NationStates Jolt Archive

""How can I train for Jihad?" http://www.muskurahat.com/islam/teachjihad.asp

As far as I can tell Muskurahat.com (http://www.muskurahat.com/) is a legitimate Pakistani/Islamic website.

How does this Jibe with the “taqiyya"/"kitman” of Islam as a "Religion of Peace"?

Just wondering...

""How can I train for Jihad?" http://www.muskurahat.com/islam/teachjihad.asp

As far as I can tell Muskurahat.com (http://www.muskurahat.com/) is a legitimate Pakistani/Islamic website.

How does this Jibe with the “taqiyya"/"kitman” of Islam as a "Religion of Peace"?

Just wondering...

Probably written by some Muslims that take Jihad too extremely. Here's a post I did earlier about what Jihad really is.

Jihad is a struggle. Jihad is defending one's own religion when it is in peril. But Jihad does not mean violence. There are other kinds of Jihad. Jihad is when a Muslim has to overcome something that is troubling them like a sex drive or other sudden urges. A Muslim must perform Jihad when one is trying to stop oneself from breaking a fast. Jihad does not mean violence, it means an inner holy struggle.

Probably written by some Muslims that take Jihad too extremely. Here's a post I did earlier about what Jihad really is.
Perhaps, but JIHAD is a CENTRAL DUTY of every Muslim. Modern Muslim theologians have spoken of many things as jihads: defending the faith from critics, supporting its growth and defense financially, even migrating to non-Muslim lands for the purpose of spreading Islam. But in Islamic history and doctrine violent jihad is founded on numerous verses of the Qur'an — most notably, one known in Islamic theology as the "Verse of the Sword": "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful" (Sura 9:5). Establishing "regular worship" and paying the "poor-due" (zakat) means essentially that they will become Muslim, as these are two of the central responsibilities of every Muslim.

Sahih Bukhari, which Muslims regard as the most trustworthy of all the many collections of traditions of Muhammad, records this statement of the Prophet: "Allah assigns for a person who participates in (holy battles) in Allah's Cause and nothing causes him to do so except belief in Allah and in His Messengers, that he will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr)."

Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that "in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force." In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with "power politics," because Islam is "under obligation to gain power over other nations."

Violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history. The passages quoted above and many others like them form a major element of the motivation of jihad warriors worldwide today. No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad. The theology of jihad, with all its assumptions about unbelievers‚ lack of human rights and dignity, is available today as a justification for anyone with the will and the means to bring it to life.

Perhaps, but JIHAD is a CENTRAL DUTY of every Muslim. Modern Muslim theologians have spoken of many things as jihads: defending the faith from critics, supporting its growth and defense financially, even migrating to non-Muslim lands for the purpose of spreading Islam. But in Islamic history and doctrine violent jihad is founded on numerous verses of the Qur'an — most notably, one known in Islamic theology as the "Verse of the Sword": "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful" (Sura 9:5). Establishing "regular worship" and paying the "poor-due" (zakat) means essentially that they will become Muslim, as these are two of the central responsibilities of every Muslim.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8336914&postcount=290

Sahih Bukhari, which Muslims regard as the most trustworthy of all the many collections of traditions of Muhammad, records this statement of the Prophet: "Allah assigns for a person who participates in (holy battles) in Allah's Cause and nothing causes him to do so except belief in Allah and in His Messengers, that he will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr)."

Your point?

Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that "in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force." In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with "power politics," because Islam is "under obligation to gain power over other nations."

I'd like a source. Islam did/does/will not spread by the sword.

Violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history. The passages quoted above and many others like them form a major element of the motivation of jihad warriors worldwide today. No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad. The theology of jihad, with all its assumptions about unbelievers‚ lack of human rights and dignity, is available today as a justification for anyone with the will and the means to bring it to life.

Jihad is only initiated when Islam is directly under an imminent threat that brings danger to the religion. It can't be initiated as an offensive maneuver, it always starts as self-defense.

Perhaps, but JIHAD is a CENTRAL DUTY of every Muslim. Modern Muslim theologians have spoken of many things as jihads: defending the faith from critics, supporting its growth and defense financially, even migrating to non-Muslim lands for the purpose of spreading Islam. But in Islamic history and doctrine violent jihad is founded on numerous verses of the Qur'an — most notably, one known in Islamic theology as the "Verse of the Sword": "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful" (Sura 9:5). Establishing "regular worship" and paying the "poor-due" (zakat) means essentially that they will become Muslim, as these are two of the central responsibilities of every Muslim.

Sahih Bukhari, which Muslims regard as the most trustworthy of all the many collections of traditions of Muhammad, records this statement of the Prophet: "Allah assigns for a person who participates in (holy battles) in Allah's Cause and nothing causes him to do so except belief in Allah and in His Messengers, that he will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr)."

Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that "in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force." In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with "power politics," because Islam is "under obligation to gain power over other nations."

Violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history. The passages quoted above and many others like them form a major element of the motivation of jihad warriors worldwide today. No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad. The theology of jihad, with all its assumptions about unbelievers‚ lack of human rights and dignity, is available today as a justification for anyone with the will and the means to bring it to life.


Ok, so you're not really interested in views from muslims (surprise, surprise). Your mind seems quite made up. Pointless.

How does this Jibe with the “taqiyya"/"kitman” of Islam as a "Religion of Peace"?


Being a religion of peace does not mean being cattle. Without freedom, there is no peace, hence it is essential to be prepared to deal with those who would seek to oppress you.

Military training, also, does not mean terrorist training.

I am a pacifist. I am a man of peace. However, I am fully aware that there are people in the world who would like nothing more than to see me a slave or dead simply because of my faith. Hence, it is essential that I remain as physically fit as possible and that I am prepared for any such eventuality.

Islam is a religion of peace. It is a religion of tolerance and acceptance and forgiveness. Allah commands we treat others with respect and deference, but if someone declares war on us, we will fight back - relentlessly.

Perhaps, but JIHAD is a CENTRAL DUTY of every Muslim. Modern Muslim theologians have spoken of many things as jihads: defending the faith from critics, supporting its growth and defense financially, even migrating to non-Muslim lands for the purpose of spreading Islam. But in Islamic history and doctrine violent jihad is founded on numerous verses of the Qur'an — most notably, one known in Islamic theology as the "Verse of the Sword": "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful" (Sura 9:5). Establishing "regular worship" and paying the "poor-due" (zakat) means essentially that they will become Muslim, as these are two of the central responsibilities of every Muslim.

Sahih Bukhari, which Muslims regard as the most trustworthy of all the many collections of traditions of Muhammad, records this statement of the Prophet: "Allah assigns for a person who participates in (holy battles) in Allah's Cause and nothing causes him to do so except belief in Allah and in His Messengers, that he will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr)."

Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that "in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force." In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with "power politics," because Islam is "under obligation to gain power over other nations."

Violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history. The passages quoted above and many others like them form a major element of the motivation of jihad warriors worldwide today. No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad. The theology of jihad, with all its assumptions about unbelievers‚ lack of human rights and dignity, is available today as a justification for anyone with the will and the means to bring it to life.

You obviously don't actually want to hear from any Muslims. You're just looking to start an argument.

I'd like a source. Islam did/does/will not spread by the sword.


Well, we could start with Timur's annihilation of Delhi. In 1398 Timur invaded India on the pretext that the Muslim sultans of Delhi were showing excessive tolerance to their Hindu subjects. He crossed the Indus River on September 24 and, leaving a trail of carnage, marched on Delhi. The army of Delhi sultan Mahmud Tughluq was destroyed at Panipat on December 17,and Delhi was reduced to a mass of ruins, from which it took more than century to emerge.

Timur evidently believed that the Sultan of Delhi (a Muslim) wasn't being Muslim enough, and wasn't converting the Hindus (or killing the ones who didn't convert).

Hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered by sword.

Of course, Charlemagne did the same thing - but on behalf of Christianity. Not sure if it was just as many people.

Well, we could start with Timur's annihilation of Delhi. In 1398 Timur invaded India on the pretext that the Muslim sultans of Delhi were showing excessive tolerance to their Hindu subjects. He crossed the Indus River on September 24 and, leaving a trail of carnage, marched on Delhi. The army of Delhi sultan Mahmud Tughluq was destroyed at Panipat on December 17,and Delhi was reduced to a mass of ruins, from which it took more than century to emerge.

Timur evidently believed that the Sultan of Delhi (a Muslim) wasn't being Muslim enough, and wasn't converting the Hindus (or killing the ones who didn't convert).

Hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered by sword.

Of course, Charlemagne did the same thing - but on behalf of Christianity. Not sure if it was just as many people.
I don't think the vast majority of the billion Muslims on Earth were forced to convert.

I don't think the vast majority of the billion Muslims on Earth were forced to convert.

Neither do I. But I don't believe that it "never" happened. Most religious belief systems have had their violent adherents, and Islam is no exception.

Neither is Christianity.

Timur evidently believed that the Sultan of Delhi (a Muslim) wasn't being Muslim enough, and wasn't converting the Hindus (or killing the ones who didn't convert).


Mm ... yes. There have been a few events in the history of Islam where some zealot got a little power and went out and started going nuts thinking they were the "righteous hand of Allah".

They were wrong. As a matter of fact, look up Timur's death and what happened afterwards. Doesn't matter, though, as Timur was completely off his rocker.

Timur ... a neat thing to bring up, WL. I've read about him and the Jalayirids. Now *that* would make for a fascinating epic Hollywood film.

""How can I train for Jihad?" http://www.muskurahat.com/islam/teachjihad.asp

As far as I can tell Muskurahat.com (http://www.muskurahat.com/) is a legitimate Pakistani/Islamic website.

How does this Jibe with the “taqiyya"/"kitman” of Islam as a "Religion of Peace"?

Just wondering...

