He’s no servant of the Biblical God, who commands us to love our enemies. He’s a deranged attention-seeker.

So is Nonfactor.

In other words: it’s okay to say The Qur’an has caused violence around the world, but the moment you accuse The Bible of doing similar you’ve crossed a line.

Nonfactor, when Muslims spread violence around the world they are justified in their interpretation of the Qur’an as folllowing their faith. Centuries of Christian anti-semitism, the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades are not justifiable by reference to the Bible. This basic difference is not trivial.

I’m no fan of the Koran either. It is one of the most vile and poisonous books ever written. Just like the Bible, The Communest Manifest, Mein Kampf and other toxic ideologies.

And lastly, to accuse me of channeling Rosie is beyond funny. All Atheists are not Rosie or Bill Maher, although I suspect that Mojave Mark may be channeling Fred Phelps or some other Christian Hero.

JayHaw Phrenzie on May 26, 2007 at 11:13 AM

JayHaw, please, cite a verse from the Christian Bible that is poisonous. And please, when you do so, ensure context.

I’ll wait. Oh, and nice swipe by calling Phelps a hero. He’s no servant of the Biblical God, who commands us to love our enemies. He’s a deranged attention-seeker.

In other words: it’s okay to say The Qur’an has caused violence around the world, but the moment you accuse The Bible of doing similar you’ve crossed a line.

Heh? You might be quoting me but you are replying to something you are trying convey and not my post.

My original point was that it’s a kneejerk reaction to spew how the Christian Bible instructs people to go out and conquer by the sword, enslave men and women and do it the name of God, but that no one quotes where in the New Testiment this is written including yourself.

Yes the Quran allows deception of the unbelievers in certain cases, namely to protect themselves from persecution

I’ve yet to hear you explain how being placed on trial by a court of infidels could not conceivably be construed as “persecution.”

Those aren’t the only instances in which the Quran discusses honesty. The hadiths on oaths show that, yes, Muslims are expected to be honest. All of the commentary on 3:28 I linked to described it as either avoiding friendship as a means of avoiding taking on un-Islamic mores, or described it as not allying with those hostile to Muslims. (Spencer supposedly responded to this somewhere above.)

Meanwhile, ad hominem attacks on Robert Spencer’s character aren’t really helping to clarify your point. I suspect you may have lost site of the original issue, which was whether or not having individuals swear on the Koran in an American court was even a symbolically meaningful gesture.

Blacklake on May 26, 2007 at 1:16 PM

I thought the numerous hadith on oaths and vows were relevant.

Buck Turgidson

Well, yes and no. It’s one thing to grant a role, and I do, of Christianity (both good and bad) when it comes to the rise of our civilization. What annoys me to no end is the idea that all good things are inherently based on the concept of the Christian religion, and that simply isn’t so.

Buck Turgidson on May 26, 2007 at 2:37 PM

Since you asked, from the same Address:

Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of american, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

–George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

–George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

TheBigOldDog on May 26, 2007 at 2:02 PM

I wonder what religious principles George Washington might be referring to? Or Reagan for that matter.

If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under.
—Ronald Reagan

We are never defeated unless we give up on God.
Ronald Reagan

Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.
Ronald Reagan

Without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure.
Ronald Reagan

–George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

Robert Spencer on May 26, 2007 at 1:44 PM

Mr. Spencer, have you ever studied Dr. Francis Schaeffers works?

Now we have the spectacle of a man who falsely accused me of relying only on the Qur’an when I had already quoted two commentaries saying that I am disingenuous and argue in bad faith. Then he quotes another irrelevant hadith that establishes nothing either about the circumstances in which religious deception can be practiced or the nature of the deception itself, and claims I am hoping people won’t see it and am ignoring his main point. This despite the fact that I have already dealt several times with what he claims I continue to ignore.

The brazen dishonesty of this, combined with arrogance and self-righteousness, as well as a fondness for ad hominems, is unfortunately typical of a certain quality of critic on the Internet and off. I have never met “dorkafork,” but I feel as if I’ve already argued with him dozens of times. And so here again I use this case as illustrative of certain common tendencies.

why are such oaths held in the highest esteem throughout the free world?

