Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Given a new belief from 'eh' about the Ugandan LRA being 'Christian Terrorists' - a belief that relies on faith rather than evidence (so, I guess you could call it a 'religious' belief of eh's) - I said I'd add it to the list of other quaint beliefs he's come up with.

shafique wrote:Do you have any new points? I think we've established that you believe:

1. The Quran teaches that Muslims should be in a perpetual state of war with unbelievers because of an interpretation of 9.29 and one or two other verses.
2. There are no contradictions in the Bible (despite historical evidence to the contrary).
3. There are no fabricated verses in the Bible - just 'interpolations' where the words have been rearranged.
4. Pauline Christianity is an invented notion - the current canonised Bible does reflect Jesus' teachings.
5. Despite no Biblical scholar agreeing with points 2, 3 or 4 - you are right.
6. 7 Muslim convert terrorists vs 232 Christian convert terrorists shows that the Quran is much more evil than the Bible (I still don't get this logic, but hey - that's what makes your views so interesting)

If you have a new belief you'd like to present that I've missed out, we can add it to the list above. No point in repeating yourself ad nauseum when we can now just refer to your beliefs by number.

Eg - you can now say, I am going to repeat 'belief number 1' and then you won't need to cut and paste all the bumpf from your favourite web sites.

Cheers,
Shafique

So now we have:

7. The Ugandan LRA are Christian Terrorists.


To be fair, please feel free to list my or other's quaint beliefs - eg Melica may want to list as a quaint belief my view that God continues to communicate today as He has always done.

FD and eh may wish to list their view that I condone wife beating or don't condemn the killings of civilians if carried out by Muslims etc.

That way, we can contain the conclusions people have drawn from each others posts in this thread and we can discuss other issues in as an objective way as possible.

I'm also resisting the other idiosyncracies our dear friend eh has shown - such as stating he has only read 'a few paragraphs' on a topic and asking for others to read the articles he's posted and comment on them, the sudden discovery of the 'quote' function and other quirks.

The only criterion will be whether the poster thinks the other's view is quaint - and gives a brief explanation of why they think that is the case.

Cheers,
Shafique

Just to clarify, here's a dictionary definition of quaint:

Having old-fashioned charm; Strange or odd in an interesting, pleasing, or amusing way; Highly incongruous, inappropriate, or illogical; naive, unreasonable -- usually used ironically; Characterized by cleverness or ingenuity; skillfully wrought or artfully contrived

Cheers,
Shafique

Sorry, it's not only my belief that the LRA are a Christian terrorist group. If you care to notice, the page on Christian terrorism on wikipedia also lists the LRA as Christian terrorists. Personally, I think listing that secular/nationalist group from India as a Christian fundamentalist terrorist group would be a bigger mistake - they call for a 'workers state' and welcome Tripurians of all creeds to join their ranks.

The other beliefs - such as the Koranic commands to wage perpetual Jihad warfare against unbelievers, have been discussed and settled after numerous Muslim scholars and classical legal manuals were cited in support of my assertion.

Happy to look at what scholars you can present, but I also have a link that rudeboy kindly provided from another Muslim source discussing the violent passage in the Koran to wage perpetual jihad warfare against unbelievers and how the scholar interpreted this command as a perpetual one.

Ok - never say I don't listen to evidence when presented.

Wikipedia does indeed list the LRA as a Christian terrorist organisation:

Uganda
The Lord's Resistance Army, a sectarian guerrilla army engaged in an armed rebellion against the Ugandan government, has been accused of using child soldiers and committing numerous crimes against humanity; including massacres, abductions, mutilation, torture, rape, porters and sex slaves.[33] It is led by Joseph Kony, who proclaims himself the spokesperson of God and a spirit medium, primarily of the Christian Holy Spirit which the Acholi believe can represent itself in many manifestations.[34][34][35][36] LRA fighters wear rosary beads and recite passages from the Bible before battle.[37][38][39][40][41][42]

Can't say fairer than that - these guys believe in the Bible and are led by someone claiming to be a spokesperson of God and the Holy Spirit. The punishments are Biblical.

So, we'll discount belief number 7 then as not 'quaint' - I did ask a few times for you to provide the evidence, and now that you have, happy to acknowledge this fact.

Cheers,
Shafique

Looks like they are mostly driven by the violent teachings of Islam, however....

Mr. Kony's fighters wear rosary beads and recite passages from the Bible before battle, but some Islam is mixed into their beliefs as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/04/world ... wanted=all

shafique wrote:Ok - never say I don't listen to evidence when presented.