You're a flame-baiting idiot, you know that Syniks? All religions are a matter of interpritation, and there's always violet idiots who'll interpret ANYTHING as 'We should kill everyone who disagrees with us'. Look at Jack Chick, the man who says Dungeons and Dragons is training for witchcraft. Should we take that to mean ALL Christians are utter idiots? You're an American, and most of your posts are right-wing racist tripe, so should I take that to mean all Americans are assholes like you?

I don't quite understand where you get off on these pointless anti-islamic crusades of yours. They're childish, petulant and pointless. Personally, even though I'm not a muslim and not religious in the slightest, I can still respect others views and understand that, just possibly, there is the slightest possibility that just because someone is a muslim doesn't automatically mean they're a crazed suicide bomber with the morals of a serial rapist. Just as I'm able to understand that not all conservatives are corrupt greedy neo-nazis, and not all Americans are hopelessly overwieght idiots with a mindless hatred of anything that isn't exactly the same as them.

Mm ... yes. There have been a few events in the history of Islam where some zealot got a little power and went out and started going nuts thinking they were the "righteous hand of Allah".

They were wrong. As a matter of fact, look up Timur's death and what happened afterwards. Doesn't matter, though, as Timur was completely off his rocker.

Timur ... a neat thing to bring up, WL. I've read about him and the Jalayirids. Now *that* would make for a fascinating epic Hollywood film.

He was my favorite historical figure.

You're a flame-baiting idiot, you know that Syniks? All religions are a matter of interpritation, and there's always violet idiots who'll interpret ANYTHING as 'We should kill everyone who disagrees with us'. Look at Jack Chick, the man who says Dungeons and Dragons is training for witchcraft. Should we take that to mean ALL Christians are utter idiots? You're an American, and most of your posts are right-wing racist tripe, so should I take that to mean all Americans are assholes like you?

That reminds me of Family Guy.

"Hmm... a girl answered a math problem. You know what that means... SHE'S A WITCH!"

The point is that this a specific text advocating violent Jihad with no rationalle besides belief, for present material, or afterlife, gain. Not too peaceful that.

[quote]I'd like a source. Islam did/does/will not spread by the sword.
I gave the source. I suppose when I get home I can dig up the page number.

Jihad is only initiated when Islam is directly under an imminent threat that brings danger to the religion. It can't be initiated as an offensive maneuver, it always starts as self-defense.

Maybe you should show a source for that opinion. I know that is the opinion of many moderate muslims, but it is historicaly and textually counterfactual.
How about nearly 400 years of Islamic seizure of lands formerly occupied by non-muslims in Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt, North Africa? The Jihad that promoted and justified the conquest of those vast territories in early Islam and subsequently led to the subjugation, by the Muslim Arab conquerors, of far more numerous, settled populations of non-Muslims. In turn, this that led to the institution now known as “dhimmitude,” under which those non-Muslims, those who were not killed or forcibly converted, were treated as “dhimmis” (from “ahl al-dhimma” or “people of the Pact”). Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the legal superstructure that global jihadists are laboring to restore everywhere in the Islamic world, and wish ultimately to impose on the entire human race. Here are some sources (from a self-proclaimed "moderate" muslim advocacy group - CAIR)
Omar M. Ahmad, CAIR's Board Chairman: "Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth." (Ahmad began to deny having said this, over five years after it was first reported, but the original reporter sticks by her story.)

Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR spokesman: "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future."


But none of that counters the fact that No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad... mininterpreted or not.

You obviously don't actually want to hear from any Muslims. You're just looking to start an argument.
Actually, I am looking for solid refutation of my points. That is what is known as debate.

Speaking purely out of respect for the faith of Islam and its true tenets, Islam is a religion of holiness above all else. That is why the tenets are so strict- they believe that the path to righteousness is strictly given in the Quran. They will fight, not just as individual terror cells, but as a whole religion, if the religious heirarchy deems a threat powerful enough. Currently, it's over-zealous extremists (comparable to the morons at Westboro Baptist Church or one of those "animal rights" terror groups) who are waging holy war, or jihad, on Western ideals. The more peaceful types are trying to spread their religion to the west, much like Christians do to poor areas of the world. The two religions are so similar in their belief structures. The only thing that really sets Islam apart from Christianity, is the Christian view in the divinity of Christ. After all, they are both worshipping the God of Abraham, whom the faithful of Judahism also worship. As a practicing Jew, I maintain my own religious duties while also learning about other religions, to better understand what goes on in this world. Despite what the truly foolish say, religion will still be a driving force for a very long time. According to what I believe, until the end of humanity.

I think what happens is we Americans tend to lump all Christians either into the pile of "racist homophobic bastards" or "the right way of doing things" and all Muslims either into "Warmongering jihaddi anti-Americans" or "Religion of Peace". They forget there is a middle ground, and that very few people are out on those far extremes. Yes there are people in the KKK who claim Christianity as their faith but if you look at either the true (literal) tenets, or the most common tenets, of the religion you will see that they are pretty far off on their views. There is a middle ground in Islam as well. Most of them are neither burning a flag right now nor are they planning to save the world, they are living the lives ordinary to their people.

