Hoochman- That's not my point. My point is that they are doing the exact same thing that's been done for age's by other religions. One group of people thinks they're right, see another group of people doing something in a different way and they suddenly feel the urge to make the other people like them. Sometimes resulting in violence. I'm also saying that Islamic isn't the only religion that is violent. We are reaping what our ancestors have sowed. I neither agree that Islam is good or evil, but judging a large group of people off a few is.

Zamiel : Israel was not the same. They didn't destroy cultures simply because they didn't worship the same God. They destroyed those cultures because of the cultures being barbaric. And I'm not saying Islam is evil based on terrorists, I base my claim on what the koran says.

I never said you were basing it off of a few people.
Funny, they went to war with the people who were living in the promised land because God told them it was theirs. I see no difference between most religions.

Zamiel : I think the big difference here is that Israel was commanded to kill off a certain group of people in a certain area at a certain time. They were not given a command to kill all non-believers which is what some people can read into what is written in the Koran. I myself have not read it so I don't know exactly what it says. But I think that is a fair distinction to make in this case.

Zamiel : The land was theirs since the days of Abraham, the canaanites would not move lightly, plus they were another nation known for their defiance.

Hoochman : So if another group of people were living there, the land was not exactly their own, was it?

Traduweise : you forgot.... God gave it to them... so no matter how many times they were conquered and had it taken away from them it is still theirs.

[end sarcasm]

traduwiese: No, the land was theirs since the days of Abraham. He lived in Canaan (future Israel) while it was promised to his descendants.

By the way, this thread is getting too off topic.

Hoochman : Unfortunately, just because the Jews have a book in which they claim they were promised an undefined piece of land is not a very strong argument in favour of them committing genocide.

But since you are afraid of this getting off topic, how do you define evil? Even assuming the Koran commanding Muslims to kill nonbelieves qualifies as evil, how does that compare to people like Joshua killing every man, woman, and child in Jerico because he had divine inspiration?

Traduweise : Right, a book of eye witness accounts isn't proof enough. (sarcasm)


How do I define evil? Evil is an imbalance so to speak, rebellion against moral law or the laws of God. Israel doesn't compare to Jihadists. Just like I told Zamiel, a back round check on the nations Israel destroyed would help. Unlike the Muslims who kill simply killed for not believing, every culture Israel destroyed did something horrific.

Hoochman : Oh, right. Because these people 2500 years ago wrote a book in which they claimed to have seen certain events for which we have little if any proof, we should take everything that they say (or may have said; the Old Testament has been translated many times over)as definitive proof. Seems rather shaky to me.

As to your definition of evil, let's accept this for the moment. Evil is rebellion against a moral law set down by a god. I'll even use the Christian concept of God, if it makes you feel better. You say that every culture Israel is reputed to have killed did something horrific? What did each of these cultures do? You are making the claim, so the burden of proof is on you. Further, since we are clearly discussing morals, how does this work? You claim the Muslim "jihadists" (though I doubt you know what the meaning of jihad is) are in the wrong, but you avoided answering how this excuses someone like Joshua who killed every man woman and child in Jericho, an action that more reminiscent of Ghengis Khan than a man following a just moral path. Even if the people of Jericho had done something horrific (which has not been established), does that mean Joshua's actions were morally right?

It sounds like you are simply saying that when Israel does it, it's justified, but when Muslims do it, it is not.

Traduweise : Oh please, the scribes who wrote the scriptures took their jobs very seriously.

And like I said to Zamiel, do a back round check before you start spouting, an example of what the cultures did that got them destroyed was child sacrifice, more specifically the sacrifices were preformed regularly and involved putting as many children on the red hot platter as there are days in a year. Jihad translates into english as struggle, in context it refers to a holy war. Joshua destroyed Jericho because they hindered Israel, Jericho was with Canaan who in turn was in league with Egypt.

"It sounds like you are simply saying that when Israel does it, it's justified, but when Muslims do it, it is not." Sounds to me people like you should stop condemning Israel.

Hoochman : Ah, I see. It doesn't matter that the people writing the Old Testament could have had their own agenda, or that they could have lied outright to sound more impressive and give their cause credence, or that their original writings were lost in the 2500 years of translations and rewrites, or that they were simply wrong. No, no. They took their jobs very seriously. Well, I can't see how anyone would have cause to doubt them so long as they weren't joking around.

And no, I don't need to do a "back round" (heh) check. Like I said, since you are making the claims, the burden of proof is on you. Show the evidence of everything including the child sacrifice, or your claims are meaningless.

Incidentally, For someone who is so taken aback by child sacrifice, you seem to have no problem with Joshua killing all the children of Jericho because the city "hindered" him. Next time I need to excuse myself for slaughtering every person in a city, I'll try that one out.

Finally, a jihad is not a holy war. Directly translated, it simply means a struggle. Usually it refers to an internal struggle in the person's soul. It can less frequently be used for a physical struggle, even in some cases as a war. You should learn more about words before slinging them around carelessly.

I'm not a muslim nor have i ever read or have a desire to read the Quran. but from the best of my knowledge...muslims are pretty muched trained since birth to be hateful towards everyone pretty much except their god allah. I also believe they have to commit murder in order to prove their faith and loyalty to their god allah.....

