Who does this planet belong to?
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
I hate posting links…because, obviously it contains a lot of information and it is impossible to respond to them all…for which I would have to post another link…and it can disintegrate into a trading of links… may be, you can take one verse which you think is a valid example and present it here.
I replied to your point on kaab bin ashraf…which is that he was a security threat and had to be eliminated. If you are saying that even that is bad… then I think we will have to first sort that out. Was killing of Osama Bin Laden bad or good?
And it’s easy to make generalizations without getting into details. When a person goes to the enemy state on a mission to incite that state to fight a war and completes his mission…killing him cannot be called preemptive…it’s an action taken against a crime committed. But yes, if he had not been eliminated, he surely could have done more damage.
Valiya, that is a good political question. It's not stated in any interpretation of the Quran I've read that Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf was persuing and armed resistance (but then the writers were more concerned about poetic prose than being specific), but yes, I did research the history around it. Ka'b Ibn al-Ashraf was a Jew who through poetry and song sought to berieve the Quraysh (who had been beaten), and essentially call Muhammed a phony, and make Muslim women sound like prostitutes. But the idea of a pre-emptive attack for security is purely a political goal.
Your example of Bin Laden fails to show case that. He actually succeeded in organizing several terrorist attacks. So we took him out after declaring a retaliatory war. What would be a closer analogy to Muhammed's scenario, would be if we had him assassinated for saying voicing his opposition to US.
But whatever, national security is a hot political issue. How much can you protect before the government meant to serve and protect the people, begins stripping away it's ability to oppose ideas and practice democracy. Muhammed's assassination of a man who had not openly attacked, but merely opposed Muhammed and his professed "truth" is closer to a politically sanctioned assassination than a form of self defense. So can you legitimately argue that Islam believes only in defensive force?
You are partly right and partly wrong. You don’t have anything about Kaab in the quran…it’s from another body of literature called hadith. Yes, kaab was a poet…and that was the greatest media of those times…poets were held in the greatest esteem for their power to move people. If you knew about the history of quran’s unique rendition style and how the opponents were frustrated by their failure to match it in its beauty etc…you will appreciate the importance of poetry in that culture. And when a poet applies that powerful medium to incite war…then it’s indeed a security issue.
Regarding Osama bin laden…I agree with your first concern, that it does not aptly represent the scenario. However, Kaab was not merely voicing protest against Muhammed…all those who didn’t accept his message were in fact protesting against him. They were not killed merely for protesting against muhammed (PBUH) But Kaab was carrying out efforts to bring enemy forces to the state for the destruction of it.
Moreover, you will have to appreciate the times…when there was no UN or international agreements on conduct of war…a defeat at the hands of enemies only meant one thing…totally annihilation. A war should be stopped at any cost…You’ve got to look at things from the realities of those times that were far different from ours.
I think your right. If you don't accept Muhammed's message, you are protesting against him. And being sceptical is not a crime. Nor is opposing in peaceful terms a person or his ideology. Having an open forum to discuss and debate the merits of an idea is how morality evolves. In fact, arguably in democracy it is a fundamental right. What your prophet did, was politically motivated murder. The fact that Muslims are threatened with death should they try to deconvert, is terrorism. The mindset that anyone should be forced under shariah law, when it does not allow fair representation of peoples, is tyranny.
I can say this without a second thought. Muhammed killed Ka'b for politically motivated reasons. He feared his otherwise peaceful antics because he feared an uprising of the recently conquered Quraysh. So on top of political assassination of Ka'b, we can toss on top the obvious violence he inflicted on the Quraysh tribe to be fearful of a retaliation. Is this arguement really going to continue?
How much before you realize there is absolutely nothing divine about muhammed or anything he did? He literally was nothing more than a polititian Valiya. And like most politicians, he employed violence. He was a violent man, no matter how you spin it. And I haven't even touched on the fact that after several battles he executed prisoners who had surrendered. Or that he married married a had sex with a ten year old child. I mean... as far as we have advanced morally, he's a despicable person.
