Posts
http://www.unzensuriert.at/content/008144-Spanien-Verfassungskommission-prueft-Koran-Verbot reports, in german, that Firasat Imran wants to censor the koran.
A bit more openly, he has entered a motion that is currently being discussed by the spanish congress.
His reasoning, according to http://www.minutodigital.com/2012/04/24/la-comision-constitucional-del-congreso-estudiara-la-peticion-de-imran-firasat-de-prohibir-el-coran-en-espana/ , is as follows:
And remember, we want to be reasonable trolls, so we will compare it to christianity, the de facto standart in religious things:
Translated:
- El Corán no es un libro sagrado y religioso sino un libro violento, lleno de odio y discriminación.
"The Koran is no holy or religious book, but a book that preaches violence, hatred and discrimination. "
Well, the first argumend ends it. Lets take it piece by piece.
- The Koran is no holy or religious book.
WRONG!
Lets go to wikepedia, and look up what it says there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran
"The Quran (English pronunciation: /kɒˈrɑːn/ kor-AHN; Arabic: القرآن al-qurʾān, IPA: [qurˈʔaːn],[variations] literally meaning "the recitation"), also transliterated Qur'an, Koran, Al-Coran, Coran, Kuran, and Al-Qur'an, is the central religious text of Islam, which Muslims consider the verbatim word of God[1] (Arabic: الله, Allah). It is regarded widely as the finest piece of literature in the Arabic language.[2][3][4][5][6]"
Lets see:
with that simple piece alone, it is proven that it is a religious text.
Holy? According to muslims, yes. The verbatim word of god, remember? I mean, I tend to distrust the claim, but in my eyes, it is as valid as the christian claim that jesus lived, and the bible is the word of god.
Remember, I am but a very confused young man, so if you want to correct me, please do.
So, it is Holy and religious, but what about the rest?
Calls to violence, hatred and discrimination?
Lets see what we find in the bible (with a little help from our friends at NPR ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788 ) )...
"
Defense Vs. Total Annihilation
"Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible," Jenkins says.
Jenkins is a professor at Penn State University and author of two books dealing with the issue: the recently published Jesus Wars, and Dark Passages , which has not been published but is already drawing controversy.
Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is largely a defense against attack.
"By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane," he says. "Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide."
It is called herem, and it means total annihilation. Consider the Book of 1 Samuel, when God instructs King Saul to attack the Amalekites: "And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them," God says through the prophet Samuel. "But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."
When Saul failed to do that, God took away his kingdom.
"In other words," Jenkins says, "Saul has committed a dreadful sin by failing to complete genocide. And that passage echoes through Christian history. It is often used, for example, in American stories of the confrontation with Indians — not just is it legitimate to kill Indians, but you are violating God's law if you do not."
"
Lets see.... To be brutally honest, I dislike both the same way, but I have to say that the bible is a bit more harsh. So, Violence is a given.
As for hatred, lets see what the bible says ( with help from http://www.openbible.info/topics/hatred ) :
"
Proverbs 10:12 ESV / 32 helpful votes
Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all offenses."
Nice one... Perfect and well.
"
Galatians 5:19-21 ESV / 23 helpful votes
Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."
Well, it looks like I will not inherit the kingdom of God, but that is a ok with me.
"
John 15:18 ESV / 22 helpful votes
“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.1 John 2:11 ESV / 18 helpful votes
But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.OK, now that is the best thing I have yet to read. That makes it truthfully peacefull, and is a good quote. You can trustr people named John to say such things, you know? If you know a person named John, give him a hug from me, because he made me just vomit rainbows.
But wait.... why is my troll sense tingling?
"
Psalm 139:21 ESV / 9 helpful votes
Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you?"
Oh ma gawd, it starts!
"
Proverbs 20:22 ESV / 4 helpful votes
Do not say, “I will repay evil”; wait for the Lord, and he will deliver you.Proverbs 10:18 ESV / 4 helpful votes
The one who conceals hatred has lying lips, and whoever utters slander is a fool."
1 John 4:20 ESV / 76 helpful votes
If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen."
OK, ok, I get it.
Christianity is kind of peacefull, and not into the whole hatred stick.
Except that christians are.
Well, a final quote on that: ( http://kingjbible.com/exodus/22.htm )
"
16And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
18Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
19Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
20He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
21Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. 22Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. 23If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry; 24And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.
25If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury. 26If thou at all take thy neighbour's raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down: 27For that is his covering only, it is his raiment for his skin: wherein shall he sleep? and it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that I will hear; for I am gracious.
28Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.
"
Have a coke on that one.
In total:
The qu'ran seems more open on hatred then the bible. But only becauise they have no John.
Also, christians need to remember the bits about loving your brother. Especially when they cuss out Obama!
2. El Corán es un libro horrible que provoca a una comunidad que se llama musulmanes a hacer la yihad y matar a gente inocente y destruir la paz del mundo.
The qu'ran is a horrible and violent book, that calls for the muslims to lead a djihad, kill innocent people, and disturb the world piece.
Well.....
To be brutally honest, yes, the qu'ran does call for that.
BUT
Does the bible do so as well?
Lets see a few quotes: ( http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/quotes.html )
"
| Now
put this down in your notebook, because it will be on the test: The
crusades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West's belated
response to the Muslim conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian
world. Dr. Thomas Madden, In Crusades Propaganda:The Abuse of Christianity's Holy Wars, National Review Online, Novemeber 2, 2001 |
Allright, seems reasonable.
