Topic: Muslims wage war on all fronts

[Balthasar]

Christian students in Nigeria executed by Muslims

Some of the 'new' tactics of the filthy Jihadists; poisoning, killing school children and students... setting forest fire in 'infidel' territories. Have we heard of fores fire in Muslim countries? Never! Well, there are no forests left in those God-forsaken places.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-students-executed-by-boko-haram-in-nigeria-believers-pray-for-change-of-heart-82646/

Muslims lit European forest fires, eyes on WMDs – Russia’s security chief warns

http://rt.com/politics/fsb-chief-world-security-555/

[Ansgar]

Lord have mercy!

Well, there are no forests left in those God-forsaken places

Really?

Try and search for "Forests in Pakistan" on Google Images. The middle East actually have very beautiful landscapes.

[JamesRottnek]

Christian students in Nigeria executed by Muslims

Some of the 'new' tactics of the filthy Jihadists; poisoning, killing school children and students... setting forest fire in 'infidel' territories. Have we heard of fores fire in Muslim countries? Never! Well, there are no forests left in those God-forsaken places.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-students-executed-by-boko-haram-in-nigeria-believers-pray-for-change-of-heart-82646/

Muslims lit European forest fires, eyes on WMDs – Russia’s security chief warns

http://rt.com/politics/fsb-chief-world-security-555/

You seriously need to work through some issues.

[NicholasMyra]

Have we heard of fores fire in Muslim countries? Never! Well, there are no forests left in those God-forsaken places.

That's because Smokey the Bear is haraam.

[Shanghaiski]

Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim-majority country, has many rainforests on its islands.

[Balthasar]

Indonesia, Pakistan....yea, right! How long have these two countries been under Islamic occupation? Two, three hundred years. Give them a couple of more years and they will get rid of mother nature. First the trees and plants, next the animals, and then human beings. Isn't this very similar to CANCER? Yes! Islam = Cancer.

[Cyrillic]

Indonesia, Pakistan....yea, right! How long have these two countries been under Islamic occupation? Two, three hundred years. Give them a couple of more years and they will get rid of mother nature. First the trees and plants, next the animals, and then human beings. Isn't this very similar to CANCER? Yes! Islam = Cancer.

I laughed.

[Ansgar]

Indonesia, Pakistan....yea, right! How long have these two countries been under Islamic occupation? Two, three hundred years. Give them a couple of more years and they will get rid of mother nature. First the trees and plants, next the animals, and then human beings. Isn't this very similar to CANCER? Yes! Islam = Cancer.

Islam has been present in Indonesia for at least a thousand years.

[dzheremi]

Indonesia, Pakistan....yea, right! How long have these two countries been under Islamic occupation? Two, three hundred years. Give them a couple of more years and they will get rid of mother nature. First the trees and plants, next the animals, and then human beings. Isn't this very similar to CANCER? Yes! Islam = Cancer.

Eww! Look at how gross "Islam" is! That's a picture of an Indonesian rainforest. Doesn't it just make you sick...?

Seriously, deforestation is a huge problem in Indonesia, but unless I am completely off-base about this whole Islam and cause-and-effect thing, I am pretty sure illegal logging is not one of the five pillars of Islam. And China, where most of the lumber goes, has only 1.5-2% Muslims.

But nevermind that, I'm sure it's their fault somehow!

(Aren't there enough real things to be indignant about when it comes to the behavior of Muslims and their impact on the world without having to invent fake things? Y'know, the part where they slaughtering us with impunity and even Western support in Syria, Egypt, Nigeria, and elsewhere?)

[Theophilos78]

Contrast between Moses and Muhammad:

"When you besiege a city for a long time, making war against it in order to take it, you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an axe against them. You may eat from them, but you shall not cut them down. Are the trees in the field human, that they should be besieged by you? Only the trees that you know are not trees for food you may destroy and cut down, that you may build siegeworks against the city that makes war with you, until it falls." Deuteronomy 20:19-20

Whatever palm-trees you cut down, or left standing upon their roots, that was by God's leave, and that He might degrade the ungodly. Surah 59:5

[dzheremi]

How on earth does the presence or absence of palm trees 'degrade the ungodly'?  (Related question: Are people who find the Qur'an to be full of deep insight and spirituality high or something? I try to be respectful, but it's hard sometimes, given what a jumbled mess it seems to be...)

[Theophilos78]

How on earth does the presence or absence of palm trees 'degrade the ungodly'?  (Related question: Are people who find the Qur'an to be full of deep insight and spirituality high or something? I try to be respectful, but it's hard sometimes, given what a jumbled mess it seems to be...)

Muhammad and his army were supposedly given authority by their allah to do whatever they wanted once they captured a city. This would degrade the ungodly. In my opinion, this degrades and insults humanity. 