We are not that different as Americans from them. We're all still human and have souls. And most of us want to live decently. It's just the few that can make a whole society take a prejudiced view.

I know that is the opinion of many moderate muslims, but it is historicaly and textually counterfactual.

Then maybe you should ask a secular Muslim or a fundamentalist.

Since the idea of forced conversion to muslim has been brought and someone has mentioned that some zeolot can back it up with the Qu'ran. I was wondering what muslims of the NS boards thought of forced conversions. Is it viewed as harmful to Islam because many of the individuals who are forced to convert probably don't believe in allah or the teachings of Islam? Or is it considered acceptable?

Note: not trying to offend anyone, I'm just curious.

Being a religion of peace does not mean being cattle. Without freedom, there is no peace, hence it is essential to be prepared to deal with those who would seek to oppress you.

Military training, also, does not mean terrorist training.

I am a pacifist. I am a man of peace. However, I am fully aware that there are people in the world who would like nothing more than to see me a slave or dead simply because of my faith. Hence, it is essential that I remain as physically fit as possible and that I am prepared for any such eventuality.

Islam is a religion of peace. It is a religion of tolerance and acceptance and forgiveness. Allah commands we treat others with respect and deference, but if someone declares war on us, we will fight back - relentlessly.
Unfortunately, buy your definition, Islam is thereby "allowed" (to some people/sects at any rate) to be at a perpetural state of war - e.g. the oft mentioned "dar al-harb vs. dar al-Islam"

I'm not saying that you, or other Muslims aren't peaceful or fail to follow the injunction to personally interpret the Qur’an - and do so peacefully. What concerns me is what appears to be an institutional desire to deny that the Qur’an, Hadith, and sira can and have and are being used to promote a culture of violence.

Why isn't there a larger outcry?

Jurian States']Since the idea of forced conversion to muslim has been brought and someone has mentioned that some zeolot can back it up with the Qu'ran. I was wondering what muslims of the NS boards thought of forced conversions. Is it viewed as harmful to Islam because many of the individuals who are forced to convert probably don't believe in allah or the teachings of Islam? Or is it considered acceptable?

Note: not trying to offend anyone, I'm just curious.

That's exactly why forced conversions are condemned. Why have a member of your faith if he really doesn't believe in it. The #1 way to convert someone is Converting by Example. Show compassion, generosity, and helpfulness like a good Muslim should.

Then maybe you should ask a secular Muslim or a fundamentalist.
I'm asking whomever is here.

Mm ... yes. There have been a few events in the history of Islam where some zealot got a little power and went out and started going nuts thinking they were the "righteous hand of Allah".

They were wrong. As a matter of fact, look up Timur's death and what happened afterwards. Doesn't matter, though, as Timur was completely off his rocker.

Timur ... a neat thing to bring up, WL. I've read about him and the Jalayirids. Now *that* would make for a fascinating epic Hollywood film.
Thank you Keruvaila. This is the type of acceptance, and debate, I am trying to foster here. I am only bringing the debate into the modern milleu. If Timur was a nutcase, how much more so the terrorists of today and the Imams that support/nurture them?

Why can't we get sane Muslims (like those present) to drive the debate rather than dissemblers like CAIR?

But none of that counters the fact that No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad... mininterpreted or not.

Really?

http://www.islamfortoday.com/attack.htm
http://www.islam-democracy.org/terrorism_statement.asp
http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/index.html
http://www.archives2004.ghazali.net/html/muslim_leaders_denounce.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1734792.stm
http://www.sis.gov.eg/terrorism/html/echo09.htm
http://www.adcnj.us/muslim-denounce-terror-ad.htm
http://www.fisiusa.org/fisi_press_rel/pr13.htm

Here's George Bush himself scolding those who say Islam promotes Terror:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/788763/posts
http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20031023a1.html

Goodness me.

Quite off-topic but...

There was once a hockey team that my brother's friend made called 'The Master Debaters' and they were disqualified from the tournament because their name was deemed inappropriate.

That's exactly why forced conversions are condemned. Why have a member of your faith if he really doesn't believe in it. The #1 way to convert someone is Converting by Example. Show compassion, generosity, and helpfulness like a good Muslim should.
I understand that that condemnation is naskh under the doctrine of abrogation (where such an early verse as that about “no compulsion in religion” has been cancelled out by later verses.)

In any case, history shows that within Islam there is, and always has been, “compulsion in religion” for Muslims, and for non-Muslims. The “compulsion” for Muslims comes from the treatment of apostasy as an act punishable by death. (still practiced today) And though “dhimmis” are allowed to practice their religion, they do so under conditions of such burdens and restrictions that many, not as an act of conscience but rather as a response to inexorable Muslim pressure, have converted (or “reverted”) to Islam.

So while the de-facto conversion by sword may be questionable, it remains de-jure.

True?

Why isn't there a larger outcry?

There is. You just have to know where to look. Muslims are not a flamboyant and public people. We don't get up on camera and scream our views for the world to see.

We are a people who are commanded to lead by example, rather than rhetoric.

By our example, 99% of us live peaceful, quiet lives, while 1% go on screaming jihad rages and blow up nightclubs and school buses. Why not focus on the 99% instead of the 1%?

If out of 100 people, only 1 is an asshole, it doesn't make the other 99 people in the group assholes - even if they don't openly and publicly call that 1 an asshole.

Really?

http://www.islamfortoday.com/attack.htm
http://www.islam-democracy.org/terrorism_statement.asp
http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/index.html
http://www.archives2004.ghazali.net/html/muslim_leaders_denounce.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1734792.stm
http://www.sis.gov.eg/terrorism/html/echo09.htm
http://www.adcnj.us/muslim-denounce-terror-ad.htm
http://www.fisiusa.org/fisi_press_rel/pr13.htm

Here's George Bush himself scolding those who say Islam promotes Terror:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/788763/posts
http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20031023a1.html

Goodness me.
Thank you for the links. Somehow they eluded the media outles I have access to.

I understand that that condemnation is naskh under the doctrine of abrogation where such an early verse as that about “no compulsion in religion” has been cancelled out by later verses.

In any case, history shows that within Islam there is, and always has been, “compulsion in religion” for Muslims, and for non-Muslims. The “compulsion” for Muslims comes from the treatment of apostasy as an act punishable by death. (still practiced today) And though “dhimmis” are allowed to practice their religion, they do so under conditions of such burdens and restrictions that many, not as an act of conscience but rather as a response to inexorable Muslim pressure, have converted (or “reverted”) to Islam.

So while the de-facto conversion by sword may be questionable, it remanes de-jure.

True?

Unfortunately, I'm not smart enough to understand the whole post without a dictionary.

Thank you for the links. Somehow they eluded the media outles I have access to.

Yes, well, a Muslim denouncing terrorism isn't as exciting as seeing a Muslim blow up a marketplace. The good Muslims do simply never makes the news ... it just isn't sensational enough.

There is. You just have to know where to look. Muslims are not a flamboyant and public people. We don't get up on camera and scream our views for the world to see.
Except for the 1%... :D

We are a people who are commanded to lead by example, rather than rhetoric.
Unfortunately, the example of the 1% is horriffic.

By our example, 99% of us live peaceful, quiet lives, while 1% go on screaming jihad rages and blow up nightclubs and school buses. Why not focus on the 99% instead of the 1%?
Because the 99% isn't trying to kill me &/or force me to live under Sharia.

If out of 100 people, only 1 is an asshole, it doesn't make the other 99 people in the group assholes - even if they don't openly and publicly call that 1 an asshole.
Never said it did. Unfortunately "the squeeky wheel gets the grease". 1% of 1.2 billion is 12 MILLION. That's an awful lot of people who misapply and misrepresent Islam.

There are, to be sure, radical, violent Christians out there, but somehow they are squelched before committing the kind of violence done recently in the name of Allah. Why hasn't/isn't that the case (across sectarian lines) with Islam?

Unfortunately, I'm not smart enough to understand the whole post without a dictionary.
Sorry, missed a set of parentheses. I'll fix it.

Sorry, missed a set of parentheses. I'll fix it.
How old are you?

Yes, well, a Muslim denouncing terrorism isn't as exciting as seeing a Muslim blow up a marketplace. The good Muslims do simply never makes the news ... it just isn't sensational enough.
Though somehow I think if the Ayatollah or some other major Imam declared a fatwa on terrorism it would make the major news outlets...

How old are you?
38. Why?

38. Why?

No reason, you just have a very impressive vocabulary that I can't understand. You're more than twice my age.

There are, to be sure, radical, violent Christians out there, but somehow they are squelched before committing the kind of violence done recently in the name of Allah. Why hasn't/isn't that the case (across sectarian lines) with Islam?

Yes, we still squelch Christians here in the US. Although usually, we drive into their compounds with armored vehicles and set fire to their children after gassing them with CS.

Not quite as traditional as the Calvinist burning of heretics on piles of green wood (to make the suffering last longer), but it's close.

Why hasn't/isn't that the case (across sectarian lines) with Islam?

Because we don't know where they are any more than you do.

Not one of Dahmer's neighbors suspected him of anything. Ted Bundy was a charming, attractive, every day kinda guy. The Unabomber turned out to be an extremely intelligent, well educated man.

These folks aren't always easy to spot.

If you put up a pic of a man with an AK and a turban next to a pic of a man with an AK and a turban, how do you know which is an Extremist Jihadist and which is a Freedom Fighter?

Because we don't know where they are any more than you do.

Not one of Dahmer's neighbors suspected him of anything. Ted Bundy was a charming, attractive, every day kinda guy. The Unabomber turned out to be an extremely intelligent, well educated man.

These folks aren't always easy to spot.

