What is Digg?179 Comments
- saikhan, on 10/12/2007, -21/+105I find it insulting, that you should post a link to a (rather biased) blog and expect us to believe it as fact. Obviously you haven’t read the Koran and rely on pseudo-factual writings for your information.
Your ignorance shines brightest when you write about “Jihad”.
Allow me to clarify some things: Jihad is the duty of all those who are faithful. Jihad is a struggle. Jihad is performed in the name of God.
But, what most don’t know is that Jihad as a struggle merely means to be resilient against a person’s loss of faith within him/herself and those of his/her community.
This is where it gets tricky; Muhammad stressed the importance of keeping those of a person’s community faithful, and to spread the word of God in addition to prayer, fasting, and observance of Hajj.
After his death, some of his followers (ancient and contemporary) used the faith and "Jihad" to gain support for political endeavors, and that is “Jihad” that YOU seem to be referring to, not the jihad of all the followers of Islam.
Perhaps it would be better for YOU to “care to find out any thing more about what exactly is in the Koran”. - theone3, on 10/12/2007, -12/+69Well, frankly the stuff you've said and the link you've posted are completely innaccurate, so actually it's not surprising at all. Jihad fundamentally isn't even about battle. There are 1.5 Billion Muslims including myself, many of whom, like my own parents and Keith Ellison, came to Islam from Western or Christian perspectives, realising that just like Jews ignore and slander Christianity to prevent conversion and preserve culture, Christianity ignores and slanders Islam for the same reasons - but if you actually talk to moderate Muslims and read a good translation of the Koran with a historical understanding of it, perhaps you'd know what it is actually about. Anyway, as the Koran says:
(Sura Al-Kafirun) Say: I don't worship what you worship, and you don't worship what I worship. And I won't worship what you worship, and you won't worship what I worship. To you be your way, and to me be mine. - Rfriaz, on 10/12/2007, -7/+62As though everything in the Bible is compatible with modern society?
- Rikkochet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+38Running for office.. Our holy book is Jessica Alba's chest... Who's with me?
- Momarc, on 10/12/2007, -14/+49There is a lot of crazy stuff in the bible to about killing people for things like adultery, marring a non-christian. All these religions could be seen as promoting violence except I think Buddhism
- IbnDigg, on 10/12/2007, -19/+51@AdmiralAdama
Do ***** off - saleem, on 10/12/2007, -9/+39There are too many verses of the Qur'an that will negate what you cite out of context. I suggest you get a free Qur'an from CAIR or download a good translation.
PS - The "72 virgins" idea is a translation that doesn't hold across cultures/languages, in addition to being a non-authenticated hadith. Unlike the hadiths from Bukhari and Muslim, the hadith that AdmiralAdama cites was not authenticated and therefore is not accepted by Muslims. FYI, the "hadith" were the collection of sayings of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and were collected and painstakingly confirmed against other sources before being included in the Bukhari and Muslim collections. - ahsen74, on 10/12/2007, -9/+35@AdmiralAdama
I will give this to you as an example. Your quotation of Verse 9:5 is first of all incomplete, there is a 2nd part to the verse, and additionally it is taken out of context from the rest of the verses.
First, the historical context. These verses were revealed after the Muslims had conquered Mecca. It was the practice of the idolaters to make pilgrimage around the Kaaba naked. This was not permissible under Islam. The Muslims had treaties with some of the idolater tribes which were indefinite, and treaties with some idolater tribes which expired within 4 months, which was before the next pilgrimage season. These verses basically stated that these idolaters would be allowed to make the pilgrimage as they wanted this last time, and after wards it would be forbidden. However, for those idolaters with whom there was a treaty with a specified end date, that treaty would be honored to its fulfillment. After the 4 months were over, all tribes with which the Muslims did not have a treaty, the Muslims did not have to wait for the enemy to attack first, but were allowed to attack them first (which is what verse 9:5 states) unless they convert to Islam, or seek the Muslims protection (i.e. sign a treaty). In that case preach to them, but let them be safe.
Here are the verses:
9:1
Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty.