Freelancer on May 26, 2007 at 3:28 AM

Pomp and circumstance. We don’t need people to put their hands on a Bible (or Qur’an) to hold them accountable when they lie or cheat or steal. If society needs that it shows us something about ourselves.

It seems more sensible to follow the example the previous poster mentioned and just leave all the holy books out of it, requiring witnesses only to swear they’re telling the whole truth.

Exactly; and even then only so they know that if they lie they can be brought to court.

How could we ever take seriously one devout Muslim’s testimony that another Muslim is innocent of terrorism when that oath is sworn on a Koran that commands all Muslims to conquer the world?

Tantor on May 26, 2007 at 6:04 AM

A quote like this makes it seem as though you wouldn’t trust the testimony of any devout Muslim, holy document or not. Similar to a question AP asked: should we just not let Muslims testify because they might be lying?

Associating the acts of people from Christian populated countries with acts of violence does not serve to finger the Bible for their actions. The opposite is in effect with Islam since the ideas of conquering the world by the use of violence has always been the centerpiece of Jihad.

Hening on May 26, 2007 at 9:49 AM

In other words: it’s okay to say The Qur’an has caused violence around the world, but the moment you accuse The Bible of doing similar you’ve crossed a line.

Moral progress occured on earth because of the bible.

No. Morality existed long before The Bible, and morality exists in people who haven’t read The Bible as well.

The rule of law happened because of the bible.

Lets ignore everything before 200AD. Nope, sorry Hamurabi, you had no rule of law. Ancient Greece? Nope. China? Sorry.

Slavery was ended because of the bible.

I seriously chuckled when I read this.

Europe and North America are the two greatest expressions of human progress on the planet because of the bible.

Thank God for Manifest Destiny and the Divine Right of Kings, right?

Did you ever wonder WHY the West is so far ahead of the rest of the world? It’s sure not DNA.

Is it The Bible?

Atheism/Darwinism gave us Stalin, Hitler, and Mao. The body count is over 100 million with just those three. No bible involved with that.

Mojave Mark on May 26, 2007 at 10:39 AM

Godwin’s anyone? Sorry, Mojave Mark, you’ve voided your opinion on the issue (and you’re factually wrong as well). Ah, I see JayHaw say it first.

Krydor on May 26, 2007 at 12:26 PM

We’ve agreed to disagree and that’s good. But it seems to me you want to blame Christianity entirely for all of man’s historical short-commings while denying Christian ideas played any positive,civilizing role in history whatsoever.

Yes the Quran allows deception of the unbelievers in certain cases, namely to protect themselves from persecution

I’ve yet to hear you explain how being placed on trial by a court of infidels could not conceivably be construed as “persecution.”

Meanwhile, ad hominem attacks on Robert Spencer’s character aren’t really helping to clarify your point. I suspect you may have lost site of the original issue, which was whether or not having individuals swear on the Koran in an American court was even a symbolically meaningful gesture.

…which only allows lying to avoid religious persecution… dorkafork on May 25, 2007 at 8:05 PM

Even with the commentaries you cited, you just ignore that lying is only allowed as a form of protection.
dorkafork on May 25, 2007 at 9:34 PM

The hadith I linked to clearly lay out the few circumstances where it is acceptable for a Muslim to break an oath… dorkafork on May 26, 2007 at 7:41 AM

I don’t know why Spencer insists I prove Islam forbids religious deception when it quite clearly does not. It allows it in certain circumstances, the details of which Spencer continually refuse to confront. I don’t know how to make it clearer after putting it right in front of his freaking face over and over.

He picks one out of the numerous hadith on that linked page, probably hoping that no one will click through. (Reminiscent of Greenwald.) Just one, though, and not one like this:

Book 21, Number 3268:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-’As:

The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: An oath or a vow about something over which a human being has no control, and to disobey Allah, and to break ties of relationship is not binding. If anyone takes an oath and then considers something else better than it, he should give it up, and do what is better, for leaving it is its atonement.

