NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's something I wish to adress. Since 9/11 everyone has been scared to death of Muslims. Ohhh look, there's a Muslim, he's a terrorist... I think this has gone on for far too long. Here are a couple of points I wish to make:

1. True Muslims believe it is wrong to kill an innocent non-Muslim
2. Osama bin Ladin is a fundamentalist Muslim, not unlike the Amish or the KKK.
3. Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the SAME God. The only thing they debate about is prophets.
4. The most recognisable Muslim is: Mohammed Ali. He's not a terrorist is he?

Well that's my points on it anyway...

Hey asshole, what's wrong with the Amish? HAHAHA! You're not an asshole.

Anywho, I would say that one of the best things about being from the middle east would be you wouldn't have to worry about skin cancer on top of your head....because of the turbin.....god that was aweful *leaves thread*

Here's something I wish to adress. Since 9/11 everyone has been scared to death of Muslims. Ohhh look, there's a Muslim, he's a terrorist... I think this has gone on for far too long. Here are a couple of points I wish to make:

1. True Muslims believe it is wrong to kill an innocent non-Muslim
2. Osama bin Ladin is a fundamentalist Muslim, not unlike the Amish or the KKK.
3. Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the SAME God. The only thing they debate about is prophets.
4. The most recognisable Muslim is: Mohammed Ali. He's not a terrorist is he?

Well that's my points on it anyway...

Key to the image many people have equated with this group is the impact extremism has rendered in terrorist actions.
An interesting question would be what drives such fervent, often to the point of fanatical, behavior?

DP

Its unfortunate but I think everyone would say that Usama Bin LAden is the most Recognisable Moslim. Extremists always manage to become the most Representative to outside observers.

Ich weiß, daß ein moslemischer Kerl, den wir suddam benennen, diesen Zählimpuls tut?

It's Muhammed the Happy Arab, lets watch as he tries to board an airliner, but is quickly stun gunned.

Lets watch as he tries to buy watermelon, but is mistaken for a terrorist and shot at by the police

Lets watch as he asks directions from a white women, and then is kicked in the nuts.

Lets see....
1.True Muslims belive it is wrong to kill an innocent non-Muslim.
actually, that is why they are over there torturing and decapitating innocents over there ? okay....
2.Osama bin ladin is a fundamentalist Muslim, no unlike the Amish or the KKK.
well,fundamintalist Muslim, but since i dont know much about Muslims, i will assume he is a fundamintalist, he is unlike the Amish because the Amish dont declare Jihadas on any 'infidels', i cant say so with the KKK since they are very,very racist, and in their day they would murder african-americans freely.
3. Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the SAME God. The only thing they debate about is prophets.
untrue, Christians and Jews belive in God, whereas Muslims belive in Allah, the prohets are much diffrent though.
4. The most recognisable Muslim is: Mohammed Ali. He's not a terrorist is he?.
no,he is not a terrorist, the most recognizable muslim is probably Osama bin laden, or maybe Saddam, Mohommed Ali is famous though.


there are my views...

Its only a few muslim extremists eh? How would you explain the people crowding in the streets celebrating the deaths of 3,500 american innocents? If it was politians they were killing, i wouldnt be so bitter, but those were innocent people going to work like the do on any other day.

Have you actually seen any live coverage of the people celebrating the terrorist attacks? its more then just 100, its literally whole cities empited out into the streets firing off guns into the air.

Although i pity the muslims for what the americans are putting them through, i dont think they are handling it correctly. You cant blame evil dictators forever, people have the option of saying no, or just not comming forward and volunteering to suicide bomb embassies. If everyone refused Saddams orders hes most likely not going to kill them all to prove his point.

One more tasty little fact, did you know the people who highjacked the planes on 9/11 spent the last few hours of their life in a strip-club? How true to their religion are they really?

Geez. That would be the truth if it werent ... Lies.

Lets see....
1.True Muslims belive it is wrong to kill an innocent non-Muslim.
actually, that is why they are over there torturing and decapitating innocents over there ? okay....

The point being expressed is that murder is forbidden in the Qu'ran, just like it is in the Bible. Doesn't stop Christians murdering people, just as it hasn't stopped Muslims.

2.Osama bin ladin is a fundamentalist Muslim, no unlike the Amish or the KKK.
well,fundamintalist Muslim, but since i dont know much about Muslims, i will assume he is a fundamintalist, he is unlike the Amish because the Amish dont declare Jihadas on any 'infidels', i cant say so with the KKK since they are very,very racist, and in their day they would murder african-americans freely.

Within Islams own laws Osama bin Laden is unqualified to declare Jihad.

Further more the term has been taken out of context by Western ignorance. It can mean holy war, but it's most common and widely accepted usage is off a personal and internal struggle with ones own faith.

3. Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the SAME God. The only thing they debate about is prophets.
untrue, Christians and Jews belive in God, whereas Muslims belive in Allah, the prohets are much diffrent though.

Allah is God! Not a seperate deity. Allah means God, just as Johova means God and Yahweh means God. Islam is the sister of Christiniaty and Judaism.

Jesus Christ reverred as a prophet, a man of peace and a healer, and a great teacher according to the Qu'ran. The Qu'ranic Jesus differs only from the Biblical Jesus in that the former is not believed to be the Son of God and was not crucified.

Abraham, Moses, Adam, Noah, Mary they all are reverred figures in Islam. If you a Christian or a Jew you have more in common with a Muslim that you do with a Hindu or a Buddhist.

4. The most recognisable Muslim is: Mohammed Ali. He's not a terrorist is he?.
no,he is not a terrorist, the most recognizable muslim is probably Osama bin laden, or maybe Saddam, Mohommed Ali is famous though.

Saddam's is about as Muslim as I am! (ie. not.) He pays mere lip service to being a servant of Allah just to keep the population happy.

But I agree it was a rather silly point that just becaus Mohammed Ali ain't a terrorist there are no Muslim terrorists.