What can i say? A series of unfounded claims. I explained to you about Kaab, and your response is "I can say this without a second thought. Muhammed killed Ka'b for politically motivated reasons." You seem to divining (no pun intended) about people's intentions! Doesn't sound like a very rational thing to be doing. As far as you don't support your claims with sufficient proof... I can only make assertions like "I can say without a second thought that Muhammed (PBUH) was indeed an embodiment of virtue and the real messanger of God." Will you accept that claim...yours is not different from that.
Found some change under the couch cushion so I'll throw two cents in on this discussion about violence...
In this, and other strings, there is disagreement about whether islam is a religion of peace or violence. Both Muslims and non-Muslims have cited examples of violence in islam. I've read that, to some, this violence is sanctioned, and in some cases encouraged, by islam because it is protective, meted out as justified punishment, or retaliatory.
The bottom line, however, is that it does occur. Now whether someone thinks it is righteous or not makes no difference. Violence is violence. It's not just war to which I'm referring, it also includes chopping off a head or hand, beatings, etc.
For anyone to say that a religion is not violent, rather is peaceful, but then supports violence in any form in the name of that religion, for any reason, needs to buy a dictionary.
Are there muslims that do not personally engage in violence? I image there are. If, however, they support or agree with others engaging in it, then they are violent by proxy.
I've used the words islam and Muslim above. I could just as easily substitute them for a myriad of other words. So don't get me wrong. I do not think Islam corners the market on violence. What I DO think is that when I hear 'Islam is a religion of peace' I really hear, 'I'm doing my best to lie to you and to myself'.
“For anyone to say that a religion is not violent, rather is peaceful, but then supports violence in any form in the name of that religion, for any reason, needs to buy a dictionary.”
Therefore, peace according to cyber would be to let murderers, rapists, thugs and all of them roam around freely. No punishment, whatsoever…
Please understand what peace actually means. Peace is when the innocent, law-abiding citizen is able to live without fear for his life or property. To ensure this, those indulging in crime have to be dealt with sternly.
According to your logic, a country should not have any penal code…because any punishment is violence of some sort…even jailing for that matter.
My preference would be that you not read something into my posts that I did not write.
I made absolutely zero statements about whether I, personally, find any form of violence un/justifiable. For you to then assert I think it is okay to let the bad guys roam the streets is evidence of your propensity for strawmanning.
I was responding to your post "“For anyone to say that a religion is not violent, rather is peaceful, but then supports violence in any form in the name of that religion, for any reason, needs to buy a dictionary.”
In this you are stating that since islam issued violent punishments to criminals, it is not a peaceful religion (isn't that what you mean? or correct me).... if that's the case, then peace according to you should essentially mean not punishing criminals (why even imprisonment is a sort of violence, if you want)... so i was not strawmanning... i was giving a licit reply to your argument that's puerile.
Violent actions equal violence, so yes, since islam (or any other agency, government, group, or religion) that practices violence cannot be called peaceful.
My point is that if any group engages in violence for any reason, it cannot, by definition, be called peaceful. I take exception to anyone using the word 'peaceful' to describe a person or group that is not, in fact, peaceful.
I made no mention about the value of violence, however, you jumped right into saying that "my logic" would let bad guys roam the streets. When did I ever say I supported that? When did I ever say that a total abandonment of violence is desirable?
You have called islam a religion of peace. I am saying you are wrong. It engages in and sanctions violent acts. The reasons for those acts do not diminish their violence.
If that is puerile to you then you are substantially less reasonable than I may have thought in the past.
What do you have to say about my reasoning stated earlier that peace means a society in which the innocent law-abiding citizens live without fear for life or property. ANd to achieve this the criminals have to be dealt with harshly.... if violence against criminals is breakage of peace (according to you), do you say that any country that has a penal code is violent, not peaceful?
I am saying that a violent action equals a violent action. I think that to say an entity which engages in a violent action is peaceful is fallacious.
You are viewing this as a 'violent punishment vs. no punishment' situation, when there's clearly a third choice available.
There are ways to punish criminals without resorting to violence. Just give them jail time.
There's no need for beheadings and chopping off arms and what not...
For a hardcore pacifist, even jailing someone is violence...
We're not talking about a hardcore pacifist's standard for what is and what isn't violence....
So tell me, with this third option - why is this compassionate god mandating such not-so-compassionate punishments?