[dzheremi]

Amen. No disagreement about that here.

[Ansgar]

Seriously, deforestation is a huge problem in Indonesia

Isn't deforestation a huge problem everywhere?

[dzheremi]

Yes, but Indonesia was the topic of discussion, as it was one of the counterexamples to Balthazar's idea that Muslims are deliberately destroying nature. It's hard to make that same argument about deforestation in Brazil or somewhere else without so many Muslims.

[Ansgar]

Yes, but Indonesia was the topic of discussion, as it was one of the counterexamples to Balthazar's idea that Muslims are deliberately destroying nature. It's hard to make that same argument about deforestation in Brazil or somewhere else without so many Muslims.

You might be right, but since deforestation is a problem everywhere, Balthazar's claim that muslims should treat nature particulary bad, doesn't hold water. 

[dzheremi]

I agree.

[JamesRottnek]

How on earth does the presence or absence of palm trees 'degrade the ungodly'?  (Related question: Are people who find the Qur'an to be full of deep insight and spirituality high or something? I try to be respectful, but it's hard sometimes, given what a jumbled mess it seems to be...)

The Sahih International version of that verse reads: Whatever you have cut down of [their] palm trees or left standing on their trunks - it was by permission of Allah and so He would disgrace the defiantly disobedient.

[dzheremi]

The question remains.

If the absence of trees is a disgrace to the disobedient, what do we make of the fact that most desert regions of the world (i.e., the places most lacking in trees) are populated by Muslims?

[Theophilos78]

The Sahih International version of that verse reads: Whatever you have cut down of [their] palm trees or left standing on their trunks - it was by permission of Allah and so He would disgrace the defiantly disobedient.

Whatsoever palm-trees ye cut down or left standing on their roots, it was by Allah's leave, in order that He might confound the evil-livers. (Pickthall)

 Whether ye cut down (O ye Muslims!) The tender palm-trees, Or ye left them standing On their roots, it was By leave of God, and In order that He might Cover with shame The rebellious transgressors. (Yusuf Ali)

Your cutting down some of their palm trees and sparing others was by God's permission, and to put the wicked to shame. (Rodwell)

What palm trees ye did cut down or what ye left standing upon their roots was by God's permission, and to disgrace the workers of abomination. (Palmer)

What palm trees ye cut down or left standing on their roots, were so cut down or left by the will of GOD; and that he might disgrace the wicked doers. (Sale)

Whatever palm-tree you cut down or leave standing upon its roots, It is by Allah's command, and that He may abase the transgressors. (Shakir)

[JamesRottnek]

The question remains.

If the absence of trees is a disgrace to the disobedient, what do we make of the fact that most desert regions of the world (i.e., the places most lacking in trees) are populated by Muslims?

I think the question would really only arise if there were, today, a significantly smaller number of palm-trees in the Middle East than once there were.

[dzheremi]

Not really. It has to do with what the presence or absence of the trees is supposed to mean, not their absolute number. If God should allow or command the cutting down or retaining of trees as some kind of punishment to the disobedient, than we should ask how that's so. How is it punishment or disgrace or whatever? Is God saying "Look! I made them have trees! That will show them", and if so what does that mean? Is God saying "Look! I allowed you to cut down their trees! That will show them", and if so what does that mean? It seems like a nonsense verse. So much of the Qur'an is filled with this perhaps pretty-sounding vacuous babble. This is why I asked the related question that I did. I read things like this and as much as I want to be respectful because I know that Muslims really believe that this is the word of God dictated verbatim to a man that they hold in very high esteem, and I can definitely sympathize with how much it hurts to have your deepest beliefs scoffed at (after all, Muslims and the whole world alike do that to us on a daily basis), I find myself more and more sympathizing with the view of John of Damascus who mocked the Qur'an for its blatant incoherence and foolishness. It's something I struggle to put some kind of reasonable interpretation to, for all the time Muslims have spent trying to convince me that Islam is logical, reasonable, perfect, etc.

[JamesRottnek]

Not really. It has to do with what the presence or absence of the trees is supposed to mean, not their absolute number. If God should allow or command the cutting down or retaining of trees as some kind of punishment to the disobedient, than we should ask how that's so. How is it punishment or disgrace or whatever? Is God saying "Look! I made them have trees! That will show them", and if so what does that mean? Is God saying "Look! I allowed you to cut down their trees! That will show them", and if so what does that mean? It seems like a nonsense verse. So much of the Qur'an is filled with this perhaps pretty-sounding vacuous babble. This is why I asked the related question that I did. I read things like this and as much as I want to be respectful because I know that Muslims really believe that this is the word of God dictated verbatim to a man that they hold in very high esteem, and I can definitely sympathize with how much it hurts to have your deepest beliefs scoffed at (after all, Muslims and the whole world alike do that to us on a daily basis), I find myself more and more sympathizing with the view of John of Damascus who mocked the Qur'an for its blatant incoherence and foolishness. It's something I struggle to put some kind of reasonable interpretation to, for all the time Muslims have spent trying to convince me that Islam is logical, reasonable, perfect, etc.

