http://news.yahoo.com/bosnian-imam-attacked-7-times-over-call-stay-161722154.html
QuoteThe long-bearded man burst into the mosque's yard and pinned Selvedin Beganovic to the ground. Shouting "Now I will slaughter you!" he plunged a knife three times into the imam's chest and fled.
It was no random attack: Beganovic has suffered seven assaults blamed on Muslim extremists in the past year — with three just last month.
The apparent reason for the jihadi wrath? Beganovic uses his pulpit to tell the faithful in predominantly Muslim Bosnia they have no business fighting in Syria or Iraq. And he vows to keep preaching the message no matter how many times extremists try to silence him.
"That is not our war," the imam told The Associated Press in his small northwestern town. "Our jihad in Bosnia is the fight against unemployment. The care for our parents who have small pensions. The care for the socially jeopardized."
Some 150 Bosnians have joined Islamic militants in Syria or Iraq, officials estimate, with many fighting for the Islamic State group. All are apparently members of a small community that follows an ultra-conservative interpretation of Islam. Last month, a court in Bosnia charged a man believed to be the spiritual leader of the group with recruiting Bosnians to fight with Islamic militants in Syria and organizing a terrorist group.
Beganovic, who preaches every week to a full mosque, tells his followers that groups like IS are spreading a "perverted version of Islam."
"When did (the Prophet) Muhammad ever behead anyone?" he said. "When did he take a knife and slaughter an innocent journalist?"
Of Islam's 99 names for God — including The Mighty and The Avenger — the ones Beganovic likes most are The Exceedingly Merciful and The Exceedingly Gracious.
"That is what we teach our children here," he said.
Dragan Lukac, the director of federal police, blamed fighters returning from Syria's front lines for the attacks against Beganovic, which include severe beatings and knife slashes to the face, shoulders and hands. Investigators are still hunting for the attacker in last week's knife assault.
"Every person who comes back from that front line is a danger," said Lukac. "These people are able to perform attacks on citizens, on property, on state institutions."
Militant Islam was all but unknown to Bosnia's mostly secular Muslim population until the 1990s Balkans wars when Arab mercenaries turned up to help the outgunned Bosnian Muslims fend off Serb attacks. These fighters, many of whom settled in Bosnia, embraced a radical version of Islam that Bosnia's official Islamic community opposes.
The community's leader, Husein Kavazovic, has repeatedly warned Bosnians not to fall for extremist rhetoric aimed at pulling them into the fight in Syria.
"Our job is to keep repeating, to keep warning that this is evil and cannot be justified," he said.
That's exactly what Beganovic has been doing — at the risk of his life.
"These are dangerous people," he said. "Their place is in a mental institution."
Is your favorite The Exceedingly Fabulous?
That is the thing about Muslim extremism: it is much more dangerous to Muslims than the rest of us.
When did ultra-conservative start to mean ultra-radical? I thought those were contradictions.
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2015, 02:56:49 PM
That is the thing about Muslim extremism: it is much more dangerous to Muslims than the rest of us.
When did ultra-conservative start to mean ultra-radical? I thought those were contradictions.
I think it's always been the case, depending on context. When radicals tend to radicalize from a conservative context, they're called ultra-conservative; when they radicalize from a left-wing context they're called ultra-leftist, etc.
In all cases it seems they want to overthrow the existing social order to achieve an ideal society. In the case of ultra-conservative radicals, that ideal society is expressed as a yearning for a past golden age, while progressive radicals are yearning for a future golden age. In both cases the golden age is to be achieved by strictly adhering to the creed, taking extreme action, and overthrowing the current social order. The differences lie in whether we are supposed to look forward or backwards to find Utopia (and, of course, in some of the details of the content of the hoped for Utopia).
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2015, 02:56:49 PM
When did ultra-conservative start to mean ultra-radical? I thought those were contradictions.
Anything that begins with "ultra" is a bad thing. Except Ultraman.
Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2015, 03:06:58 PM
I think it's always been the case, depending on context. When radicals tend to radicalize from a conservative context, they're called ultra-conservative; when they radicalize from a left-wing context they're called ultra-leftist, etc.
In all cases it seems they want to overthrow the existing social order to achieve an ideal society. In the case of ultra-conservative radicals, that ideal society is expressed as a yearning for a past golden age, while progressive radicals are yearning for a future golden age. In both cases the golden age is to be achieved by strictly adhering to the creed, taking extreme action, and overthrowing the current social order. The differences lie in whether we are supposed to look forward or backwards to find Utopia (and, of course, in some of the details of the content of the hoped for Utopia).
It's also one of the many problems of applying political labels onto religious views - same as the unbelievably insulting idea of a 'moderate' Muslim and the kind of annoying use of 'radical' in a negative way. Theologically an ultra-conservative, Salafist preacher is very radical and novel as opposed to a traditional Bosnian preacher who would be considerably less conservative.
When did Muhammed behead anybody?
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_QurayzaNo woman of Banu Qurayza was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? She said: I I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. She said: The man took her and beheaded her. She said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed.
Sunan Abu Dawud 14:2665
It's hard to combat extremism when you don't have the facts on your side; or by straight up lying.
Okay, that's enough.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 05, 2015, 03:17:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2015, 02:56:49 PM
When did ultra-conservative start to mean ultra-radical? I thought those were contradictions.
Anything that begins with "ultra" is a bad thing. Except Ultraman.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.comicvine.com%2Fuploads%2Fscale_super%2F6%2F66557%2F2040410-1248350772_9.jpg&hash=89f66a7a67a969617701146b1be86f34ba8f0d93)
Marneus Calgar disapproves.
Quote from: Viking on January 05, 2015, 04:06:13 PM
When did Muhammed behead anybody?
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_QurayzaNo woman of Banu Qurayza was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? She said: I I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. She said: The man took her and beheaded her. She said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed.
Sunan Abu Dawud 14:2665
It's hard to combat extremism when you don't have the facts on your side; or by straight up lying.
When I read that in the article, I thought to myself "which bitch will complain about that?" and the answer was obvious. ^_^
Quote from: Malicious Intent on January 05, 2015, 05:07:34 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 05, 2015, 03:17:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2015, 02:56:49 PM
When did ultra-conservative start to mean ultra-radical? I thought those were contradictions.
Anything that begins with "ultra" is a bad thing. Except Ultraman.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.comicvine.com%2Fuploads%2Fscale_super%2F6%2F66557%2F2040410-1248350772_9.jpg&hash=89f66a7a67a969617701146b1be86f34ba8f0d93)
Marneus Calgar disapproves.
It looks like he's on the Shitter.
Quote from: Viking on January 05, 2015, 04:06:13 PM
When did Muhammed behead anybody?
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_QurayzaNo woman of Banu Qurayza was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? She said: I I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. She said: The man took her and beheaded her. She said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed.
Sunan Abu Dawud 14:2665
It's hard to combat extremism when you don't have the facts on your side; or by straight up lying.
Meh. Probably never happened. Granted, though, we are talking about the big Mo as portrayed in Islamic tradition.
Quote from: Viking on January 05, 2015, 04:06:13 PM
When did Muhammed behead anybody?
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_QurayzaNo woman of Banu Qurayza was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? She said: I I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. She said: The man took her and beheaded her. She said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed.
Sunan Abu Dawud 14:2665
WTF?
I have no idea what this says as the Wikipedia supplied translation is not in any form of cognizable English. However, it doesn't have Muhammad doing any beheading as far as I can see.
The underlying Quranic verse doesn't say anything of the sort.
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2015, 05:57:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 05, 2015, 04:06:13 PM
When did Muhammed behead anybody?
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_QurayzaNo woman of Banu Qurayza was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? She said: I I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. She said: The man took her and beheaded her. She said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed.