According to you, peace would allow innocent, law abiding citizens to go about their business without fear. Locking up criminals allows them to do that... But considering its the violent option is what is mandated, it's fair to say that it isnt the religion of peace.
How are my claims unfounded. Previously you admitted Ka'b Ibn al-Ashraf was killed for writing inciteful poems. Then you tried to dandy it up by saying although it was a defensive action for the greater good. But in the murder was carried out by several armed followers, against what can only be assumed was an unarmed man. In the story, they even lied to get the man alone so the assassination could be carried out. What part of lying, deceitful, assassination is divine action?
Again, the Islamic culture's love for poetry trumped it's desire to fill in the all info. So all were left to do is guess the reasoning. However, no amount of reasoning can really justify the assassination of an unarmed person Valiya. Not in today's world. However, if you wish to say Muhammed was the product of his barbaric time... perhaps the past is where his teachings should be left. Clearly a decent portion are unnescassarily violent and oppressive.
Here the first question is, was Kaab endangering the security of a state? He clearly was. Does that warrant a death punishment? Yes, is what I say. This is a breach punishable by death even according to our current standards…leave alone the ancient times when a war is enough to annihilate an entire state and its all is inhabitants.
If we can agree death punishment is warranted, the next question is how should it be carried out? That depends on the situation on the ground. If you read that hadith you would know that tribes lived in their own fortresses. It’s not a modern state, where all the citizens lived as one unit. If Kaab had to be dragged out of the fortress for a normal execution, it could have turned into another war between the state and the fortress. Thus use of deceit was legitimate. Even in our modern times, the state is forced to take special decisions regarding highly sensitive issues.
At one point in his life, the prophet Mohammed 'endangered the security of the state', he upset the status quo at that time... so according to you, was he eligible for capital punishment?
So for instance, let's say the the good old US decides that Islam promotes sharia law, Shariah Law is in direct contrast to democracy, and therefore islam is a direct threat to furthering democracy. Are we justified in dropping Nukes?
After all, war warrants destroying an entire state and all its inhabitants, correct?
What I don't think you get Valiya, is that you literally cannot have it both ways, you can't form a double standard to insulate your belief that your prophet was perfect. Murder is murder, no matter how you try to spin it.
You can't run around murdering people because you are scared that they might be plotting. If you want to claim it was defense, chronologically you must first wait for someone to attack. But the facts represented in this hadith don't represent a truly compeling case for a defensive scenario. Plus what I can't figure out is why you can say Muhammed sanctioned a lie and an assassination for what he believed to be the greater good. But you can't plug in the same mentality, and give merit to the idea he may have lied about the hole being a prophet to promote what he believed was the greater good. Or maybe even just for things he wanted. Like power, women, and wealth.
"So for instance, let's say the the good old US decides that Islam promotes sharia law, Shariah Law is in direct contrast to democracy, and therefore islam is a direct threat to furthering democracy. Are we justified in dropping Nukes?"
If the US decides that the ISIS is a threat to the world and decides to wage a war against them (in which the actual trouble makers, combatants, are killed) I would say that is a wholly acceptable solution. And say for the success of that war, killing of the heads of this group are warranted, and the US undertakes targeted assasinations of terrorists, I would also say that what US does in that instance is for the sake of peace. But dropping a nuke, which kills indiscriminately, is violence, because even the innocents, including children, will be killed.
I concure. Islam promotes a lot of things, among them a reverence for Arabic culture, an emotional attachment to the religion, a supremist mindset in regards to Islamic philosophy, and appearantly through this discussion, a belief that lying and murder is all right so long as it furthers Islam and protects it from outside criticisms. However, both in the conduct and philosophy, of Islam in history and what Valiya presented, I don't feel peace among peoples is something it promotes. The closest thing to peace it does promote is the subjugation of the entire world to shariah law, whether they want it or not.
More assertions without proofs...so not meriting a reply
>> More assertions without proofs...so not meriting a reply
Yet you still replied. LOL The whole issue with both arguments is that unless you have a time machine and can actually witness the event taking place, all you have is assertions based on someone else's interpretation of the event. Just because someone writes it down in a book, online or in forum doesn't necessarily make it so. This is why these debates go on and on without resolution. Seems silly to me and a complete waste of time.