The most famous Christian is surely Jesus, and he was, by some definitions of the word and depending on who's perspctive you're looking at, a Middle Eastern terrorist.

Actually the Quran is one of the most violent of the 3 main religions as it regards treatment of heathens..in fact one of the suras basically states "Trust not the Jew or the Christian for they will try to lead you from the way"...The Quran is chock full of violent epithets toward other faiths. The Dimmi Laws made by the Caliphate as regards non-Muslims were abominable. I could go on..

Actually the Quran is one of the most violent of the 3 main religions as it regards treatment of heathens..in fact one of the suras basically states "Trust not the Jew or the Christian for they will try to lead you from the way"...The Quran is chock full of violent epithets toward other faiths. The Dimmi Laws made by the Caliphate as regards non-Muslims were abominable. I could go on..Wow. Ever read the bible? Ever look at an history book and at what happened in christian Europe? Does "crusades" ring a bell? "inquisition" maybe?

Actually the Quran is one of the most violent of the 3 main religions as it regards treatment of heathens..in fact one of the suras basically states "Trust not the Jew or the Christian for they will try to lead you from the way"...The Quran is chock full of violent epithets toward other faiths. The Dimmi Laws made by the Caliphate as regards non-Muslims were abominable. I could go on..

Doesn't the Old Testament say that prophets of other faiths should be stoned to death (along with a whole lot of other "sinners")? Judge people individually by their actions, not by what's in their religious texts.

Actually the Quran is one of the most violent of the 3 main religions as it regards treatment of heathens..in fact one of the suras basically states "Trust not the Jew or the Christian for they will try to lead you from the way"...The Quran is chock full of violent epithets toward other faiths. The Dimmi Laws made by the Caliphate as regards non-Muslims were abominable. I could go on..

Yeah, and the Bible's nothing but sweetness and light. Not a mention of God punishing people for *not* slaughtering women and children like they were told to, no "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", dear me no. :roll:

If anyone is looking for a positive image of Islam, they could do worse than investigate the Sufis. They are to Osama what the Quakers are to Lieutenant General Boykin.

Actually the Quran is one of the most violent of the 3 main religions as it regards treatment of heathens..in fact one of the suras basically states "Trust not the Jew or the Christian for they will try to lead you from the way"...The Quran is chock full of violent epithets toward other faiths. The Dimmi Laws made by the Caliphate as regards non-Muslims were abominable. I could go on..

The Qu'ran like the Bible is used to justify people's personal bigotry. There are numerous references to war and violence in the Qu'ran as there are in the Bible. There are numerous references to peace and forgivness in the Qu'ran as there is in the Bible.

Ignorance and corruption of the teachings of both.... and we have the situation we have today.

Well done.

Hey Guys..don't beat up the messenger..I'm a pagan after all...I'm more objective because of that fact..actually...I probably should be more biased against Christianity as that faith had been force-fed to the tribes from the moment the first white man stepped foot on the New World.

But from what I understand Christianity takes it's cue not from the Old Testatmetn as it does the New..the Old Testament is used as a historical backdrop to Jesus....But Jesus does speak of "The meek shall inherit the earth"..."They shall beat their swords in to plowshares"...etc...the New Testament is chock full of peaceful platitudes..not that those who practiced the faith ever gave it more then lip service.

But the Quran does indeed speak of blatant violence toward non-muslims thruout the entirety of it's book..so to say that Islam is a peaceful religion are flying in the face of it's own writings..Now...that is not to say that groups like the Sufis have not tried to reform the Moslem faith..but at present it has not had the Renaiisance it so desperately needs, in fact it appears that they are digressing to the days of the 7th century Caliphate.

The Dimmi Laws made by the Caliphate as regards non-Muslims were abominable.

:shock:

Dhimmi laws were in fact a protection to Jews and Christians in exchange for some extra taxes.

Look what was happening to non-Catholics in Europe at the same time. I'd rather be a Christian in Muslim Spain than Muslim in Christian Spain... :roll:

Its unfortunate but I think everyone would say that Usama Bin LAden is the most Recognisable Moslim. Extremists always manage to become the most Representative to outside observers.
I am willing to bet my last money that the most recognizeable and positively viewed Muslim is not Bin Laden, and that Bin Laden isn't even among the top ten. Especially if we count those who are no longer with us, like king Hussein of Jordan, may he rest in peace. Hell, even Omar Sharif is more popular that Bin Laden in the world.

islam is a religion of peace! "tonight on the ten o'clock news, suicide bombings in israel" you also mentioned muhammed ali? malcom x was also a muslim, and he advocated the murder of whites! :roll:

Hey Guys..don't beat up the messenger..I'm a pagan after all...I'm more objective because of that fact..actually...I probably should be more biased against Christianity as that faith had been force-fed to the tribes from the moment the first white man stepped foot on the New World.

But from what I understand Christianity takes it's cue not from the Old Testatmetn as it does the New..the Old Testament is used as a historical backdrop to Jesus....But Jesus does speak of "The meek shall inherit the earth"..."They shall beat their swords in to plowshares"...etc...the New Testament is chock full of peaceful platitudes..not that those who practiced the faith ever gave it more then lip service.

But the Quran does indeed speak of blatant violence toward non-muslims thruout the entirety of it's book..so to say that Islam is a peaceful religion are flying in the face of it's own writings..Now...that is not to say that groups like the Sufis have not tried to reform the Moslem faith..but at present it has not had the Renaiisance it so desperately needs, in fact it appears that they are digressing to the days of the 7th century Caliphate.

Fair enough, but "what it says in the book" should never be confused with "what the believers are doing right now". In fact, examination of "Islamic" suicide bombers tends to indicate that the majority of them are from middle-class, not-very-religious backgrounds. Most of them seem to have more in common with Harris and Klebold from Columbine High School than with Osama bin Laden. This might explain the pre-9/11 strip club, but it has important implications for how we view -- and combat -- so-called "Islamic" terrorists.

