Davoud wrote:
L.A.T.:

What does the glorious whatever say about sex?

It says that if you happen to capture yourself a woman during your
glorious military campaigns against the infidels, you can't just go
ahead and use her and then discard her. No, you have to actually keep
her and take care of her.

Sura 4, verse 24.

Thus, by reading the glorious Quran, one can indeed be fully apprised
of the extent to which Islam is true and valid.


This in contrast with Judaism, which says (Deuteronomy, 21:10-14) that
you may take your enemy's woman and rape her (after she has mourned her
parents, whom you have slain, for one month). After you rape rape her
you may cast her out, but you can't sell her (like you can other women
who don't please you).

Don't forget that it is forbidden to plow with an ox and a donkey; to
plant more than one species of grape in the same vineyard; to wear flax
and wool together.

If you rape an unmarried virgin you must pay her father 100 shekels and
you must marry her and you may not divorce her ever.

If you marry a woman and you claim that she was not a virgin on the
wedding night, burden of proof rests with her parents. If they can
prove that she was a virgin you will be chastised. If they cannot prove
that she was a virgin, she will be stoned to death.

And the nonsense goes on and on. And this is what would-be President
Mike Huckabee thinks ought to replace the Constitution!

Thank god for atheism. Long live secular humanism -- morality without
the bull****.

Davoud


I appreciate your contextualization of this, Davoud, so hopefully you
will appreciate mine. While it is clear that the original sense of the
laws in Judaism were capricious, there were around sixteen hundred years
between the Torah and the Q'uran. Sixteen hundred years. Roughly the
same amount of time as between Constantine and us.

Smack in the middle, and well known to the prophet, was the life of
Jesus. It is instructive to consider that his interpretation of the law
was infinitely more gentle than the guidelines given through Mohammed.
He protects a woman from the death penalty for adultery, he states that
love and brotherhood are the intent and spirit of the law and are more
important than the rituals and strictures. Most importantly, he said to
turn the other cheek. This was not Jericho. This was not Judah. This was
new and radical. Jesus was a pacifist who believed, at least to some
extent, in separating religion and politics. Early christianity was
docile enough for the Romans to find it contemptible - it needed
Augustine's brilliance to find a way to reconcile it to a theory of just
war. It was a difficult fit then and remains so today.

In contrast, Mohammed's behavior after Khyber was hideous - cruel,
brutal and revolting. Q'uran justifies his actions, and Hadith lauds them.

How do you feel about it? Do you see no fundamental difference between
him and Jesus?

As for secular humanism, your version of it rests heavily on 3000 years
of religious tradition. Having seen as much of the world as you, and
perhaps knowing a bit more about the past, I am deeply sceptical of
humanity's ability to define morality outside of any religious context.
Most who tried to do so were unpopular or brutal. Take your pick.

Chris