Getting back to the original post. The planet doesn't belong to anyone, it was here long before man ever existed so the question is irrelevant.
Valiya, my point is violence, is violence, is violence. There are many people who have lived entirely peaceful lives, only a handfull are famous for doing so, such as Mahatma Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr. Men who actually lived and died for the cause of peace and equality. Men who refused to force a change by violence. Men who actually warrant the use of the term "peaceful"
But somewhere in another division, far from what would be considered peaceful, we could place your prophet amongst those who maybe promoted a peaceful philosophy in only their words. I would argue that in the idea of actually perfect, loving, peaceful men, your prophet has been bested. And they didn't even have to talk to talk to god, or seperate their people from other societies, or carry out shady assassinations to defend them. Ironically, through the same tactics Ka'b used, such as speech and song, they changed hearts and minds. And not by a sword to the heart or detaching a mind from its body.
My end analysis, or merely my opinion, is that Muhammed may... MAY... have been a decent leader for his time. But ultimately, I feel too much of his writings are old and failed philosophy.
When you are claiming to bring an ideology meant for all the people for all times (as Islam claims to) then you have to have provisions in it that allow violence to repel evil. What was Gandhi’s or Martin Luther King’s solution to the menace of Hitler? Lecture non-violence to Hitler???? If the Allied powers hadn’t united against him to use force, Hitler would have killed millions more… therefore, philosophies of unconditional non-violence are unpractical for this world…. What about death sentence for serial killers… would you call that also violence. In a world that makes unconditional violence a law, the evil will reign supreme, and the innocent and the good will suffer.
> When you are claiming to bring an ideology meant for all the people for all times (as Islam claims
> to) then you have to have provisions in it that allow violence to repel evil.
This seems to be the entire problem. If mankind learns nothing from history it should at least be that no one ideology is going to satify all the people for all times. Do all people like chocolate ice cream? Like it or not, there will always be people who like vanilla better.
> What was Gandhi’s or Martin Luther King’s solution to the menace of Hitler? Lecture non-violence to
Not sure what their solution to Hitler would have been but from what I understand, neither Lectured to their oppressors. Instead they Lectured to the oppressed to stand up and peacefully protest against them.
> If the Allied powers hadn’t united against him to use force, Hitler would have killed millions more
> therefore, philosophies of unconditional non-violence are unpractical for this world….
I disagree. While choosing violence as the only remedy for violence is definately the easy approach, especially if you have the bigger gun, the easy approach to most solutions is rarely the best approach. At some point societies have to take responsibility for the community in which they live and the leaders they allow to lead them. The question is, how many of your brothers, sisters and neighbors to allow to die before you decide to take some sort of action?
> What about death sentence for serial killers… would you call that also violence.
I would, again this is the easy solution. The problem with this solution is that it doesn't solve the problem of serial killers. It simply keeps this one from killing anyone else, but of course so would life in prision, and it rids us the opportunity to learn something from them. The hard solution would be to figure out why they are a serial killer and attempt to find a solution for that.
> In a world that makes unconditional violence a law, the evil will reign supreme, and the innocent > and the good will suffer.
I do agree that, when you make laws that promote unconditional violence as your only solution to your problems, your evil will reign supreme and the innocent will suffer do to your neglect in finding a better solution.
Actually, this is what I have been arguing throughout my post. I never said that violence is the only solution. I am only saying that violence should also be an option. You have actually not stated anything other than what I said.
Then you didn't read my post. You are arguing that violence should always be an option. I argue that there are always better solutions.
You said: "I do agree that, when you make laws that promote unconditional violence as your only solution to your problems, your evil will reign supreme and the innocent will suffer do to your neglect in finding a better solution."
I understood this to mean that unconditional violence cannot be the only solution... and doesn't that mean conditional violence should also be an option!!!!
> I understood this to mean that unconditional violence cannot be the only solution...
> and doesn't that mean conditional violence should also be an option!!!!
No, it means you neglected to find a better solution, so instead you turn to violence. Just because you can't, refuse to or lack the effort to look for a better solution doesn't make violence right.