I'm Pagan also, and one of the things I believe in is not judging individuals because of their religion, and not judging religions based on the acts of its individuals. Terrorists are not violent because "the Quran says so"; that's just an excuse.

islam is a religion of peace! "tonight on the ten o'clock news, suicide bombings in israel" you also mentioned muhammed ali? malcom x was also a muslim, and he advocated the murder of whites! :roll:

The KKK claim to be Christian, and they went around murdering black people on a regular basis. Get a grip.

islam is a religion of peace! "tonight on the ten o'clock news, suicide bombings in israel" you also mentioned muhammed ali? malcom x was also a muslim, and he advocated the murder of whites! :roll:

The KKK claim to be Christian, and they went around murdering black people on a regular basis. Get a grip.

i dont care. every muslim is a filthy terrorist who wants to kill people, and thats that!

It depends on Islam's definition of innocent, which is: a Muslim. Iran is the centre of the intellectual movement of Islam and is the result of mainstream Islam.

The culture of chopping heads: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/20835.htm

These apologisers are becoming like the socialist apologisers. Maybe I should change my country's name to Islamist Apologisers and then you'd all have somewhere to live.

islam is a religion of peace! "tonight on the ten o'clock news, suicide bombings in israel" you also mentioned muhammed ali? malcom x was also a muslim, and he advocated the murder of whites! :roll:

The KKK claim to be Christian, and they went around murdering black people on a regular basis. Get a grip.

i dont care. every muslim is a filthy terrorist who wants to kill people, and thats that!

Whee! Bigoted generalizations! Okay, let me try:

*Ahem* "Every American is a fat war-mongering retard that wants to take over the world, and don't bother arguing with me because I don't listen to reason! :wink:

Hey Guys..don't beat up the messenger..I'm a pagan after all...I'm more objective because of that fact..actually...I probably should be more biased against Christianity as that faith had been force-fed to the tribes from the moment the first white man stepped foot on the New World.

But from what I understand Christianity takes it's cue not from the Old Testatmetn as it does the New..the Old Testament is used as a historical backdrop to Jesus....But Jesus does speak of "The meek shall inherit the earth"..."They shall beat their swords in to plowshares"...etc...the New Testament is chock full of peaceful platitudes..not that those who practiced the faith ever gave it more then lip service.

But the Quran does indeed speak of blatant violence toward non-muslims thruout the entirety of it's book..so to say that Islam is a peaceful religion are flying in the face of it's own writings..Now...that is not to say that groups like the Sufis have not tried to reform the Moslem faith..but at present it has not had the Renaiisance it so desperately needs, in fact it appears that they are digressing to the days of the 7th century Caliphate.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps I'm more forgiving of both books because I'm a Catholic and my ex-partner was a Muslim.

But it seems to me many extremist Christians are happy to quote the book of Leveticus to justify their bigotry towards homosexuals.

But yes the corruption of those who weild power has stagnated Islam, perverted it's message and held it's followers back, there is a huge cultural gap that we should really seek to address if we are to ever combat the terrorist actions of extremists.

islam is a religion of peace! "tonight on the ten o'clock news, suicide bombings in israel"

Judaism is a religion os peace! "Tonight on the ten o'clock news Isreali forces open fire into Palestinian refugee camps"

Wow, that was fun. See what I did there.

Christianity is a religion of peace! Look at those Leveticus Bible bashers boycotting seafood restaurants....

ill tell u a postitive muslim stereotype-

A dude that blows himself up whenever he feels like it. typical muslim.

i dont care. every muslim is a filthy terrorist who wants to kill people, and thats that!

My ex-partner was a Muslim. She was quite scrupalous with her hygiene and never once had cause to say to me "Does my bomb look big in this?"

Poor taste I know, but a poor taste was left in my mouth by the above statement.

It depends on Islam's definition of innocent, which is: a Muslim. Iran is the centre of the intellectual movement of Islam and is the result of mainstream Islam.

You have a peculiar, indeed wrong, view of Islam. Saying that "Iran is the centre of the intellectual movement of Islam" is like saying "the Vatican is the centre of the intellectual movement of Christianity". The Sunnis -- i.e. the majority of Muslims -- may have other ideas about Iran, just as Protestants of all varieties might have other ideas about the Vatican.

It depends on Islam's definition of innocent, which is: a Muslim. Iran is the centre of the intellectual movement of Islam and is the result of mainstream Islam.

You have a peculiar, indeed wrong, view of Islam. Saying that "Iran is the centre of the intellectual movement of Islam" is like saying "the Vatican is the centre of the intellectual movement of Christianity". The Sunnis -- i.e. the majority of Muslims -- may have other ideas about Iran, just as Protestants of all varieties might have other ideas about the Vatican.

The center of Islam, is and always will be Saudi Arabia...Mecca and Medina, two of the most holiest cities on the planet to them..unfortunately Saudi has become home to the Wahabbist school of thought for over a century and a half wherein a fundamentalist and indeed violent-prone streak has evolved.

There are many cases of Jihad and massacres in the Koran, their common vicitm is non-Muslims whose common crime is non-belief. One such massacre sanctioned by Muhammad is detailed here: http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13371

The Sunnis -- i.e. the majority of Muslims -- may have other ideas about Iran, just as Protestants of all varieties might have other ideas about the Vatican.

They may but on the essentials they are all in agreement. Non-belief is evil and must be punished. The Crusades were the logical conclusion for Christianity, as the modern Jihad on the West is for Islam.


Salishe,

That's why I said Iran is the centre of the intellectual movement.

The center of Islam, is and always will be Saudi Arabia...Mecca and Medina, two of the most holiest cities on the planet to them..unfortunately Saudi has become home to the Wahabbist school of thought for over a century and a half wherein a fundamentalist and indeed violent-prone streak has evolved.

It depends on what you mean by "Islam", but in general I agree that Saudi Arabia contains most of Islam's central locations. And the Wahabbists are a problem -- a kind of quasi-racist, anti-foreigner (i.e. non-Arab) as much as anti-unbeliever, offshoot of Islam.