I think I see what you're saying now; I thought that you were trying to make a comment about how the Qur'an proves Muslims are disfavored by God, because they have few trees in the Middle East.

[biro]

Not really. It has to do with what the presence or absence of the trees is supposed to mean, not their absolute number. If God should allow or command the cutting down or retaining of trees as some kind of punishment to the disobedient, than we should ask how that's so. How is it punishment or disgrace or whatever? Is God saying "Look! I made them have trees! That will show them", and if so what does that mean? Is God saying "Look! I allowed you to cut down their trees! That will show them", and if so what does that mean? It seems like a nonsense verse. So much of the Qur'an is filled with this perhaps pretty-sounding vacuous babble. This is why I asked the related question that I did. I read things like this and as much as I want to be respectful because I know that Muslims really believe that this is the word of God dictated verbatim to a man that they hold in very high esteem, and I can definitely sympathize with how much it hurts to have your deepest beliefs scoffed at (after all, Muslims and the whole world alike do that to us on a daily basis), I find myself more and more sympathizing with the view of John of Damascus who mocked the Qur'an for its blatant incoherence and foolishness. It's something I struggle to put some kind of reasonable interpretation to, for all the time Muslims have spent trying to convince me that Islam is logical, reasonable, perfect, etc.

They certainly wouldn't like this, then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zey8567bcg

  Clip contains a clip/song about being a lumberjack & loving trees.  -Serb1389

[dzheremi]

Not really. It has to do with what the presence or absence of the trees is supposed to mean, not their absolute number. If God should allow or command the cutting down or retaining of trees as some kind of punishment to the disobedient, than we should ask how that's so. How is it punishment or disgrace or whatever? Is God saying "Look! I made them have trees! That will show them", and if so what does that mean? Is God saying "Look! I allowed you to cut down their trees! That will show them", and if so what does that mean? It seems like a nonsense verse. So much of the Qur'an is filled with this perhaps pretty-sounding vacuous babble. This is why I asked the related question that I did. I read things like this and as much as I want to be respectful because I know that Muslims really believe that this is the word of God dictated verbatim to a man that they hold in very high esteem, and I can definitely sympathize with how much it hurts to have your deepest beliefs scoffed at (after all, Muslims and the whole world alike do that to us on a daily basis), I find myself more and more sympathizing with the view of John of Damascus who mocked the Qur'an for its blatant incoherence and foolishness. It's something I struggle to put some kind of reasonable interpretation to, for all the time Muslims have spent trying to convince me that Islam is logical, reasonable, perfect, etc.

I think I see what you're saying now; I thought that you were trying to make a comment about how the Qur'an proves Muslims are disfavored by God, because they have few trees in the Middle East.

Yeah, not really. I pointed that out as a logical consequence of trying to simply assign a meaning to this idea. Obviously, it makes little sense to simply say "less trees means more shame/disfavor/disgrace", or else we would be forced to conclude that Muslims are so damned by God (except those who live in forested regions like Indonesia, certain coastal areas of Iran, etc.), which makes no sense given the source of this idea. But then if it is somehow that more trees means more shame (as the verse says, essentially, that either way God is giving you permission to spare or cut down what you will), then what the heck were all those trees doing there in the first place, and wouldn't cutting down trees conversely be bestowing favor upon enemies? Just what is the relation here between trees and confounding or shaming the unbeliever? "Wow, Muhammad cut down our trees! I guess I believe in Allah now." (The jokester in me wants to say "That's what a sudden lack of oxygen to the brain can do..." God help me.)

I know already that I am overthinking this, and just so we're clear I don't really care either way (I won't be converting if our friend Fibonacci comes back to tell me how he sees the verse), it just strikes me as funny that something like this should be in the Qur'an at all when its adherents taut it as being incomparable to any other work of literature, perfect, layered with wisdom, etc. It's plain goofy. It's the sort of thing I think about in conjunction with the also Qur'anically-based challenge that those who disbelieve in Muhammad's message should try to bring something like it, the implication being that they will fail and hence be forced to admit that the Qur'an comes from God and blahblahblah. I read things like that verse and find myself in agreement, because never in a million years could I dream up something like that (because it's flipping ridiculous). But of course I don't see the implications in this admission that the Muslims do...quite the opposite in fact.