Sunan Abu Dawud 14:2665
It's hard to combat extremism when you don't have the facts on your side; or by straight up lying.
Meh. Probably never happened. Granted, though, we are talking about the big Mo as portrayed in Islamic tradition.
Well, to be fair he didn't actually say who didn't have the facts on their side and was straight up lying.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 05, 2015, 03:17:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2015, 02:56:49 PM
When did ultra-conservative start to mean ultra-radical? I thought those were contradictions.
Anything that begins with "ultra" is a bad thing. Except Ultraman.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg2.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20120414061713%2Fmarvel_dc%2Fimages%2Fthumb%2Fa%2Fad%2FUltraman_Earth-3_002.jpg%2F500px-Ultraman_Earth-3_002.jpg&hash=277a76aadca6628e231e59bd3cc4f44afdf1fccd)
At least one Ultraman is evil.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 05, 2015, 06:05:07 PM
WTF?
I have no idea what this says as the Wikipedia supplied translation is not in any form of cognizable English. However, it doesn't have Muhammad doing any beheading as far as I can see.
The underlying Quranic verse doesn't say anything of the sort.
The Quran never says anything that straightforward. The verse in question is presumed to refer to the incident which is traditional.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 05, 2015, 06:05:07 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 05, 2015, 04:06:13 PM
When did Muhammed behead anybody?
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_QurayzaNo woman of Banu Qurayza was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? She said: I I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. She said: The man took her and beheaded her. She said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed.
Sunan Abu Dawud 14:2665
WTF?
I have no idea what this says as the Wikipedia supplied translation is not in any form of cognizable English. However, it doesn't have Muhammad doing any beheading as far as I can see.
The underlying Quranic verse doesn't say anything of the sort.
It's from the hadith of abu dawud, so not the Koran.
The other hadith referenced int eh wikipedia article refert to beheading, this was the one that referred to the prophet doing the killing rather than merely ordering it.
Serious question: Viking, have even read the books you are quoting from?
Quote from: Viking on January 05, 2015, 08:05:53 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 05, 2015, 06:05:07 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 05, 2015, 04:06:13 PM
When did Muhammed behead anybody?
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_QurayzaNo woman of Banu Qurayza was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? She said: I I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. She said: The man took her and beheaded her. She said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed.
Sunan Abu Dawud 14:2665
WTF?
I have no idea what this says as the Wikipedia supplied translation is not in any form of cognizable English. However, it doesn't have Muhammad doing any beheading as far as I can see.
The underlying Quranic verse doesn't say anything of the sort.
It's from the hadith of abu dawud, so not the Koran.
The other hadith referenced int eh wikipedia article refert to beheading, this was the one that referred to the prophet doing the killing rather than merely ordering it.
And, given that this source, the closest you can find to showing Muhammad beheading people, does
not in fact refer to him doing any such thing, I think you have scored an own goal.
Again.
You are, at least, reliable.
Quote from: grumbler on January 05, 2015, 08:30:50 PMAnd, given that this source, the closest you can find to showing Muhammad beheading people, does not in fact refer to him doing any such thing, I think you have scored an own goal.
Again.
You are, at least, reliable.
Well... it says that "a man" beheads the woman. Maybe Imam Viking has the Qu'ranic scholarship to say with great certitude that "the man" in question is Mohammad. I myself am no scholar of the subject, and normally would expect the Hadiths to explicitly name the Prophet and use the customary honourifics, but if Imam Viking says otherwise, who are we to doubt him?
Kind of hard to argue that terrorism is a form of blowback when a people we saved from slaughter are now clamoring to kill us.
Richard Dawkins eats his own poop.
Quote from: Queequeg on January 05, 2015, 09:57:11 PM
Kind of hard to argue that terrorism is a form of blowback when a people we saved from slaughter are now clamoring to kill us.
Which people did you save from slaughter and now they are clamouring to kill you?
Psellus came up with an elaborate plot to save a pig using spider webs. Then the pig bit him.
Quote from: Queequeg on January 05, 2015, 09:57:11 PM
Kind of hard to argue that terrorism is a form of blowback when a people we saved from slaughter are now clamoring to kill us.
That is not the way Bosniaks see it.
At least this Imam is speaking out against the idea of joining the extremists of ISIL and other such groups. That he is attacked for it is no surprise, but I hope he continues to speak out and that many others join him. That would be good for Islam to try and impede this extremism that goes on to the detriment of Muslims who are among the main targets, and also for non-Muslims who are also savagely targeted.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 06, 2015, 07:12:31 AM
That is not the way Bosniaks see it.
How do Bosniaks see it?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 06, 2015, 09:23:32 AMHow do Bosniaks see it?
Their view is that the international community imposed an arms embargo on Yugoslavia while they were being massacred. The embargo didn't affect the Croats (who got guns through money laundering in Italy and allegedly the Vatican) or the Bosnian Serbs who were supported by the Yugoslav army (then the third largest in Europe) but did massively affect the ability of Bosniak forces to fight or to defend themselves.
Eventually Turkish and Saudi money (and fighters) were able to get through the embargo. The Bosniaks were in a better position to fight back and were starting to win battles. At that point (not when they were being killed) the international community basically stepped in and imposed a peace. The peace is still very contentious because one of its sad, pragmatic effects is that some ethnic cleansing worked. The other issue of course is that Dayton was only meant to last a year or so after which a Bosnian written constitution would go forward. Obviously nothing of that sort has happened.
It rankles that Srebernica is in Srpska, for example, and the only real acknowledgement of what happened there in Srebernica is whenever the international community go to have an event. But even then I've been told on the roads in Srpska from Sarajevo to Srebernica people put pictures of Karadzic and Mladic in house and shop windows. Similarly there are towns where I know people who've dug up mass graves of Bosniaks but the only memorial in the town is to the Serb heroes who liberated it.
Obviously that's a very partial version, but that's what I've been told Bosniaks think - I've friends who've worked in the international community who've explained their view when I see them. But their view and apparently it's an opinion shared by other internationals is that it's only a matter of time before there's another civil war in Bosnia.
Edit: The description of the arms embargo reminded me of the Spanish Civil War in a way.
They think they were winning?? :blink:
They'd reached a deal with the Croats and were very much on the offensive at the end.
Edit: See the map here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_Agreement#mediaviewer/File:1995_Croat_and_Bosniak_Counteroffensives.jpg
I remember the Croats being on the offensive, with their shiny new German artillery, can't say the same for the Bosniaks. My recollection is they were getting their asses kicked up to Dayton.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 06, 2015, 10:09:22 AM
They'd reached a deal with the Croats and were very much on the offensive at the end.
Edit: See the map here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_Agreement#mediaviewer/File:1995_Croat_and_Bosniak_Counteroffensives.jpg
Unpossible. Glorious Serb was stronk.
Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2015, 08:48:10 PM
Well... it says that "a man" beheads the woman. Maybe Imam Viking has the Qu'ranic scholarship to say with great certitude that "the man" in question is Mohammad. I myself am no scholar of the subject, and normally would expect the Hadiths to explicitly name the Prophet and use the customary honourifics, but if Imam Viking says otherwise, who are we to doubt him?
It says something in Arabic which has been translated rather poorly so unless there is a native Arabic speaker who wants to chime in I would hesitate to speculate further. However, according to the tradition somewhere between 500-1000 people were put to death so clearly Muhammad wasn't doing that on his own (nor was any single man). All the other Hadith have him ordering or approving or delegating, but not doing the executions himself.
I don't see how it makes any difference at all whether he swung the sword or ordered someone else to do so...why is that relevant to the question of whether or not he beheaded people? He was an important dude, so it is likely that had he wanted someone beheaded, he could simply order someone else to do it rather than do it himself.
If he neither beheaded anyone OR ordered anyone to be beheaded, than this Imam has a valid point. If he beheaded people OR ordered them to be beheaded, then he does not.