I still think though that the role of Islam in the actions of suicide bombers, the 9/11 hijackers etc. is overstated. That may be the persona they choose to display; but -- as Columbine and other similar events have shown -- you don't need to be a fundamentalist religious nutcase to go on a suicidal killing spree, wearing funny clothes and shouting self-important nonsense. There's a lot more at work here than a simple "Koran say kill infidel!"

Since 9/11 everyone has been scared to death of Muslims.

Speak for yourself! I haven't been scared of muslims prior to or after 9/11, why should I? The only thing I fear are extremists, whether they are christian, muslim, jew, atheist, pagan or whatever.

Since 9/11 everyone has been scared to death of Muslims.

Speak for yourself! I haven't been scared of muslims prior to or after 9/11, why should I? The only thing I fear are extremists, whether they are christian, muslim, jew, atheist, pagan or whatever.

The Sunnis -- i.e. the majority of Muslims -- may have other ideas about Iran, just as Protestants of all varieties might have other ideas about the Vatican.

They may but on the essentials they are all in agreement. Non-belief is evil and must be punished. The Crusades were the logical conclusion for Christianity, as the modern Jihad on the West is for Islam.

You would think that, for a faith that you seem to feel is so "united on the essentials", they would get along with each other better. Instead, the Sunnis and Shi'ites hate each other passionately. The Arabs hate the Iranians, and vice versa too -- ethnic as well as religious dislike. Kind of hard for them to be the centre of "the intellectual movement" of Islam, wouldn't you say?

There are many cases of Jihad and massacres in the Koran, their common vicitm is non-Muslims whose common crime is non-belief.

Extremist evangalism is by no means the preserve of Islam.

1. True Muslims believe it is wrong to kill an innocent non-Muslim

*vide Qur'an: 9, 123 - The unbelievers round you, kill, and paradise is yours!”

Really against killing non-muslims?

But the Quran does indeed speak of blatant violence toward non-muslims thruout the entirety of it's book...

hmm, I'm guessing from this statement alone, that you've never actually read it, but instead are basing your argurments upon a few sound bites pulled out of the Qu'ran and only partially quoted, and taken out of historical context.

ie:
"Kill them wherever you catch them. . . " (2:191), ". . . But if they turn away, seize them and kill them wherever you find them. (In any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks." (4:89),

is quoted quite often, usually by the more militant Christians in an attempt to prove how violent Islam is. What they are failing to do however, is quote the entire surrah which is:

"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, for Allah does not love transgressors. Kill them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out, for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. But do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there. If they fight you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression and justice and faith in Allah prevail. If they cease, engage in hostility only against those who practice oppression. There is the law of equality of for the prohibited months, and so for all things prohibited. If any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress likewise against him. But be conscious of Allah and know that He is with those who restrain themselves" (2:190-194).

note the portion which reads, "Fight in the cause of Allah, those who fight you. " What is being explicitly spoken about here, is the right for a Muslim to defend themself against a transgressor, or oppressor. It also warns the Muslim to be wary not to "trangress limits", meaning to only fight so long as you are endangered.

taking a look into the bible, we can easily find many similar "sound bites" to take out of context, and use as a means to discredit Christianity, ie:

In Deuteronomy, the fifth book of the Torah, Moses shares this message from God as the Israelites prepare to enter the Promised Land: "I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh; with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the long-haired heads of the enemy." (Deut. 32:42)

"When the Lord, your God, brings you into the land that you are entering to possess, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you. And when the Lord, your God, delivers them before you and you defeat them, destroy them utterly. Make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them" (Deuteronomy 7:1-2).

"When your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying 'Let us go and serve other gods,' . . . you shall kill him, your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God. . . " (Deuteronomy 13: 6-10)

"When you approach a city to fight it, offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, all the people found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, besiege it. When the Lord your God gives it into your hand, kill all the men in it. Take as booty only the women, children, animals, and all that is in the city, all its spoils. Use the spoils of your enemies which the Lord your God has given you. . . Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. Do not leave alive anything that breathes" (Deuteronomy 20:10-17).

"Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But spare for yourselves all virgin maidens" (Numbers 31:17-18).

"I will send my terror in front of you. . . you shall utterly demolish them and break their pillars in pieces" (Exodus 23: 23-24, 27).

The New Testament attributes the following statements to Jesus:

"Do not think that I have come to send peace on Earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Mathew 10:34-35).

"I say to you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. As for my enemies who do not want me to reign over them, bring them here and kill them in my presence" (Luke 19:26-27)

In short, it's a petty and simple minded thing to attempt to discredit an entire religion based upon the actions of a few more militant members of that religion (or any group in general). Using one line quotes taken out of context, or by only partially quoting those quotes to discredit said religion is hardly ethical behaviour, and does more to further drive wedges between religious and ethical groups, driving the more moderate members of those groups more firmly to the "them" side of any conflict. A good example of how "intolerant" Mohammed was of other religions, is to look a t the pact with the Monks of Sinai, as pasted here:

"In 628 C.E. Prophet Muhammad (s) granted a Charter of Privileges to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt. Sinai. It consisted of several clauses covering all aspects of human rights including such topics as the protection of Christians, freedom of worship and movement, freedom to appoint their own judges and to own and maintain their property, exemption from military service, and the right to protection in war.

An English translation of that document is presented below.


This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.
Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.
No compulsion is to be on them.
Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.
No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.
Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.
No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.
The Muslims are to fight for them.
If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.
Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.
No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world)."

from: http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/charter1.html

just as an aside.

this is not to mean that the more militant member don't twist the Qu'ran, only that by doing the same, you validate their intolerance, and help to drive the wedge deeper.

1. True Muslims believe it is wrong to kill an innocent non-Muslim

*vide Qur'an: 9, 123 - The unbelievers round you, kill, and paradise is yours!”

Really against killing non-muslims?

