Random News Article Thread

[Blaarev]

Not quite random, but couldn't find a better thread to put this in.

Anyway, this young man seems so likeable and charming;

http://m.leicestermercury.co.uk/You...ligan-banned/story-26034128-detail/story.html

 

[Brown Nose]

Worth reading this article to appreciate what ISIS is and why it exists. Unfortunately, you don't get to know much of this from the mainstream media.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

 

[Blue Maniac]

Worth reading this article to appreciate what ISIS is and why it exists. Unfortunately, you don't get to know much of this from the mainstream media.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

It's pretty amazing that people actually need to be told that an Islamic terrorist organisation is in fact full of Muslims who follow the Qu'ran to the letter.

We keep getting told horseshit like "it/they/these actions are nothing to do with Islam!" but they are absolutely everything to do with Islam. Read the book. It's all right there.

 

[SwedeFox]

It's pretty amazing that people actually need to be told that an Islamic terrorist organisation is in fact full of Muslims who follow the Qu'ran to the letter.

We keep getting told horseshit like "it/they/these actions are nothing to do with Islam!" but they are absolutely everything to do with Islam. Read the book. It's all right there.

There is no such thing as following the Qu'ran to the letter. When you're reading a historical text, which are often riddled with inconsistencies, you can't just pull half-random quotes out of the bag and say "look, this book justifies this". That's not how hermeneutics works. There are plenty of passages in the Qu'ran condemning what ISIS are doing, and most Islamic scholars reject their worldview.

 

[Blue Maniac]

There is no such thing as following the Qu'ran to the letter. When you're reading a historical text, which are often riddled with inconsistencies, you can't just pull half-random quotes out of the bag and say "look, this book justifies this". That's not how hermeneutics works. There are plenty of passages in the Qu'ran condemning what ISIS are doing, and most Islamic scholars reject their worldview.

There are more than enough passages which back up their actions entirely. Let's not forget that Muhammad personally ordered or allowed countless people killed for various "offences". Same as any religion, they cherry pick the bits they like, and the reason these scholars (excellent use of the word, truly) 'reject their worldview' is because their interpretation of the same information is diluted. They're living at least partly in the 21st century, and they understand that hacking innocent people's heads off is not the right thing to do.

 

[jb5000]

There's more than enough passages of similar ilk in the old testament. The heaving majority of believers are to interpret that though. The piece hit the nail on the head saying isis are just a slightly more successful David Koresh.

 

[SwedeFox]

There are more than enough passages which back up their actions entirely. Let's not forget that Muhammad personally ordered or allowed countless people killed for various "offences". Same as any religion, they cherry pick the bits they like, and the reason these scholars (excellent use of the word, truly) 'reject their worldview' is because their interpretation of the same information is diluted. They're living at least partly in the 21st century, and they understand that hacking innocent people's heads off is not the right thing to do.

So, your argument is that the exegesis conducted by ISIS is closer to the essence of the Qu'ran than the vast majority of Muslims' and, if you were to read the Qu'ran correctly, the former would be right while the latter would be wrong? That sounds like something Sam Harris would believe. If you want to read some dissenting opinions on this, not out of some vague notion of "human rights" that they may have picked up from the West (...), but from the very same scriptures that ISIS refer to, you can start here: http://lettertobaghdadi.com/14/english-v14.pdf

But none of that is the key point, which is this, from that article linked earlier:
"As if there is such a thing as ‘Islam’! It’s what Muslims do, and how they interpret their texts.”
There is no literal meaning of Islam.

 

[Blue Maniac]

There's more than enough passages of similar ilk in the old testament.

That's true. And Christians never murdered anyone for their book?

 

[Blue Maniac]

So, your argument is that the exegesis conducted by ISIS is closer to the essence of the Qu'ran than the vast majority of Muslims' and, if you were to read the Qu'ran correctly, the former would be right while the latter would be wrong? That sounds like something Sam Harris would believe.

That'd be the Sam Harris who knows the Qu'ran inside out, would it? The one who knows the book better than most Muslims? You've hardly highlighted a weakness there.

There is no literal meaning of Islam.

There's no literal meaning of any religion. What's your point?

 

[SwedeFox]

That'd be the Sam Harris who knows the Qu'ran inside out, would it? The one who knows the book better than most Muslims? You've hardly highlighted a weakness there.

:icon_lol: I don't think we'll get any further then.

 

[Blue Maniac]

:icon_lol: I don't think we'll get any further then.

I suspect not.

 

[jb5000]

There's more than enough passages of similar ilk in the old testament. The heaving majority of believers are to interpret that though. The piece hit the nail on the head saying isis are just a slightly more successful David Koresh.

If you'd quoted a bit more of my post you might realise that yes they have, but the heaving majority haven't.

That's true. And Christians never murdered anyone for their book?

 

[Blue Maniac]

If you'd quoted a bit more of my post you might realise that yes they have, but the heaving majority haven't.

About the same as Muslims then, which I imagine was your point. But again, how Christian are they if they don't follow their holy book properly?

 

[SwedeFox]

If you'd quoted a bit more of my post you might realise that yes they have, but the heaving majority haven't.

But if you read the Bible from start to finish, surely the takeaway from it is that you should burn non-believers at the stake and not eat shellfish? Why would anyone ever interpret it differently?

 

[Blue Maniac]

But if you read the Bible from start to finish, surely the takeaway from it is that you should burn non-believers at the stake and not eat shellfish? Why would anyone ever interpret it differently?

Exactly. Cherry picking. Same as every other religion.

 

[Blue Maniac]

What the ****?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/chelsea-fans-filmed-pushing-black-man-off-paris-metro-10052713.html

 

[Blue Maniac]

This definitely happened.

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/02/18/priest-fired-after-drawing-ash-penises-on-parishioners-foreheads/

 

[spionfox]

.....hermeneutics......

First time since the days of Nwets that I've had to 'Google' a word used on TB :icon_bigg

 

[Blue Maniac]

First time since the days of Nwets that I've had to 'Google' a word used on TB :icon_bigg

:icon_lol:

 

[Blue Maniac]

:icon_conf

http://nypost.com/2015/02/18/woman-kills-herself-trying-to-adjust-her-bra-holster/