Traduweise : No you really don't know anything about ancient Jewish Culture, and yes, you do need to do back round checks. C'mon, I deal with guys like you all the time. So snide, always looking as the bible in modern context instead of ancient context. And when I said the scribes took their jobs seriously, they had to do their job so perfectly and accurately, if they made one little mistake they had to start over and lying about what was written could have gotten heavy penalties. You only want proof because you don't the fact that Muslims are worse than ancient Israelites. Don't you worry, I checked my history before I got on. In Gustave Flaubert's book, he talks about it

"Incidentally, For someone who is so taken aback by child sacrifice, you seem to have no problem with Joshua killing all the children of Jericho because the city "hindered" him. Next time I need to excuse myself for slaughtering every person in a city, I'll try that one out." BAHAHAHA. How would you rather die, to be sacrificed and burned slowly to death, or be run through by a sword and die quickly? Joshua killed more humanely than those burned to death.

And yes I said Jihad translates into struggle, perhaps you should go back and read my posts before you comment again.

Hoochman : The point is, it doesn't matter how seriously the ancient scribes may have taken their jobs. Dan Brown takes his writing very seriously too, but that doesn't mean The Davinci Code is a factual account. Of course I have to look at this, to an extent, from a contemporary perspective. All we have are copies and translations of the originals, not the originals themselves. The scribes' devotion means little if there are already mistakes or lies in the text. But that is beside the point. The Jews claim their god promised them this land. The only "evidence" of this is their word. Even a child would laugh at that. It's no way to divide up land.

Oh, and your source is Gustave Flaubert? Surely you don't mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Flaubert#Work_and_legacy the French romantic writer? Great as he was, he was not exactly what you would call a historian. Come on. You keep making these claims and then not backing them up. Why should I take anything you say seriously?

Oh, and your defense of Joshua is that he was more humane than these Caanite bogeymen you have created? It's fine that he killed a whole bunch of people for "hindering" him because it is more humane than being slowly burned to death? For someone who seems to keen on morals, I wonder where you learned yours. No, really. Is that your moral justification of Joshua? That killing children is fine so long as you do it quickly? Incidentally, you have given me no reason to believe that the Caanites tortured children to death every day. It would not really surprise me, but once again, I need actual evidence.

Oh, and jihad indeed translates to a struggle. I agreed with you there. But you went on to say "in context it means holy war", which is where you went wrong. You seem to have abandoned that, but if you are still curious, http://www.quranicstudies.com/louay-fatoohi/jihad/the-meaning-of-jihad.html will explain it thoroughly.

Every country, religion, culture, peoples, etc. have done things in the past that would qualify as "evil." Muslims are as much a part of this as anyone else.

Traduweise : All of the reasons which constituted God's judgment on the Canaanites is found in the Bible here: Leviticus 18 (note verse 3 and 24 which asserts that all this was practiced by the Canaanites).

The list of religious perversions that the Canaanites practiced included:

-Child Sacrifice (with at least some of it in fire)
-Incest
-Bestiality
-Homosexual practices
-Prostitution -- both male and female

I could literally provide you with a page worth of evidence to prove all of this, however, the proof is irrelevant because it's straying from the topic. The point is that the Koran teaches that all who reject their God (Allah) are infidels. As such, scripture from the Koran could, and is by some, interpreted to kill the infidels. That to me sounds evil.

I've browsed a few different Muslim message boards and have read that this genocide (Deuteronomy 20:16-18) is a common subject of why Christianity is hypocritical; yes, the Bible does have record of similarities to the Koran's teaching of infidels. However, the reason was to prevent harm to the Israelites. I don't see in the Koran the reasoning behind the violent scriptures other than the infidels slander the religion of Muhammad.

This shines light on my previous post, Surat Al-Fath 48:29:

"Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves."

They are peaceful to one another but severe against the infidel unbelievers. That is what it is saying.

Perhaps a fraction Muslims are tolerant of infidels, but I don't believe that Islam teaches tolerance. I could frankly be wrong though and I'm open to evidence proving otherwise.

tRIUNE : And you are willing to take at face value what one group is saying about another after having annihilated it? Are you at all familar with the term "the winners write the history books"? Is there any source outside the Old Testament/Torah that can verify the child sacrifice (of the others, they are all unsurprising since they are common to many cultures across the world including the Middle East, and frankly, aside from bestiality, are not that big a deal)?

But you try to shrug off everything Christianity has done by saying that it was to "protect the Israelites". For the sake of argument, let's assume the Old Testament is historically accurate. What the Jews did was they walked right into the so-called Holy Land and proceeded to kill off everyone in their way, or as Hoochman put it, those who were "hindering" them. If your idea of defending yourself is to go to someone else's home, announce that the place is actually yours and kill everyone in it, right down to the children, I am perplexed.

Of course the Koran does not promote tolerance. Islam is a religion born to conflict. Muhammed and his followers were attacked right after he set the religion up, and they had to fight for their lives to establish themselves. This is rather similar to the Old Testament Jews who fought other tribes in order to establish themselves in their "homeland". You're giving a biased reading: when you read the Old Testament, you only see how awfully the other tribes such as the Canaanites are portrayed, but when you see the Koran, you focus on how Muslims seem awful. I hate to sling the word "evil" around because it is so overused, but as Notjon said, all cultures have their faults.

No. Islam is not evil and Muslim people don't have to murder.

I have a good friend who is muslim. It doesn't make any difference. We may have different religious views, but we don't care.