Interesting that you're quoting from a BNP website.

If you're going to use out of context excerpts from the Qu'ran to back up your beliefs at least quote it properly.

Here let me help you old old chap

O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.

O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).

O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

As you are so knowledgeable please provide the rest of us with the context of the preceeding and following verses, and compare and contrast with the Biblical practise of the ancient Isrealites to execute and wage war with those who worshiped the false gods of the Ba'al pantheon.

Thank you.

Lots of good stuff...

... and snuck in before my post went through. Damn server.

The culture of chopping heads

Hmmm....

Two Islamic militant groups, Hezbollah and Hamas, issued strongly worded condemnations yesterday of the videotaped beheading of American civilian Nick Berg in Iraq.

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates became the first Arab governments to criticise the slaying and newspapers in the region, which initially gave little coverage to the gruesome video, began to excoriate the al-Qa'ida affiliated killers.

But Arab governments and Islamic militant groups, most of which have spoken out repeatedly about the abuse of the prisoners, initially kept silent. On Thursday, Lebanon's Hezbollah and the militant Palestinian group Hamas, labelled terrorist organizations by the US, said the slaying was un-Islamic.

Full Article Here (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=521094)

Now I'm not for a moment going to stand as an apologist for Hamas or other Islamic terror groups but look at what they're doing... using the Qu'ran to justify their politics. Just as other's use the Bible, Capitalism, Lenin, the complete works of William Shakespeare, whatever to justify theirs. It is not neccesarily an indication that such practises are being uses in pure form, or indeed especially with religious and centuries old texts like the Bible and Qu'ran one can argue what is pure from them.

The Dimmi Laws made by the Caliphate as regards non-Muslims were abominable.

:shock:

Dhimmi laws were in fact a protection to Jews and Christians in exchange for some extra taxes.

Look what was happening to non-Catholics in Europe at the same time. I'd rather be a Christian in Muslim Spain than Muslim in Christian Spain... :roll:

Actually, the laws were more about taxes then protection money. A Muslim at work explained it was the same tax amount that Muslims paid.

Its unfortunate but I think everyone would say that Usama Bin LAden is the most Recognisable Moslim. Extremists always manage to become the most Representative to outside observers.
I am willing to bet my last money that the most recognizeable and positively viewed Muslim is not Bin Laden, and that Bin Laden isn't even among the top ten. Especially if we count those who are no longer with us, like king Hussein of Jordan, may he rest in peace. Hell, even Omar Sharif is more popular that Bin Laden in the world.

Well popular and recognised are two different things.

I asked a Pakistani, a Kashmir, and an Afghan about who was most recognised.

All still have family back home(the Kashmir's family obviously moved to Canada) and frequently visit. They all said that Bin Laden was probably the most recognised name. Not everybody recognised Old King Hussein. But you have a decent chance with King Fahad or the Crown Prince......

You would think that, for a faith that you seem to feel is so "united on the essentials", they would get along with each other better.
If you believe this then you can see the necessary violence that comes from their faith. If two groups that follow the same religion are constantly warring, what do you think happens when they come across a group that doesn’t even follow the same religion? I don’t think that any culture that is torn on a contradiction can have individuals that get along with each other.

Kind of hard for them to be the centre of "the intellectual movement" of Islam, wouldn't you say?
Not at all. Germany was the centre for the intellectual movement of socialism with Kant, Marx and others paving the way for bloody dictatorships. Both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were socialist countries, whose ideas were fed by the intellectuals in Germany, and ended up waging war against each other. Their necessity to wage war came from the contradictions in socialism. Similar contradictions exist in all faiths and religions, and Islamists are proving in horrific fashion how faith and force go so well together.

1. Amish are pacifists. I'm an American Mennonite, and we all split off from the Amish, so I know.

2. Malcom X changed his views after visiting Mecca and becoming a true Muslim instead of a "Black Muslim". He began to support peacemaking and understanding (as well as social justice of course) before he was killed by his former Nation of Islam friends- or by the FBI :evil: .

3. Here's a true story:

I was taking my family to northern Ontario on vacation. We were two hours out of Toronto, on a fourlane limited-access highway. We pulled off for gasoline and a snack; I suspected the Pakistani brothers who managed the convenience store of light-weighting me on our purchase of cashews.

We took off at top speed. Five miles later I remembered I had left my wallet on top of the car while pumping gas. Of course, it was missing. We pulled off, and looked all along the roadway but found nothing.

We drive back to the convenience store and started looking around the service bay. One brother came out to ask if he could help. We explained our plight. He told his brother to mind the shop. That brother went to his knees in prayer for us.

With our helper we began beating the bushes for a couple miles up the road. A young catholic couple, wearing crucifixes, saw us and sked to help! They went further up the road and found the wallet. They and the store manager went through the weeds and brambles rescuing scattered Canadian bills. We ended up with the whole amount we had lost. No one would accept any reward.

We went back to the store; the brothers rejoiced together on their knees, saying "Allah ackbar...". Then they gave me a free bag of cashews to celebrate.

Kind of hard for them to be the centre of "the intellectual movement" of Islam, wouldn't you say?
Not at all. Germany was the centre for the intellectual movement of socialism with Kant, Marx and others paving the way for bloody dictatorships. Both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were socialist countries, whose ideas were fed by the intellectuals in Germany, and ended up waging war against each other. Their necessity to wage war came from the contradictions in socialism. Similar contradictions exist in all faiths and religions, and Islamists are proving in horrific fashion how faith and force go so well together.

There is a flaw in this neigther were alive at the time of Nazi Germany, also Marx wrote most of his works in London and, to a lesser extent, France. All intellectualism ended with the rise of Nazism because it was a reactive movement and it completely ended the art movements at the time (Bauhaus being the best example). You cannot name an intellectual in Nazi Germany.

If you believe this then you can see the necessary violence that comes from their faith. If two groups that follow the same religion are constantly warring, what do you think happens when they come across a group that doesn’t even follow the same religion? I don’t think that any culture that is torn on a contradiction can have individuals that get along with each other

The problem with this is that the Shi-ites and the Sunnis have not only recently discovered western culture. Back in the Early Modern Period the Ottomans were fighting the Persians (iirc) with far more fervour than in fighting the Christian/Catholic powers of Europe. Similarly, it can be argued the Catholic nations tried to stomp out Protestantism and heresy with more fervour than in fighting the Ottomans/Moriscos/et al.

2. Malcom X changed his views after visiting Mecca and becoming a true Muslim instead of a "Black Muslim". He began to support peacemaking and understanding (as well as social justice of course) before he was killed by his former Nation of Islam friends- or by the FBI :evil: .


Wasn't Malcolm X assasinated (if by the BP's) for saying that the Nation of Islam could work with the white civil-rights activists rather than seeing them as enemies?

2. Malcom X changed his views after visiting Mecca and becoming a true Muslim instead of a "Black Muslim". He began to support peacemaking and understanding (as well as social justice of course) before he was killed by his former Nation of Islam friends- or by the FBI :evil: .


Wasn't Malcolm X assasinated (if by the BP's) for saying that the Nation of Islam could work with the white civil-rights activists rather than seeing them as enemies?

That is the official story. Another versionh is that he was about to reveal sordid details about the private habits of Mohammed X.


But it is possible that he was seen as a threat to society by the FBI precisely because his new views had gained him mianstream credibility; they eliminated him on secret orders.

Just listen to what retired agents have to say about the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. even to this day, a man who was much more moderate than Malcom X, and whom the FBI was supposed to protect.

Kind of hard for them to be the centre of "the intellectual movement" of Islam, wouldn't you say?
Not at all. Germany was the centre for the intellectual movement of socialism with Kant, Marx and others paving the way for bloody dictatorships. Both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were socialist countries, whose ideas were fed by the intellectuals in Germany, and ended up waging war against each other. Their necessity to wage war came from the contradictions in socialism. Similar contradictions exist in all faiths and religions, and Islamists are proving in horrific fashion how faith and force go so well together.

There is a flaw in this neigther were alive at the time of Nazi Germany, also Marx wrote most of his works in London and, to a lesser extent, France. All intellectualism ended with the rise of Nazism because it was a reactive movement and it completely ended the art movements at the time (Bauhaus being the best example). You cannot name an intellectual in Nazi Germany.
There is no such flaw. An intellectual’s ideas can influence beyond his death, that is the main reason that we have heard of them: because they still have influence. You don’t consider Hitler’s speeches to be intellectual? You don’t consider his socialist policies to be influenced by Marx?

If you believe this then you can see the necessary violence that comes from their faith. If two groups that follow the same religion are constantly warring, what do you think happens when they come across a group that doesn’t even follow the same religion? I don’t think that any culture that is torn on a contradiction can have individuals that get along with each other

The problem with this is that the Shi-ites and the Sunnis have not only recently discovered western culture. Back in the Early Modern Period the Ottomans were fighting the Persians (iirc) with far more fervour than in fighting the Christian/Catholic powers of Europe. Similarly, it can be argued the Catholic nations tried to stomp out Protestantism and heresy with more fervour than in fighting the Ottomans/Moriscos/et al.
So you’re saying that Islam and Christianity are cultures of violence and murder? So you’re agreeing with me on that? The reason for the infighting as opposed to larger scale war is pretty clear: one is much easier to win than the other.

Do you think if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be more likely to strike a fellow Islamic state or would it strike Israel or America?

Should the West when confronted by an Islamic state with a nuclear weapon say to it: “but, Conceptualists said you were more likely to murder Muslims than us non-believers. Here look, this is what you did centuries ago… and this is what Christians did centuries ago…” You’re also evading the continued declarations of war against the West by the Islamic states and the terrorist groups they sponsor. They’ve already declared their intentions to destroy us. Why don’t you believe them?

I already knew that not all muslims were terrorists its just those few who give it a bad name

Kind of hard for them to be the centre of "the intellectual movement" of Islam, wouldn't you say?
Not at all. Germany was the centre for the intellectual movement of socialism with Kant, Marx and others paving the way for bloody dictatorships. Both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were socialist countries, whose ideas were fed by the intellectuals in Germany, and ended up waging war against each other. Their necessity to wage war came from the contradictions in socialism. Similar contradictions exist in all faiths and religions, and Islamists are proving in horrific fashion how faith and force go so well together.

There is a flaw in this neigther were alive at the time of Nazi Germany, also Marx wrote most of his works in London and, to a lesser extent, France. All intellectualism ended with the rise of Nazism because it was a reactive movement and it completely ended the art movements at the time (Bauhaus being the best example). You cannot name an intellectual in Nazi Germany.
There is no such flaw. An intellectual’s ideas can influence beyond his death, that is the main reason that we have heard of them: because they still have influence. You don’t consider Hitler’s speeches to be intellectual? You don’t consider his socialist policies to be influenced by Marx?

Yes an intellectuals ideas live on after their death. Only a fool would debate that. But I'm saying you cannot say Iran is a hotbed of intellectual debate by citing two completely different periods of German history. And citing Marx is wrong because non of his ideas were developed in Germany. Also the speeches I have heard of Hitler's are not in any way intellectual. They are full of bile and venom. Also I do not know enough about the Nazi economic theory, but Marx wasn't the only nor the first socialist by a long shot. And getting business on your side and heavily relying on them (and keeping them privitised) does not sound like a socialist economic theory. However if you can give give a link to prove me wrong I will eat humble pie.