If you put up a pic of a man with an AK and a turban next to a pic of a man with an AK and a turban, how do you know which is an Extremist Jihadist and which is a Freedom Fighter?
The extremist looks like Ward Churchill... :D

Yes, we still squelch Christians here in the US. Although usually, we drive into their compounds with armored vehicles and set fire to their children after gassing them with CS.

Not quite as traditional as the Calvinist burning of heretics on piles of green wood (to make the suffering last longer), but it's close.
Ahh, I see someone else is familliar with the case of Michael Servetus. Lovely bit of history that.

Though somehow I think if the Ayatollah or some other major Imam declared a fatwa on terrorism it would make the major news outlets...

The Granf Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Shaikh Abdulaziz Aal-Ashaikh, in a clear and frank statement denounced and condemned all acts of terrorism.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0502/S00347.htm

The extremist looks like Ward Churchill... :D

Rofl! Now *there's* an asshole.

No reason, you just have a very impressive vocabulary that I can't understand. You're more than twice my age.
Comes from reading WAAY too much. Plus, my hobby is Theopolitics. I like to say there are two distinct branches of Islam, the Theopolitical version that doctrinally seeks to Islamicize the World and the religion (small "r" is intentional) that ignores the Theopolitical crap.

The Granf Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Shaikh Abdulaziz Aal-Ashaikh, in a clear and frank statement denounced and condemned all acts of terrorism.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0502/S00347.htm
Excellent. That takes care of the Wahabis.
Now on to the Sufis, Sunis and Shi'a...

I'm not sure comparing coordinated, well funded terrorist groups with Bundy and Dahlmer is appropriate though. Maybe The Weathermen?

It is one of the sadest things of humanity, that a fanatic can reach into anywhere and warp the ideals of a cause.
I'm not a muslim, however I do understand that the vast majority or muslims are truely kind and caring people and no, to all who can't agree with that, not all muslims are suicide bombers.
Back to fanaticism (something I intend to talk about fully soon).
It must be understood, that fanatics can creep into everything.
They stem from religions, to politics, from sport teams ( Celtic and Rangers for anybody who reconises them), all the way down to people who only drink coca cola and never pepsi.
A fanatic nver truely understands what they are told.
In the case of faith, a true spirtual Master can come and tell them the truth, but they don't understand. Sometimes they will pay attention to one teaching and ignore another either on purpose or from being unconcious of the truth.
For example, told about peace and love towards all, but then listen only to the part about spreading the teachings.
The idea is to spread the teachings of peace and love, but they are ignored and the fanatic simpilly forces people to call themselves (whatever religion we're talking about).
But because the fanatic never truely understood the message, how can those who have now being made convert truely under stand.

And so fanaticism spreads.

The point i'm trying to make is that fanatics never truely understand what they're explaining.
They rather much more to force others to call themselves (whatever religion)
It is sad that most religions were founded and are still being followed in this way, but that has to change to.
LIke I said, i'll talk about fanaticism in full soon.
It is a massive subject, and will require much more than i've spoken about here.

Hope i've been of some help.

Excellent. That takes care of the Wahabis.
Now on to the Sufis, Sunis and Shi'a...


Actually, that takes care of the Sunnis - who comprise 1.1 billion of the 1.3 billion of the world's Muslims. It also takes care of the guy in charge of who can and cannot enter Makkah.

I wouldn't worry too much about the Sufis ... think of them like you think of Christian Monastic orders. They're very "keep to themselves" kinda folks. Some of the greatest Islamic poets and philosophers have been Sufi. They're in no way a militant type people. I don't think it would even be possible for a Sufi to slap a person, much less blow them up.

The Shi'ites, well, they are the more militant division, but a couple of the links in my previous thread came from Palestinian and Iranian sources. There're your Shi'ites.

Actually, that takes care of the Sunnis - who comprise 1.1 billion of the 1.3 billion of the world's Muslims. It also takes care of the guy in charge of who can and cannot enter Makkah.

I wouldn't worry too much about the Sufis ... think of them like you think of Christian Monastic orders. They're very "keep to themselves" kinda folks. Some of the greatest Islamic poets and philosophers have been Sufi. They're in no way a militant type people. I don't think it would even be possible for a Sufi to slap a person, much less blow them up.

The Shi'ites, well, they are the more militant division, but a couple of the links in my previous thread came from Palestinian and Iranian sources. There're your Shi'ites.
You know, it would be REALLY cool if next hajj had the requirement of swearing off violence toward apostates and non-muslims before entry.

Sorry Mr. Binladen, Mr. Zarwiki - no hajj for you.

THAT would be a cool fatwa. But for now I'd just like to see a fatwa renouncing the harassment/incarceration of bloggers (http://committeetoprotectbloggers.blogspot.com/).

Sorry Mr. Binladen, Mr. Zarwiki - no hajj for you.


Well, I don't know about Zarkawi, but bin Laden has been banned from Saudi Arabia already.