If the debate is between whether he did it himself or just had someone else do it for him, I don't see the grounds for a meaningful distinction.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 06, 2015, 09:36:31 AM
Their view is that the international community imposed an arms embargo on Yugoslavia while they were being massacred. The embargo didn't affect the Croats (who got guns through money laundering in Italy and allegedly the Vatican) or the Bosnian Serbs who were supported by the Yugoslav army (then the third largest in Europe) but did massively affect the ability of Bosniak forces to fight or to defend themselves.
Eventually Turkish and Saudi money (and fighters) were able to get through the embargo. The Bosniaks were in a better position to fight back and were starting to win battles. At that point (not when they were being killed) the international community basically stepped in and imposed a peace. The peace is still very contentious because one of its sad, pragmatic effects is that some ethnic cleansing worked. The other issue of course is that Dayton was only meant to last a year or so after which a Bosnian written constitution would go forward. Obviously nothing of that sort has happened.
It rankles that Srebernica is in Srpska, for example, and the only real acknowledgement of what happened there in Srebernica is whenever the international community go to have an event. But even then I've been told on the roads in Srpska from Sarajevo to Srebernica people put pictures of Karadzic and Mladic in house and shop windows. Similarly there are towns where I know people who've dug up mass graves of Bosniaks but the only memorial in the town is to the Serb heroes who liberated it.
Obviously that's a very partial version, but that's what I've been told Bosniaks think - I've friends who've worked in the international community who've explained their view when I see them. But their view and apparently it's an opinion shared by other internationals is that it's only a matter of time before there's another civil war in Bosnia.
Edit: The description of the arms embargo reminded me of the Spanish Civil War in a way.
This is interesting, but I'm going to be perfectly frank; my perspective on Bosnian Muslims isn't especially coherent or fair. It's one of the few weird little prejudices I have that is based on family tragedy and is therefore really unlikely to dissipate.
Quote from: Berkut on January 06, 2015, 11:58:40 AM
If he neither beheaded anyone OR ordered anyone to be beheaded, than this Imam has a valid point. If he beheaded people OR ordered them to be beheaded, then he does not.
No for the Imam to have a valid point, he just needs to show that ostentatiously murdering innocent civilians for show is not something Muhammad would approve of. Thus all the Hadith* about the execution of there Banu Quarayza - which concern execution of prisoners of war - are not relevant at all. It appears that Viking was making a more literal, pedantic point that in fact Muhammad did literally behead people, and in response to that point ( and that alone) it is also relevant to point out that the traditions don't seem to say that.
*The Qur'an itself does not contain that account. Even traditionalist Muslims acknowledge that the Hadith are not 100% beyond a shadow of any doubt reliable (as the Qur'an is presumed to be). Some more modern Muslims take an even more historically realistic view of the Hadith and view them as dubious indicators of actual historical data. It is not clear what the views of this Bosnian Imam are on this issue.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 06, 2015, 10:13:06 AM
I remember the Croats being on the offensive, with their shiny new German artillery, can't say the same for the Bosniaks. My recollection is they were getting their asses kicked up to Dayton.
The Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats (the Federation) were making significant gains in the spring and summer of 1995. I cannot remember the exact chronology but what I believe happened is that the Bosnian Serb offensive of 1995 (of which the Srebrenica atrocity was a part) comes to a halt once the Croatian army vaporises their northern flank by taking out the Croatian Serb breakaway state in late July and early August 1995. The Federation then takes the offensive and starts making substantial territorial gains, albeit with some assistance from Croatian army regulars crossing the border. As Holbrooke put, 'the map negotiation was happening on the ground'.
I have a number of Bosniak friends - people who crawled their way out of Srebrenica or lived through their apartment being mortar bombed in Sarajevo. They find it very hard to be grateful to the West for two weeks of airstrikes in 1995 because they remember the previous three years of being abandoned by the West and the three years of ineffectual diplomacy. Do not underestimate the sense of injustice they feel that despite being recognised as a UN member in May 1992, they were practically forbidden from defending themselves. This is not just lamenting the lack of foreign assistance; this is cursing active obstruction.