If you believe this then you can see the necessary violence that comes from their faith. If two groups that follow the same religion are constantly warring, what do you think happens when they come across a group that doesn’t even follow the same religion? I don’t think that any culture that is torn on a contradiction can have individuals that get along with each other

The problem with this is that the Shi-ites and the Sunnis have not only recently discovered western culture. Back in the Early Modern Period the Ottomans were fighting the Persians (iirc) with far more fervour than in fighting the Christian/Catholic powers of Europe. Similarly, it can be argued the Catholic nations tried to stomp out Protestantism and heresy with more fervour than in fighting the Ottomans/Moriscos/et al.
So you’re saying that Islam and Christianity are cultures of violence and murder? So you’re agreeing with me on that? The reason for the infighting as opposed to larger scale war is pretty clear: one is much easier to win than the other.

Do you think if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be more likely to strike a fellow Islamic state or would it strike Israel or America?

I somehow think that common sense will override there. I doubt they will attack a neighbour because of a possible adverse effect. However I wouldn't rule it out. I don't trust those who fuse politics with religion especially for a number of reasons.

Should the West when confronted by an Islamic state with a nuclear weapon say to it: “but, Conceptualists said you were more likely to murder Muslims than us non-believers. Here look, this is what you did centuries ago… and this is what Christians did centuries ago…” You’re also evading the continued declarations of war against the West by the Islamic states and the terrorist groups they sponsor. They’ve already declared their intentions to destroy us. Why don’t you believe them?

Touche.

But I answering your generalisatioin that "If two groups that follow the same religion are constantly warring, what do you think happens when they come across a group that doesn’t even follow the same religion?" Of course the difference is that there are no clearly difined forces (as in the early modern period). Also I don't think that it is random that the two sides of Islam have decided to stop their warring and face the common enemy. Although I do not know the geographical spread of each sect.

Anyway I'm of to bed I clear up any sloppy think on my part tommorow.

Lets see....
1.True Muslims belive it is wrong to kill an innocent non-Muslim.
actually, that is why they are over there torturing and decapitating innocents over there ? okay....
2.Osama bin ladin is a fundamentalist Muslim, no unlike the Amish or the KKK.
well,fundamintalist Muslim, but since i dont know much about Muslims, i will assume he is a fundamintalist, he is unlike the Amish because the Amish dont declare Jihadas on any 'infidels', i cant say so with the KKK since they are very,very racist, and in their day they would murder african-americans freely.
3. Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the SAME God. The only thing they debate about is prophets.
untrue, Christians and Jews belive in God, whereas Muslims belive in Allah, the prohets are much diffrent though.
4. The most recognisable Muslim is: Mohammed Ali. He's not a terrorist is he?.
no,he is not a terrorist, the most recognizable muslim is probably Osama bin laden, or maybe Saddam, Mohommed Ali is famous though.


there are my views...

Few things wwrong with what you have just said.

1. The decapitators are fundamentalists like Osama Bin Ladin. They take the writings far too literally like some Christians. They think that Americans and anyone working with them is an infidel. That is far too broad and these men are bad. I don't like Osama at all.

2. What I meant was I was comparing fundamentalist RELIGIONS not practices.

3. Allah aka Jehova aka God. It's all the same thing. They all are connected.

4. Saddam isn't a Muslim. He is a Shiite if I'm not mistaken. And the fact that Mohhamed Ali is less recognisable is crap. I mean, I knew about him well before Osama Bin Laden.

Here's something I wish to adress. Since 9/11 everyone has been scared to death of Muslims. Ohhh look, there's a Muslim, he's a terrorist... I think this has gone on for far too long. Here are a couple of points I wish to make:

1. True Muslims believe it is wrong to kill an innocent non-Muslim

:arrow: yes

2. Osama bin Ladin is a fundamentalist Muslim, not unlike the Amish or the KKK.

:arrow: Amish?

3. Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the SAME God. The only thing they debate about is prophets.

:arrow: Not exactly. Christians (?) believe that Jesus was the son of God. We don't believe God has a son. Nor will he ever. We do believe Jesus as a prophet however.

4. The most recognisable Muslim is: Mohammed Ali. He's not a terrorist is he?

:arrow: True...true

Well that's my points on it anyway...

islam is a religion of peace! "tonight on the ten o'clock news, suicide bombings in israel" you also mentioned muhammed ali? malcom x was also a muslim, and he advocated the murder of whites! :roll:

Ahem. I could go out and start a huge flood and say I was doing God's work. Doesn't make it right does it? By the way I am not condoning the actions of FUNDAMENTALIST Muslims. I am trying to send a message that Muslims are not the problem. FUNDAMENTALIST Muslims and fanatical terrorists are the problem. And by the way, Mohammed Ali was a little bit more passive than Malcom X. I hated Malcolm X and I like the teachings of Martin Luther King a little bit more.

Since 9/11 everyone has been scared to death of Muslims.

Speak for yourself! I haven't been scared of muslims prior to or after 9/11, why should I? The only thing I fear are extremists, whether they are christian, muslim, jew, atheist, pagan or whatever.

Thank you very much. I'm hope you're proud to be with me and the few

3. Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the SAME God. The only thing they debate about is prophets.

Number 3 is wrong. Christians see Jesus Christ as GOD in HUMAN FORM. This means that he is GOD. However, neither Muslims nor Jews believe that Jesus is God.

Just because George Bush is a complete dumbass doesn't mean that all christians are...

First I’ll address the German, Russian, socialism argument.

A speech being full of “bile and venom” does not preclude it from the realms of intellectualism. Hitler was massively influential as a speaker and writer. This is why I include him as an intellectual. Remember, he was democratically elected, he did not seize power like most dictators, this requires some intellectualism. You are right that he then stifled any opposing intellectualism.


And citing Marx is wrong because non of his ideas were developed in Germany.
Most of an intellectual’s ideas are developed early in life, while Marx was in Germany and under the influence of popular German philosophies from Kant and Hegel.


citing two completely different periods of German history.
I’m not. It is one period culminating in the creation of Nazi Germany. The ideas from Kant, Hegel, Marx etc. were continued after their deaths by other Germans. The result was that the main political parties of 1930’s Germany were Nationalist, Socialist, or Hitler’s National Socialists (there’s a hint to his politics in the title of his party). Hitler said to the other two groups: you’re both right what we need is more control in both areas. The Nationalists and the Socialists could provide no argument against Hitler because he took both ideas to their logical conclusion. When two ideologies share the same flawed premises it is the more consistent that wins. So it was with Nazism vs Nationalism, and Nazism vs. Socialism.