"The first point to be made in defense of the Crusades is that they were initially a response to Islamic aggression. Islam, from its inception, had espoused the use of force. Where Jesus had died for his beliefs, the Prophet Mohammed had wielded a sword. Though Christianity was later to be exploited for political ends, the Christian religion as such had, in the first three centuries of its existence, spread peacefully--thriving, in fact, on the blood of its martyrs. I say this not to score a point in favor of Christianity but to emphasize an historical truth: The spread of Islam from the Arabian peninsula to southwestern France in the eighth century; and to the gates of Vienna in the seventeenth, came as a result of conquest by Islamic armies.
Piers Paul Read In Hooray for the Crusades! Woman's Quarterly, Spring 2002"
Not bad, not bad.... Told you, organmized religion is kind of freaky, and evil.
"Nine hundred years ago, our forefathers carried the name of Jesus Christ in battle across the Middle East. Fueled by fear, greed and hatred, they betrayed the name of Christ by conducting themselves in a manner contrary to His wishes and character. The Crusaders lifted the banner of the Cross above your people. By this act they corrupted its true meaning of reconciliation, forgiveness and selfless love. On the anniversary of the First Crusade we also carry the name of Christ. We wish to retrace the footsteps of the Crusaders in apology for their deeds and in demonstration of the true meaning of the Cross. We deeply regret the atrocities committed in the name of Christ by our predecessors. We renounce greed, hatred and fear, and condemn all violence done in the name of Jesus Christ.
Where they were motivated by hatred and prejudice, we offer love and brotherhood. Jesus the Messiah came to give life. Forgive us for allowing His name to be associated with death. Please accept again the true meaning of the Messiah's words: 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.'
Text of an Apology for the Crusades- The Reconciliation Walk Movement, 1998-1999"
HRM......
"Pope John Paul II decided to return the bones of the two most revered saints in the Orthodox Church, ‘St. John Chrysostomos and St. Gregoriou of Nazianzus’, to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I. This gesture of conciliation annoyed me. The theft was in 1204, when Constintinople was sacked by the crusaders. The crusaders were ‘sent’ by the Holy Roman Emperors (neither holy, nor Roman, nor emperors (Bryce’s words)), with the Vatican’s blessings, to ‘rescue’ the holy places from the conquering Islamic hordes. In reality, the third crusade was a front to sack and destroy Constantinople, the center of Greek Orthodoxy, to weaken it, to guarantee the preeminence of the Papacy. This ‘sacking’ was one of those events leading to the fall of Constantinople in 1453.
Dr. George Gregoriou Gesture of Conciliation or the Kiss of Judas? Greek News December 13, 2003"
""The word "Crusade" now has a noble connotation. It is used to describe a brave struggle for a righteous cause. The actual history of the great Crusades in the East belies that interpretation. The Crusaders did indeed believe that they were carrying out God's will; but they were characterized by ignorance, intolerance and savagery. They set out to save Christendom; but to the Christians of the East they brought nothing but disaster. It can be said that Byzantium profited by the First Crusade, which did indeed help the Emperor to recover much of Anatolia more quickly than he could have managed alone. It is possible, too, to maintain that the existence of the Crusader states in the East served to divert Muslim attention from Constantinople. But the Second and Third Crusades did nothing for Byzantium except to create embarrassment and ill-will; and the Fourth Crusade dealt the Empire a wound from which full recovery was impossible. It is true that there were in fact no further Crusades specifically directed against the Greeks, the Sicilian Vespers having prevented what was planned to be a replica of the Fourth Crusade. Even though men from the West who fought against the Orthodox were promised by their religious authorities the same spiritual benefits as were ordained for those that fought against the infidel, in Greece itself relations between the lords of the Francocratia and their Greek neighbours were not always bad. There was social intercourse; there was often intermarriage. But in the background there was always the animosity created and encouraged by the religious authorities, an animosity felt especially by newcomers from the West, an animosity that was part of what the later Crusading spirit had become. All that is why, to me, "Crusade" is a dirty word.
Steven Runciman, Greece and the Later Crusades From the New Griffon, A Gennadius Library Publication, American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Editor: Haris A. Kalligas, Director, Gennadius Library. Produced & Distrbuted by Potamos Publishers & Booksellers, Athens 2002."
YES!
"Many Muslims, for instance, still reckon that the crusades initiated centuries of European aggression and exploitation. Some Catholics want the pope to apologise to the world for them. Liberals of all stripes see the crusades as examples of bigotry and fanaticism. Almost all these opinions are, however, based on fallacies. The denigrators of the crusades stress their brutality and savagery, which cannot be denied; but they offer no explanation other than the stupidity, barbarism and intolerance of the crusaders, on whom it has become conventional to lay most blame. Yet the original justification for crusading was Muslim aggression; and in terms of atrocities, the two sides' scores were about even.
Jonathan Riley-Smith In Religious Warriors: Reinterpreting the Crusades- The Economist, December 23, 1995"
VALID!!!
So, in total, christianity did have a long rapsheet of barbarism, religious wars, and intolerant behavior. The bible does not call for all heathens to be killed, but the people in the church often do so. Plus, there is a couple of lines, like "You shall not suffer a witch to live" that do not only promote the killing of infidels, but also the killing of your own people.
so, just as a short note, let me say the following:
If the Qu'ran gets banned, I want a BAN on the bible too, unless the christian right can come up with 10 reason why the qu'ran should be banned that can not be used on extremist christians who kill murder and maim in the name of GOD.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen