denomination or ethnic background; they are still leveraged to justify violence against the Other.

@orothaic I suspect that you are basically right. I have a doubt: since the allience US-Saudi Arabia seems to contradict so many things, and so, seem to be based only in $$, do you think US could cut taht alliance if there were some other power that could offer her similar economic advantages?

The best way to test and see how civilized some group of people are is to have their sports team lose, and simply watch them react.

@Principians,

I don't honestly know. The recent US-Iranian deal is a great opportunity for the US to diversify their allies in the region, though they already supply militrary aid to Israel and Egypt ( Egypt is the only major regional power which i didn't mention, actually Israel is a pretty major power to, but doesn't get involved with Arabic conflicts for stability reasons ) and Turkey is in NATO, so US agreement with Iran might give the US more leverage over Iranian policy (regarding Iraq and Syria and Lebanon, say) which i think could protect US interests across the region...

Though i don't know because selling weapons to the Saudis in exchange for oil dollars actually directly benefits the US militrary industrial conplex. I can't really analysis US policy or what they think about peace in the region...

The solution for hooligans is probably to cancel football matches for every time they cause trouble, severly discouraging causing trouble. It isn't done because politicians don't want to piss off supporters.

I can't think of a similar solution for religion though. Closing mosques for a day every time some place is bombed seems rather unethical, impossible (we can't close mosques in ISIS territory) and ineffective. The reason it would work for hooliganism is because football is just a game and even opposing hooligans have a common interest in making sure the match goes on.

What common interest do all these fighting religious people have?

Expansion