That said, most Bosniaks - in fact all the Bosniaks I know - despise the extremists. The beardies walking around in robes are un-Bosnian in their view, and they fear the wahhabist mosques popping up around the countryside.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 06, 2015, 12:10:17 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 06, 2015, 11:58:40 AM
If he neither beheaded anyone OR ordered anyone to be beheaded, than this Imam has a valid point. If he beheaded people OR ordered them to be beheaded, then he does not.
No for the Imam to have a valid point, he just needs to show that ostentatiously murdering innocent civilians for show is not something Muhammad would approve of.
Well, yes, that is correct, and that is more his underlying point I am sure.
Because beheading someone is not even such a terrible thing for a ruler to do or have done, under legitimate circumstances. Wanton slaughter of civilians is clearly more what this is about, and certainly what they guy was talking about.
Quote
Thus all the Hadith* about the execution of there Banu Quarayza - which concern execution of prisoners of war - are not relevant at all. It appears that Viking was making a more literal, pedantic point that in fact Muhammad did literally behead people, and in response to that point ( and that alone) it is also relevant to point out that the traditions don't seem to say that.
That is a good point.
I appreciate you letting me NOT be on the side of Viking on this issue. It was leaving a bad taste in my mouth...
QuoteThat said, most Bosniaks - in fact all the Bosniaks I know - despise the extremists. The beardies walking around in robes are un-Bosnian in their view, and they fear the wahhabist mosques popping up around the countryside.
That is indeed something to worry about, as it will only cause the areas Muslims to become more radicalized. The Sauidis do this stuff all over the world, as the Wahabis are Saudi, one of the pillars of their government, and proably really only tolerated in Saudi Arabia. But in western nations people apparently don't really sense the problem and probably regard them as just another Islamic sect.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 06, 2015, 10:49:06 AM
Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2015, 08:48:10 PM
Well... it says that "a man" beheads the woman. Maybe Imam Viking has the Qu'ranic scholarship to say with great certitude that "the man" in question is Mohammad. I myself am no scholar of the subject, and normally would expect the Hadiths to explicitly name the Prophet and use the customary honourifics, but if Imam Viking says otherwise, who are we to doubt him?
It says something in Arabic which has been translated rather poorly so unless there is a native Arabic speaker who wants to chime in I would hesitate to speculate further. However, according to the tradition somewhere between 500-1000 people were put to death so clearly Muhammad wasn't doing that on his own (nor was any single man). All the other Hadith have him ordering or approving or delegating, but not doing the executions himself.
The Hadiths are what people in the Umayyad Caliphate wanted Mohammed to have done anyway so what actually happened is unlikely to be accurately recorded by the Hadiths. Their purpose was not really to accurately do that anyway but to define a new religion distinct from the ones of the conquered peoples. The other problem is that until Arabic added all those nice little dots to indicate vowel sounds each word could be translated a completely different way, which is why there were so many Arabic dialects. So what the Quran and the Hadiths say is always debatable.
Yeah the arms blockade mostly just hurt the Bosniaks and it was a disastrous policy. A huge mistake by Bush 41. But, to be fair, the iron curtain had just fallen and we had no clue what we were dealing with. There were all these claims that the Balkans are just full of nutcases and the best thing you can do is try to contain the violence.
Quote from: Valmy on January 06, 2015, 01:22:28 PM
Yeah the arms blockade mostly just hurt the Bosniaks and it was a disastrous policy. A huge mistake by Bush 41.
A huge mistake by everyone involved.
QuoteBut, to be fair, the iron curtain had just fallen and we had no clue what we were dealing with.
Europeans knew precisely what they were dealing with, and that is why they were more than content to let the genocide occur in their own backyard. Again. At least Tony Blair had the
conjones to stand up to it.