Wikipedia does indeed list the LRA as a Christian terrorist organisation:

Uganda
The Lord's Resistance Army, a sectarian guerrilla army engaged in an armed rebellion against the Ugandan government, has been accused of using child soldiers and committing numerous crimes against humanity; including massacres, abductions, mutilation, torture, rape, porters and love slaves.[33] It is led by Joseph Kony, who proclaims himself the spokesperson of God and a spirit medium, primarily of the Christian Holy Spirit which the Acholi believe can represent itself in many manifestations.[34][34][35][36] LRA fighters wear rosary beads and recite passages from the Bible before battle.[37][38][39][40][41][42]

Can't say fairer than that - these guys believe in the Bible and are led by someone claiming to be a spokesperson of God and the Holy Spirit. The punishments are Biblical.

So, we'll discount belief number 7 then as not 'quaint' - I did ask a few times for you to provide the evidence, and now that you have, happy to acknowledge this fact.

Cheers,
Shafique

Yup - amputation, including cross amputation is indeed from the Koran.

That explains almost all of the violent tendencies of this movement....

Koran 5:33 - This is the recompense of those who fight against God and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement,

It's definitely Koranic alright.

You're not going to try and argue they are Muslim now are you (in the same way you tried to argue that Goldstein was influenced by the Quran?).

You cited wiki - and it says Kony's butchers recite the Bible and believe Kony is in cohoots with the Holy Spirit - yet you conclude from a NYT statement that they are influenced by the Quran. May I refer you to quaint belief no. 1 above?

Cheers,
Shafique

The NYT article was one of the sources cited in the paragraph you quoted, yet you are now unhappy that the reporter concludes that Islam plays a major role in the beliefs of the LRA - which includes perpetual Jihad warfare against unbelievers (Christians).

Let me know when you have an article to show that Islam is not mixed in with the beliefs of the LRA and I will happily retract the NYT article posted above.

Perhaps you are right and these guys are Muslims as well as being Christian terrorists. I was wrong when I believed they weren't Christians, you have persuaded me otherwise.

In what way are they Muslim? Here's a simple enough test to establish whether someone is Muslim - you ask them the question 'are you Muslim' - if the answer is 'yes' then they are Muslim. (You could also just check whether they believe 'There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger' - but hey, let's not get technical).

I'm happy to wait for evidence before concluding they are not Muslims just because they call themselves the 'Lords Resistance Army', believe in the 'Christian Holy Spirit' and recite the Bible.

It would indeed be a quaint belief of yours and mine if we were to conclude they are indeed Muslim. Very interested now in reading your evidence.

Cheers,
Shafique

Let's add another one.

shafique wrote:You really must do at least a bit of your homework eh-oh - really, the other boys and girls in your classes must be so frustrated with you!

God is emphatic in the Quran that Jesus was not killed by the Jews. You yourself have quoted the verse before .. but let me repeat it for you.

Chapter 4
156. That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge;
157. That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow,for of a surety they killed him not

Can't get more emphatic than that.

Now, it is interesting that in the 20th century - Christians have come round to this same conclusion - that it is wrong to blame the Jews for killing Jesus.

The question is though - does eh-oh believe in the 18th century view that the Bible is correct, or does he now agree with the Quranic and modern Christian view that the Jews did not kill Jesus?

Somehow eh-ho equates the above quote with an allegation claiming:

event horizon wrote:Uhmm, you said the exact opposite when you claimed I had stated that the Koran says Jesus was crucified.

Perhaps someone else can see where I supposedly said eh-oh 'stated that the Quran says Jesus was crucified'.

The highlighted bit is pretty hard to miss - and only makes the point that God says Jesus was not killed by the Jews (and says it emphatically).

So the 'quaint belief' here is seeing an allegation where there wasn't (and incidentally a refusal to answer the question!)

Cheers,
Shafique

1. The Quran teaches that Muslims should be in a perpetual state of war with unbelievers because of an interpretation of 9.29 and one or two other verses.

Indeed, let's actually see what Muslim scholars say about this verse to determine if there is any truth in your claim that Muslims do not interpret this passage as a command to wage war against unbelievers:

@O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad

The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29)

and

This is the aim of Jihad with the Jews and the Christians and it is not to force them to become Muslims and adopt the `Islamic Way of Life.' They should be forced to pay Jizyah in order to put an end to their independence and supremacy so that they should not remain rulers and sovereigns in the land. These powers should be wrested from them by the followers of the true Faith, who should assume the sovereignty and lead others towards the Right Way, while they should become their subjects and pay jizyah. jizyah is paid by those non-Muslims who live as Zimmis (proteges) in an Islamic State, in exchange for the security and protection granted to them by it

Well, this doesn't look good for shafique. Maybe he thinks that if he repeats himself often enough that perpetual warfare in Islam is an orientalist invention, then the quotes from mainstream Muslim scholars will simply vanish into thin air.

I would imagine, then, that shafique could make a case that this is a 'quaint' belief.

But let's add another quaint belief onto the list. Perhaps it's not so much of a belief but a tactic - that is, whenever the facts show otherwise, deny, deny, deny (and blame the 'Orientalists').