Well, I don't know about Zarkawi, but bin Laden has been banned from Saudi Arabia already.
Hey! It's the Keru/Syniks hour! All Keru, all Syniks, All the time! :eek:

Do you think that such a fatwa (not just for Zarkawi & bin Laden, but you knew that...) could/would have any impact on the one-percenters?

Hey! It's the Keru/Syniks hour! All Keru, all Syniks, All the time! :eek:

Do you think that such a fatwa (not just for Zarkawi & bin Laden, but you knew that...) could/would have any impact on the one-percenters?

No.

Hey! It's the Keru/Syniks hour! All Keru, all Syniks, All the time! :eek:

lol ... yeh ... this does seem to have turned into just a two-way conversation. :D

Do you think that such a fatwa (not just for Zarkawi & bin Laden, but you knew that...) could/would have any impact on the one-percenters?

No. Anymore than the fatwah against Rushdie had any impact on the 99-percenters. :)

lol ... yeh ... this does seem to have turned into just a two-way conversation. :D

No. Anymore than the fatwah against Rushdie had any impact on the 99-percenters. :)

Ok, then we get down to brass tacks.

(A) There is a small statistical percentage, but large numerical quantity of muslims who are violently/politically agitating for Global Sharia - and using their Religion as the excuse for their actions.

(B) Those of us concerned with the rise of Theopolitical Islam (and have been since the early '80s) are largely told that we cannot argue against the points in the Qur'an that the Radicals use in their own defense because to do so somehow defames peaceful Muslims.

(C) Peaceful Muslims will not take strong steps to quash the Radicals that non-muslims are disuaded from castigating - except on the concept (that their interpretation of Islam rejects) that "violence is bad".

(D) Because no one is taking strong steps against their Ideology, the only choices left to defend ourselves from violent Theopolitical Islamists is to use Military Action,convert to their vision of Islam (No), or submit to dhimmitude (HELL NO).

(E) Military action taken against violent Theopolitical Islamists is used to recruit/agitate for more violence against apostates/non-muslims, and is couched in Islamic terms.

(F) But we are not allowed to refute or even argue against those terms because we don't understand Islam (don't you understand that Islam is a Religion of Peace?)

(G) But Peaceful Muslims will not take strong steps to quash the Radicals that non-muslims are disuaded from castigating...

Am I missing something?

(A) There is a small statistical percentage, but large numerical quantity of muslims who are violently/politically agitating for Global Sharia - and using their Religion as the excuse for their actions.

Yes. However, I'd like to point out that my "1%" may be a bit generous. You may actually be looking at less than 1 or 2 million people. They don't exactly fill out census cards, so it's tough to know.

(B) Those of us concerned with the rise of Theopolitical Islam (and have been since the early '80s) are largely told that we cannot argue against the points in the Qur'an that the Radicals use in their own defense because to do so somehow defames peaceful Muslims.

Not exactly. It defames peaceful Muslims when the same points in Qur'an that the Jihadists use are used to point out that Islam is a religion of violence and hatred. With the overwhelming amount of information that shows Islam to be a peaceful religion, you can rest assured that if the Jihadists are using it to further their cause, then it isn't true Islam.

That is, unless, you'd rather take the Jihadists word for it.

(C) Peaceful Muslims will not take strong steps to quash the Radicals that non-muslims are disuaded from castigating - except on the concept (that their interpretation of Islam rejects) that "violence is bad".

Not much we can do. Osama bin Laden is just as likely to send someone to kill me as he is to send someone to kill you. I don't have an Army, do you?

(D) Because no one is taking strong steps against their Ideology, the only choices left to defend ourselves from violent Theopolitical Islamists is to use Military Action, submit to dhimmitude, or convert to their vision of Islam.

I would take the option to defend yourself using Military Action if I were you. If they're going to shoot at you, shoot back.

(E) Military action taken against violent Theopolitical Islamists is used to recruit/agitate for more violence against apostates/non-muslims, and is couched in Islamic terms.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Why do you think we've had such a problem squashing them? The US Army is now deeply entrenched into something Islamic armies have been trying to do for 200 years. It's not as easy as everyone thinks it would be.

(F) But we are not allowed to refute or even argue against those terms because we don't understand Islam.

Well, some of it comes down to people using Surah 9:4 by itself and ignoring the surrounding ayyat. Either that, or they take things out of context as badly (if not worse) than the jihadists do. With no Caliphate to guide us, we're a bit scattered. The West dismantled the Caliphate without giving the Muslim world a chance to adapt. It would be like the Catholic world being suddenly told, "The Papacy is dissolved. Now go decide for yourselves what's what".

Most will be ok ... but the fringe groups will pop up all over the place.

(G) But Peaceful Muslims will not take strong steps to quash the Radicals that non-muslims are disuaded from castigating...

If I had an Army, I would. I don't, so all I have is the written word and my voice. I use those vehemently.

Am I missing something?