9:2
Travel freely in the land four months, and know that ye cannot escape Allah and that Allah will confound the disbelievers (in His Guidance).
9:3
And a proclamation from Allah and His messenger to all men on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage that Allah is free from obligation to the idolaters, and (so is) His messenger. So, if ye repent, it will be better for you; but if ye are averse, then know that ye cannot escape Allah. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve,
9:4
Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfill their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him).
9:5
Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
9:6
And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not. - TheGoat7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25If you wanted them to put their hand on the Bible, it's just like putting their hand on something they do not believe in. Making the whole idea of swearing on the Bible void and moronic, to say the least.
- ProximaC, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28By the way he was ONLY PHOTOGRAPHED with it, he didn't actually swear in on it.
Members of congress don't actually have to swear in on the bible or any other book, but they do sometimes have their photos taken afterwards with them.
Islam is no more evil than christianity is. The problem isn't the religion, it's the zealots in the religion. - ahsen74, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21Interesting comment. So what has Ellison stated as his dream of America's future, and what part of it specifically do you think would be "repulsive" to Thomas Jefferson, or any of the other founding fathers, for that matter.
- CaseyUCF, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18If it were me I'd swear in on the constitution or some other non-religious text.
But of course I'm an atheist and an out in the open atheist would never get into any sort of political office anyways. Pretty ***** up. - artificial001, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23Who the hell do you think you are? You're trying to preach someone else Holy Book that you don't understand nor have read... you just get what you know about it from conservative blogs and talk shows. So why don't you shut the ***** up and go to a mosque a few times, get to know the people there. They aren't terrorists and they aren't out to get you.
Terrorism is so goddamn over-hyped. - briankoenig03, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20@saikhan
"Muhammad stressed the importance of keeping those of a person’s community faithful"
That is the part of the faith that I have an issue with. I respect and fight for a person's right to believe in whatever they want to, to worship whatever they want, but I absolutely despise proselytizing faiths that stress spreading "the good word", or go door to door in the Mormon fashion fulfilling their "Mission" to annoy entire communities at a time. The moment somebody else thinks that it's their responsibility to keep anyone else besides them faithful, that violates my rights and pisses me off. I would happily welcome you in my community...just don't try to "keep me faithful."
Oh, and as far as the whole being sworn in deal, as long as the person values whatever they place their hand on when being sworn in, I couldn't care less what it is, be it a Bible, a Dictionary, or the latest Rachael Ray cookbook. - Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19I'm going to point out the ridiculousness of your argument by quoting two Bible passages. This is from the Old Testament:
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
And this is from the New Testament:
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
Both of these Bible passages were used to justify slavery. I hardly think anyone will seriously argue that Judaism or Christianity are incompatible with a society that doesn't hold slaves. You can find a ton of justification for sick ***** in any holy text, and if you want me to dig up a dozen passages supporting genocide in the Old Testament, I will. The problem Islam has today is that it's generally in dire need of moderation -- but moderation doesn't mean throwing out the Koran, it means accepting it as a mythological source of moral guidance and ignoring the outdated barbaric references, just as we've seen happen with Christianity and Judaism. Moderate Muslims like Rep. Ellison should be welcomed into our society, not shunned. - madpoet_one, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15What I want to know is did any LDS people get sworn in using the Book of Mormon... and if they did, why isn't there same outrage?
- ProximaC, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16jdun is unsmart.
- orbit1979, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14"I'm sure that Jefferson would be repusled by Ellison's dream of America's future."
Don't you mean YOU are repulsed by Ellison's dream of America's future? - michaeltime, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12The founding fathers would no doubt be totally amazed and distraught at how their dreams have been destoryed in the last 50 years.....
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one. " - Thomas Jefferson
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. " - Thomas Jefferson
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. " - Thomas Jefferson - Lisztman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Since Ellison is Muslim, I would WANT him to swear in on the Koran. Since he obviously holds that book as central to his beliefs, and the Bible less so, then it is better for him to swear by it than the Bible.
Its simple people.
And yeah, I realize that this article isn't really about him being sworn in on the Koran, but I thought it would be a good idea to get my thoughts out here.