Thanks for confirming the fact that QB1 is a fondly held belief on your part.

Cheers,
Shafique

@O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad

The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29)

and

This is the aim of Jihad with the Jews and the Christians and it is not to force them to become Muslims and adopt the `Islamic Way of Life.' They should be forced to pay Jizyah in order to put an end to their independence and supremacy so that they should not remain rulers and sovereigns in the land. These powers should be wrested from them by the followers of the true Faith, who should assume the sovereignty and lead others towards the Right Way, while they should become their subjects and pay jizyah. jizyah is paid by those non-Muslims who live as Zimmis (proteges) in an Islamic State, in exchange for the security and protection granted to them by it

I'm not convinced that interpreting verse 9:29 of the Koran as a command for Muslims to wage jihad warfare against all unbelievers for all times is my belief. Perhaps you can address the quotes above to see if Muslim scholars wrote and endorse them?

Oh, and if you are unable or unwilling to do so, then thank you for confirming your own quaint belief that this interpretation is an Orientalist belief as opposed to the fact that this is indeed a Muslim belief - held by the ulema for 14 centuries.

Shafique I think we can make number 8 - on the misconception that jizyah(Tributary Tax) is only muslim belief/practise..
Past history of revelations shows us that Jizyah was ordained throughout monotheistic religions.

Is there any Old Testament Equivalent to the Islamic (Jizya) of conquered lands?

When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, [that] all the people [that is] found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.
And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, [even] all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities [which are] very far off from thee, which [are] not of the cities of these nations. -- Deu 20:10-15

[64] Chavel 1967, v.I, 200f. The Bible references are Deuteronomy 20.

This obligation is commented by Rabbi Chavel:

"This Commandment ... will be better understood in the light of the following passage from the 'Mishneh Torah': '

We are not to engage in war with anyone whatever unless we [first] proclaim peace to him; [this is applicable to both] an optional and an obligatory war; for it is said, When thou drawest nigh a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it (Deut XX, 10).

If [the inhabitants] accept the offer of peace... we are not to slay a soul among them, and they merely become tributary, for it is said, [All the people ... therein] shall become tributary unto thee, and shall serve thee'." (Ibid.)
Step 1 --- Give them the option of peace
Step 2 ---- If they want to keep their religion, they must pay the Tribute (Head Tax)
Step 3 ---- If they deny the above two options then kill them all or enslave them.

In other words, if the city's inhabitants object to being subdued/enslaved, they have to be slain nevertheless. Also sparing their life directly contradicts Negative Commandment 49 (see note [65]).

"We must not make a covenant with idolaters, to agree on keeping peace with them or accept them practising idolatry, because it says (Deut 7:2) Thou shalt not make a covenant with them. Either they give up idolatry or they are killed. And it is forbidden to pity them, since it says (ibid.): Nor shalt thou shew mercy unto them.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... sm.html#46

Good idea Berrin.

We've had a number of instances where historians and authors quoted by eh-oh have confirmed/clarified that the Jizya is a tax and that the taxes paid by Muslims worked out higher. Indeed there are threads that were devoted to what Jizya is.

Cheers,
Shafique

Thou shalt not make a covenant with them. Either they give up idolatry or they are killed. And it is forbidden to pity them, since it says (ibid.): Nor shalt thou shew mercy unto them.

Woah, that sounds like some pretty damning stuff. I wonder if a reading of the Bible supports your author's belief that the Hebrews/modern Judaism, are to always wage war against unbelievers, especially pagans?

It's interesting to see how this contrasts with the teachings of Islam - while the ancient Hebrews did wage war against some unbelievers, there was never a belief in perpetual warfare against unbelievers, unlike what Islamic Law teaches - that the Kalifa is to wage jihad warfare against all unbelievers for all times.

Unbelievers have three options they may choose from - convert to Islam, submit to Muslim occupation as second class citizens or, finally, be put to the sword. Considering the sheer amount of booty, slaves, wives and concubines the early Muslims took back with them to Arabia and the garrison cities in Egypt and Iraq, I'm guessing that Muslims have historically preferred the last two.

We've had a number of instances where historians and authors quoted by eh-oh have confirmed/clarified that the Jizya is a tax and that the taxes paid by Muslims worked out higher.

I'm not aware of that. Could you please quote these 'historians' and 'scholars' to see what they actually have to say? I find that particularly difficult to believe since the taxes Muslim paid was based off of a percentage of their income whereas non-Muslims paid a flat tax. The only way to know who paid more would be to know how much people made back then and adjust the money to the value of modern currency.

These taxes also varied as did the amount of tax owed to the government. But, good luck, maybe I'll start a thread for you on this issue so every one can, once again, witness your deep, scholarly knowledge on this topic.

Sure thing eh-oh. I'll bump the threads on Jizya and/or start new ones.

Glad to see that you are willing to examine some of your newer quaint beliefs.

Cheers,
Shafique