The whole Balkan mess of the '90s is a perfect example why NATO has to remain in place, and the United States needs to be the primary driver behind it. You leave Europeans to their own devices, and they'll be back at their ethnocentric killing sprees again. Balls of Light, my ass. Fucking savages.*
*United Kingdom not included.
The UK fought a world war for the cause of Greater Serbia.
Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2015, 02:41:35 PM
The UK fought a world war for the cause of Greater Serbia.
The UK's war cause is still rusting at the bottom of Scapa Flow.
ah, ok.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 06, 2015, 02:46:25 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2015, 02:41:35 PM
The UK fought a world war for the cause of Greater Serbia.
The UK's war cause is still rusting at the bottom of Scapa Flow.
There's only a half-dozen left, the large majority were salvaged years ago.
IIRC some importance has been attached to it being one of the few sources of good quality steel plate, unaffected by radioactive contamination from atmospheric nuclear testing.
Sure, rationalize it away.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 06, 2015, 04:58:16 PM
Sure, rationalize it away.
Rationalize saving the world from slavery?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvimyridgehistory.com%2Fwp-content%2Fgallery%2Farmistice-in-the-new%2FTulsaWorld-Nov-11-1918-Germany-Surrenders.jpg&hash=fb0e0c0f087a31033733f39ebd5023e2cdae50c6)
Ooh, there's a sale at Penney's!
Well, I suppose this means that Viking is now rereading Sam Harris and trying to figure out why his slam dunk argument didn't work. Maybe if he can find the right article on RationalWiki that quotes documents he has no familiarity with and he'll eventually win us over.
Quote from: Warspite on January 06, 2015, 12:43:08 PM
That said, most Bosniaks - in fact all the Bosniaks I know - despise the extremists. The beardies walking around in robes are un-Bosnian in their view, and they fear the wahhabist mosques popping up around the countryside.
Yep. And there's lively competition between Turkish and Saudi 'versions' of Islam in Bosnia. On the other hand my understanding is that since the war there's been a rise of Muslim, Bosniak identity (and also Bosnian Serb and Croat identity). So while people in their late 30s often have names that are sort-of universal people born since the war are far more likely to have clearly Muslim, or clearly Serb names.
Having said all that though I wasn't in the countryside much (a few hours on a day trip) Bosnia is, in my experience, an incredibly liberal Muslim country. My friends out there say they've never been as drunk as when they attended a Bosniak colleagues wedding :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 01:42:04 AM
Well, I suppose this means that Viking is now rereading Sam Harris and trying to figure out why his slam dunk argument didn't work. Maybe if he can find the right article on RationalWiki that quotes documents he has no familiarity with and he'll eventually win us over.
oohh.. they even have a wiki page on it now
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beheading_in_Islamism
so far all I hear in return are ad-homs, red herrings and pathetic semantic arguments (of the kind it doesn't say behead, it say execute with sword bla bla bla)
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 04:53:08 PM
so far all I hear in return are ad-homs, red herrings and pathetic semantic arguments (of the kind it doesn't say behead, it say execute with sword bla bla bla)
:lol:
I also like who you have lately posted the wiki article that still doesn't really support what you want it to. :D
One of the more amusing things here is that Viking's attacks on Islam keeps getting beaten back by two Jews.
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 04:57:21 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 04:53:08 PM
so far all I hear in return are ad-homs, red herrings and pathetic semantic arguments (of the kind it doesn't say behead, it say execute with sword bla bla bla)
:lol:
I also like who you have lately posted the wiki article that still doesn't really support what you want it to. :D
If you missed the theological justification for beheading you in the article about islamist beheadings then you truly are wilfully stupid.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 05:26:13 PM
One of the more amusing things here is that Viking's attacks on Islam keeps getting beaten back by two Jews.
no, Malthus is trying to disprove that the catholics secretly edited the 10 commandments to remove the prohibition on graven images, I made no such claim, I claimed that catholicism had no prohibition on graven images, shrimp, mixed fabrics and ignores most of the other laws of Judaism. He is fighting against the strawman of paranoid protestant fundamentalists, which I am definitively not one of.