BTW, I'm mostly Christian in religious persuasion. - orbit1979, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13And Christians do not have a history (some very recent) of violence against others/themselves? Come on now!
- alamandrax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@ theone3: i'd say that you should tell people to pick up "No God but God" by Reza Aslan. Quite interesting.
- PLUMCRAZY, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Saying that someone wanting to use a book from their own religion to do a swearing in is un-American is about the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time. It is no wonder so many people don't understand what "Freedom of religion" means.
TFA says "conservatives" are complaining, but only names one person (hack partisan website alert). I would like a list of everyone who complained about this. My guess is the number of people who complained is short. Rather than painting all conservatives, give me some names so I know who never to vote for. - kuwan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"If it were me I'd swear in on the constitution or some other non-religious text."
Actually, you wouldn't be sworn in on any text at all. Members of Congress are sworn in together as a group and no book of any kind is used for the ceremony. This is a non-story trumped up by a moronic and partisan media because no member of congress is sworn in using the Bible or anything else.
Members of congress may opt to have their own swearing in ceremony in their own offices and they can use anything they want for that. But these ceremonies are not official nor binding in any way. As such who cares if someone uses a Bible, a Quran or a dead fish, it doesn't mean anything anyway. Unless of course you're a reporter and want to push partisan fodder on the public. - nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14Jefferson owned a Koran. So did John Quincy Adams, possibly our most learned President (if anywhere near Boston, many will want to visit the Adams Family site, and library, in Quincy).....
Here is what John Quincy Adams 6th President of the USA wrote on Islam in 1830(fyi..the CAPS appear in his orginal writings not from me):
"In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, [.....] Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST.- TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.... Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant ... While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men." - PLUMCRAZY, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I don't think so. Christianity makes up 76% of the US and Islam is only 0.5%
there are good breakdowns on this site . . .
http://www.adherents.com - ProximaC, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10it's not. America was based on the concept of freedom of religion, the right to free speech, and the right to pursue happiness.
Those above and below that are screaming about this are the un-American ones. - cakulbet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8How in anyway is that un-American?
- forgiste, on 10/12/2007, -12/+19Why is momarc getting dugg down? He's right. There's plenty of evil and violence in the bible. In fact, God is an advocate of killing the faithless...
- AdmiralAdama, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Actually, Thomas Jefferson was in his own war against a Muslim enemy. Here's what Thomas Jefferson reported to Congress about the Muslim Fighters we were struggling with off the Barbarry Coast:
These future United States presidents questioned the ambassador as to why his government was so hostile to the new American republic even though America had done nothing to provoke any such animosity. Ambassador Adja answered them, as they reported to the Continental Congress, “that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
Jihad has lasted a long time.
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Thomas_Jefferson_s_War_Against_JIhadists
original article at
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/01/the_myth_of_jef.html - felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Jefferson may have believed in protecting religious freedom for all Americans, but does anyone really think that an Islamic government would ever do the same?
- ohhsnap, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Yeah, because as we all know, Jefferson hated religious freedom.
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7The Bible is a Mormon scripture. Ironically, the Bible (Tawrat, Zabur, Injil) is also a Muslim scripture, although abrogated by the Koran. Frankly, swearing on the Koran (or any document) smacks of idolatry, but the Muslims aren't immune to it despite their protestations to the contrary.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9If Islam is an evil and violent religion why do some of its followers engage in so much gardening and puppy photography?
- tjrc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@madpoet_one:
"What I want to know is did any LDS people get sworn in using the Book of Mormon... and if they did, why isn't there same outrage?"
Well, as others point out, no book is actually used in the swearing ceremony, just in the individual congresscritter's photo-op afterwards. which is what Ellison is doing with the Koran.
But, subject to that quibble...
"Republican Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, carried a volume of Mormon scriptures that included the Bible and the Book of Mormon at his swearing-in ceremony in 1997."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-12-01-muslim-lawmaker_x.htm
Note that Mormons believe the Book or Morman to be a third testament, in addition to the old testament and new testament that make up the traditional Christian bible, so there would be no inconsistency with a Mormon using a traditional bible, anyway.