Earlier, Spencer said:

Above at 7:39PM I wrote this:

Note also that in the latter quote the two Jalals don’t say this can only be done in extreme circumstances, but whenever a believer fears “something.”

Obviously if the believer fears “something,” he is lying as a form of protection. Can you think of any circumstances in which someone may fear something in a courtroom, and lie as a form of protection? I can.

As though those other hadith did not exist. As though the only standard for when a believer fears “something”.

This is who Robert Spencer is, this is what he does. He’s done it before. He argues in bad faith.

Atheism is not a religion, it is simply the ability to recognize fiction for what it is.

It’s not a religion, but it is a metaphysical position. It concedes meaningfulness to propositions about the non-physical world, and alleges that (somehow) evidence present in the physical world can lead to judgments on the veracity of statements about non-physical things. I fail to see how that qualifies it as being any less bizarre and irrational than theism.

Millions, if not Billions of people throughout history have been the victims of suffering and violence in the name of the bible. Only the intentional blindness of a religious fanatic could stop you from seeing that.

I’m far from a religious fanatic, and I can’t see it. I can certainly think of unpleasant and cruel things associated with institutions of Christianity, primarily during the medieval period. I can’t think of anything so severe that it constitutes equivalence with Islam, in whose name medieval-quality attrocities continue to be perpetrated without apology into the present day.

-Moral progress occured on earth because of the bible.

Moral progress like what? This always chafes me. I would be so bold as to say that morals are static within a biblical interpretation, therefore unchangeable.

-The rule of law happened because of the bible.

No it did not. Not even a little bit. This legal system, the one we all enjoy in the western world is Roman based. Not “Holy Roman” but Republican Rome using idealized Greek writings. Romans were engineers and did things with an eye on the rational.

-Slavery was ended because of the bible.

Really? I’ll need to see references for that one. That’s like saying the Holocaust was ended because of the Bible and not a happy side effect of a larger conflict.

-Europe and North America are the two greatest expressions of human progress on the planet because of the bible.

I’ve often thought we progressed in spite of, not because of, religious interference. I can cite stuff and or things, should I be compelled to do so.

Did you ever wonder WHY the West is so far ahead of the rest of the world? It’s sure not DNA.

That’s a funny story. Something to do with the Catholic church burning books and Muslim traders reintroducing those books, leading to the end of Church rule.

JayHaw Phrenzie on May 26, 2007 at 11:13 AM

I love ya man, but is any discussion of the role in society of religious traditions permitted without being accused of plotting against you?

While I concede the issue is likely “legal”, I’m with Mr.Spencer that it’s not a good thing. That’s what islamists do. They find every tiny crack in a free society, and hammer in a piton.

Buck Turgidson on May 26, 2007 at 10:44 AM

Agree.

Atheism/Darwinism gave us Stalin, Hitler, and Mao. The body count is over 100 million with just those three. No bible involved with that.

Godwin Rule. I win the debate. I have destroyed the Hitler/Stalin/Mao argument in other threads already. “Darwinism” is not an ideology. Naziism, Communism, Christianity are all ideologies.

Atheism is not a religion, it is simply the ability to recognize fiction for what it is.

Millions, if not Billions of people throughout history have been the victims of suffering and violence in the name of the bible. Only the intentional blindness of a religious fanatic could stop you from seeing that.

I’m no fan of the Koran either. It is one of the most vile and poisonous books ever written. Just like the Bible, The Communest Manifest, Mein Kampf and other toxic ideologies.

And lastly, to accuse me of channeling Rosie is beyond funny. All Atheists are not Rosie or Bill Maher, although I suspect that Mojave Mark may be channeling Fred Phelps or some other Christian Hero.

So doesn’t that make you question the purpose behind Muslims asking for a Qur’an?

Connie on May 26, 2007 at 12:40 AM

While I concede the issue is likely “legal”, I’m with Mr.Spencer that it’s not a good thing. That’s what islamists do. They find every tiny crack in a free society, and hammer in a piton.