Joan is trying to argue that beheading isn't not not part of islam, while I may have not been as clear as I could have hoped the first time round, he seemed to argue that it was execution not beheading somehow disproved my central point that murdering people in the name of the religion is something the so called prophet did.
raz and garbon are just trolls and jacob and cc are hardly doing more than acting as the chorus of idiots.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 05:45:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 05:26:13 PM
One of the more amusing things here is that Viking's attacks on Islam keeps getting beaten back by two Jews.
no, Malthus is trying to disprove that the catholics secretly edited the 10 commandments to remove the prohibition on graven images, I made no such claim, I claimed that catholicism had no prohibition on graven images, shrimp, mixed fabrics and ignores most of the other laws of Judaism. He is fighting against the strawman of paranoid protestant fundamentalists, which I am definitively not one of.
Joan is trying to argue that beheading isn't not not part of islam, while I may have not been as clear as I could have hoped the first time round, he seemed to argue that it was execution not beheading somehow disproved my central point that murdering people in the name of the religion is something the so called prophet did.
raz and garbon are just trolls and jacob and cc are hardly doing more than acting as the chorus of idiots.
... and yet our valiant anti-hero fights on!
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 04:53:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 01:42:04 AM
Well, I suppose this means that Viking is now rereading Sam Harris and trying to figure out why his slam dunk argument didn't work. Maybe if he can find the right article on RationalWiki that quotes documents he has no familiarity with and he'll eventually win us over.
oohh.. they even have a wiki page on it now
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beheading_in_Islamism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beheading_in_Islamism)
so far all I hear in return are ad-homs, red herrings and pathetic semantic arguments (of the kind it doesn't say behead, it say execute with sword bla bla bla)
You know, I was thinking about this while eating pancakes, (some my best ideas come to me while eating pancakes), and it occurred to me that if Beheading was so central to Islam, you'd think they get along better in France a country where beheading is celebrated and made into a science.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 05:45:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 05:26:13 PM
One of the more amusing things here is that Viking's attacks on Islam keeps getting beaten back by two Jews.
no, Malthus is trying to disprove that the catholics secretly edited the 10 commandments to remove the prohibition on graven images, I made no such claim, I claimed that catholicism had no prohibition on graven images, shrimp, mixed fabrics and ignores most of the other laws of Judaism. He is fighting against the strawman of paranoid protestant fundamentalists, which I am definitively not one of.
Joan is trying to argue that beheading isn't not not part of islam, while I may have not been as clear as I could have hoped the first time round, he seemed to argue that it was execution not beheading somehow disproved my central point that murdering people in the name of the religion is something the so called prophet did.
raz and garbon are just trolls and jacob and cc are hardly doing more than acting as the chorus of idiots.
Well, I was curious how you saw this whole thing. Thank you for being honest. It is clear though, that there is no common ground here between you and your critics and struggle to even respect them. I really think that you can't comprehend that other people can actually disagree with you. My advice, stop listening to the Bill Maher podcasts.
Speaking as a paranoid fundamentalist Protestant, I have to say that I've never claimed that the Catholic church has abolished (or never had) the prohibition against graven images.
Still waiting to find out which 9 commandment I believe in.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 05:45:34 PM
Joan is trying to argue that beheading isn't not not part of islam
Sure its "part of" Islam.
Just as it is also "part of" the European Enlightenment, merci M. Guillotin. (hat tip Raz)
The real point though seems to have lost on you. One would think that humanistic liberal Westerners would celebrate the courage of this Imam, who appears intent on inculcating an understanding of Islam that does reject violence and is compatible with liberal values. But not so Viking. Because it would seem that for you the enemy is not Islamically-inspired violence, it is Islam itself and therefore any attempt to articulate an Islam that is peaceful and humanistic must be resisted as a danger, because it would allow the "disease" to survive.
And there we part ways.