In any event, Mormons are Christians, so they don't inflame the Religious Right. - aristotle0dude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7ozziegt, we all know Mohammed's first wife owned a business which she had received upon the death of her first husband. During his marriage to her, Mohammed worshipped of the pagan pantheon of gods including the moon god at Mecca. He would pray many times a day to Allah the moon god while facing the Kaabab. He also would have made pilgrimages to Mecca and observed Ramadan as part of that religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaaba
After her death, Mohammed gained control of the shipping business and during his travels he learned about monotheism from travelling Christians.
It was not until much later that Mohammed became a "prophet" of Islam.
Incidentally, it might have been a hindu shrine at one point.
http://www.hinduism.co.za/kaabaa.htm - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6What a great way for secular progessives to get noticed..."more photographs with the Koran! That'll win over Joe Public!"
- Lisztman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Actually, they don't have to use anything to swear in, except their right hand. However, many politicians use the Bible because, for some, it shows their commitment to their job if they have to swear in on their holy book, or is just a publicity stunt to make people think that the person that is being sworn in holds the Bible in some high regard.
- br549, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Can someone swear in on the Bible in a country like Iran?
- AdmiralAdama, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5What are you talking about? The definition of Jihad came directly from an Islamic law book. With all the bombings of innocents worldwide committed by Muslims, it's gonna take more than your deception to fool the infidels much longer.
- AdmiralAdama, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Allah wants men to beat their wives with a toothbrush?
- ozziegt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@AdmiralAdama
Again you have chosen some quotes from some texts which are probably out of context, and moreover two quotes from a book and a sheikh (who I haven't heard of) really doesn't promote your argument. Merriam-Webster would disagree with you as well.
I could spend all day finding web sites which contradict the one you are cut and pasting from, but here is one from Al-Jazeera, which many claim is baised against the west.
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/article_full_story.asp?service_id=12493 - aristotle0dude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@bazmail & the rest: YOu don't have to believe what I or other people say but do your own research about Islam. Research especially the 400 year era prior to the the so-called Christian Crusades. Also be sure to find out about the history of what happened in towns like Toledo in Moorish Spain prior to the Reconquest by the Kingdom of Spain..
- AdmiralAdama, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Quoting Thomas Jefferson about a war between America and Muslim pirates is bigotry? That game is getting oooooooold! Try another one, why don't you -- like making an argument instead of calling your opponents "bigots" and "racists".
- PLUMCRAZY, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I alway say . . . Religion is a great thing that has been all screwed up by the church.
People need to start to realize that churches are political organizations that organize around religion and the leaders of those churches are just as power hungry as any politician in Washington. - zaclohrenz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Rather funny, as in Thomas Jefferson's personal Bible he was wrote the following:
"I am a Christian, that is to say a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator and, I hope, to the pure doctrine of Jesus also."
Thomas Jefferson didn't think that religion should play any part? I call bull. - faskippy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Thomas Jefferson owned a Koran. So what? My ex had a set of books, each about a different religious belief, such as Christianity, Buddism, Hinduism, Mormon, Muslim faith, etc. He owned them because he wanted to learn about them. Period. So, knowlege is bad? And yes, some of the Koran (sp) is violent toward non believers. It's a fact. Pointing fingers at other religions doesn't make it any less so.
- mbthompson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You know, as a Christian I've always found it odd that other Christians support the practice of swearing on the Bible either in ceremonies such as this or in court proceedings. Though the practice of "swearing" (making an oath beyond one's self) was practiced in the Old Testament, Christ specifically forbids it after his first coming when he said...
Matthew 5:33-37 (English Standard Version)
33"Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.' 34But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil.
Keeping that in mind, as a Christian, I don't have a problem with this, since I don't agree with the principle in the first place. Just my two cents. Now go grab a quarter and buy yourself a cup of coffee (but not at Starbucks). :) - aristotle0dude, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I dugg you up and no doubt, you will be dugg down for speaking the truth.
It was awfully brave of you and it is interesting to see a perspective from someone in the 1800's. Today's world is full of PC crap and revisionist history. -
Show 51 - 100 of 178 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is