And getting business on your side and heavily relying on them (and keeping them privitised) does not sound like a socialist economic theory.
What Hitler did was allow people to own their property and business but dictate to them what they were to use them for. This is state control of property, an individual owns the property in name only, he cannot dispose of it as he wishes. This is not much removed from Soviet Russia’s economics. Von Bismarck's program of Sozialpolitik was Marxist in nature. You can read more about the economics here: http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1484
And the whole of Mises’ ‘Omnipotent Government’ is free here:
http://www.mises.org/etexts/mises/og.asp

Another good resource for this is Leonard Peikoff’s book ‘The Ominous Parallels’.

All of this was just to show how one ideology can be separated and warring while causing immense destruction to the rest of the world. In this case: Socialism, in today’s case: Islam.


I'm saying you cannot say Iran is a hotbed of intellectual debate
I’m not saying this. Debate belongs in a free country not a brutal theocracy. Iran is the centre for the intellectual dictates of Islam, not debate. It has been ever since the 1979 theocratic revolution. During his first year as its leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, urging a Jihad against "the Great Satan," kidnapped 52 American diplomatic personnel and held them hostage. About a decade later, Khomeini issued his infamous Fatwa aimed at censoring, even outside his borders, any ideas speaking out against Islam. This was the meaning of his threat to murder British author Rushdie and to destroy his American publisher; their crime was the exercise of their right to express an unpopular intellectual viewpoint. The Fatwa was Iran's attempt, to stifle, anywhere in the world, the very process of thought. Iran, according to a US State Department report of 1999, is "the most active state sponsor of terrorism," training and arming groups from all over the Middle East, including Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Five months before 9/11, the world's leading terrorist groups united in a holy war against America, which they called "a second Israel"; their meeting was held in Teheran (capital of Iran).

You don’t consider Hitler’s speeches to be intellectual? You don’t consider his socialist policies to be influenced by Marx?

Hitler's speeches were anything but intellectual. A random hodge-podge of lies and raging emotive garbage, yes, but the last thing Hitler wanted to do was to prompt anyone in his audience to engage their brain and think. And let's not go down the Right-wing apologist's route of pretending that Hitler was "socialist". The National Socialists were no more socialist than the People's Democratic Republic of Korea is democratic. I'd be very interested if you could show any evidence for Marxist influence on Hitler's "policies" -- especially since the Nazis didn't really HAVE any economic policies. Hence the economic chaos of Nazi Germany.

On the issue of Iran being the "intellectual centre" of Islam: what evidence do you have to back this up? Given that Shi'ite thinkers will very often be rejected out of hand by Sunnis, and vice-versa, how will this intellectual dominance manifest itself? It's like expecting Protestant theologians to be deeply influenced by the Vatican.

Clappi,

Perhaps you missed my previous post, which explains Nazism as a form of socialism along with texts that elaborate further. They detail Marx's influence on Nazi economics. You can also look up Von Bismarck's program of Sozialpolitik. I also give examples of Iran's intellectual impact on Islamic terrorists, who operate throughout the Middle East.

This is a war of ideas that the West is losing badly and doesn't even want to admit is in.

Funny, and there was me thinking Hitler said that Marxism was merely a jewish plot for world domination.

Clappi,

Perhaps you missed my previous post, which explains Nazism as a form of socialism along with texts that elaborate further. They detail Marx's influence on Nazi economics. You can also look up Von Bismarck's program of Sozialpolitik. I also give examples of Iran's intellectual impact on Islamic terrorists, who operate throughout the Middle East.

This is a war of ideas that the West is losing badly and doesn't even want to admit is in.

Your argument that Nazism was a form of socialism revolves around the fact that they had the word "socialist" in their title. If you can tell me how the People's Democratic Republic of Korea is democratic, then I might accept that the National Socialists were socialist.

You also maintain that Hitler was an intellectual. George W Bush was democratically elected (sort of), and I wouldn't call him an intellectual. Hitler got around 30% of the German vote, and achieved overall power through a coup d'etat. An examination of his foam-flecked speeches and diatribes leads one to conclude that intellect was not his, nor his supprters', strong suit -- hence the massive reliance on heady imagery, emotion and bare-faced lies.

The Islamic revolution in Iran, against the Shah's bloody police state, was and is something of an inspiration to Islamic and other revolutionaries around the world, I'll grant you; not surprising since it exemplifies the successful overthrow of a dictatorship imposed and supported by the West. Most of the Muslim world suffers under similar regimes. But Iran is in no way the "intellectual centre of Islam". Why do you think Iran and the Taliban spent so long exchanging gunfire across the Iran-Afghan border?

I am no fan of Iran, Islam or organised religion in general. But I think that Iran, if properly handled by the West, could be the most hopeful regime in the whole middle east. If we can stop shooting off our mouths about it being part of an "axis of evil", recognise and confront its excesses and at the same time support and sustain its achievements -- a proto-democracy, including votes, education and potential political office for women -- it might, in time, become a model of a home-grown form of democracy which can work in the Muslim world, rather than a fake, imposed democracy transplanted wholesale onto a make-believe nation.

3. Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the SAME God. The only thing they debate about is prophets.

Number 3 is wrong. Christians see Jesus Christ as GOD in HUMAN FORM. This means that he is GOD. However, neither Muslims nor Jews believe that Jesus is God.

No.... They believe in the same God... It's the debate about whether Jesus was the son of God or a prophet or whether Mohammed surpassed him. OTher than that there is no difference. Plus there's plenty of interpretations on whether Jesus is God etc. Depends which religion you belong to. I myself am a follower of the Taoist philosophy, so I don't really have an opinion on the matter of Jesus being God etc.