Not really, no.

lol ... yeh ... this does seem to have turned into just a two-way conversation. :D
Actually, I find it bothersome. We are debating a topic. No flames, no recriminations, just debating/discussing. We actually aren't even disagreeing much (except for that political compass of yours... :p ). Yet early on others became immediately defensive of my position/points and stalked off. Why do you think that is?

So any good (unbiased) books on Islam I should read, this is really interesting but my knowledge in the area is good enough to sustain an argument at this level.

Actually, I find it bothersome. We are debating a topic. No flames, no recriminations, just debating/discussing. We actually aren't even disagreeing much. Yet early on others became immediately defensive of my position/points and stalked off. Why do you think that is?

Sensationalism, mostly.

I tend not to think of a person as trolling until they prove it. All you did was ask questions. Questions can seem to be jaded or pointed or may look like a deliberate set-up, but there is no way of knowing that until you actually answer the question and see how the conversation goes from there.

I am strong in my faith and confident in my knowledge of Islam, hence, even the most difficult questions are nothing to me. I have gotten the impression that your intention here is not to defame Islam, but rather understand how certain things can be reconciled within itself.

Attempts to understand are never a bad thing. Unfortunately, it's not a black and white world and some things are more complicated than most people can handle. That's why continuous open dialogue and lots of time and patience are really the only global solutions.

So any good (unbiased) books on Islam I should read, this is really interesting but my knowledge in the area is good enough to sustain an argument at this level.

Honestly? The best book on Islam is Qur'an. Read it.

By its very nature, any book about a religion is going to be biased to some degree. I could suggest books by Muslims, but that could be contrued as biased in favor of Islam. I could suggest books by non-Muslims, but those could also be biased for or against.

Read Qur'an and then read books from a variety of sources. Don't ignore the flamers or trollers. Look to see what the people who think Islam is the great enemy are saying, which quotes from Qur'an they're using as "proof", and how they're interpreted those quotes. Then look for refutation of those opinions. Read the quotes for yourself as well and think on it. Read any commentary on the quotes you can find (good or bad) and make up your own mind. That's what Allah wants of you.

A little time and patience and study pays off.

Honestly? The best book on Islam is Qur'an. Read it.



I just brought the Qur'an, sitting down to read it, but slowly, as I'm using it to help me learn arabic too, and I'm doing some Islamic studies modules as part of my degree course.
I have a fairly rudimentary knowledge of Islamic history and teaching, just no substantial detail.

I put the 'unbiased' in parenthesis perhaps because I meant non-extremist, I'm trying to get at a more scholarly book or whatever, a good starting point.

Unfortunately, it's not a black and white world ...Funny you should mention that.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8336914&postcount=290



Your point?



I'd like a source. Islam did/does/will not spread by the sword.



Jihad is only initiated when Islam is directly under an imminent threat that brings danger to the religion. It can't be initiated as an offensive maneuver, it always starts as self-defense.

It must be comforting to feel so righteous. You have a lot in common with the hard line Christians. I think all the religious hard liners from every religion ought to get together in a waste land, with lots of pointy sticks, and work it all out. At least then you'd be "manning up" for what you believe, and not talking all of this self righteous smack. Allah, Jehovah, Muhammad and Jesus have nothing to do with the BS from the violent Muslims or Christians.

did you people know fascism is a peaceful ideology?

Being a religion of peace does not mean being cattle. Without freedom, there is no peace, hence it is essential to be prepared to deal with those who would seek to oppress you.

Military training, also, does not mean terrorist training.

I am a pacifist. I am a man of peace. However, I am fully aware that there are people in the world who would like nothing more than to see me a slave or dead simply because of my faith. Hence, it is essential that I remain as physically fit as possible and that I am prepared for any such eventuality.

Islam is a religion of peace. It is a religion of tolerance and acceptance and forgiveness. Allah commands we treat others with respect and deference, but if someone declares war on us, we will fight back - relentlessly.

Let me ask this because I don't know what the Muslim perspective is on this issue: Do you think anyone is waging war on Muslims right now? Where do you think there is a future threat of war versus Muslims? I know right now that Christians in the most prominent Muslim countries have something to fear due to violence. Stop, before you go off, I know there are millions of good Muslims who see good Christians as brethren (although they see them as misguided). But I know, for example, in my home country of the USA, there aren't roving bands of Christians hunting down Muslims, and there aren't any widely based efforts to hurt Muslims (although isolated incidents in a country of 300 million are bound to occur). I know if I were to walk freely and unabashedly through most of the Muslim countries in the world, I would be in danger. Why? I haven't done anything to anybody. Muslims, with the exception of some stares and the very occasional violence (which is returned as much), freely roam throughout the USA. So, who is waging war? Islam? Christianity? I honestly would love to hear the Muslim perspective. I am not saying that is a smarta$$ way either. I am serious. I've traveled a lot, and I've met a lot of great Muslims, but even they have told me not to go to certain places due to my life being in danger. Christian missionaries are regularly beaten and killed. Muslim missionaries aren't. How is Islam a religion of peace when I can't peacefully walk through its lands without being threatened, beaten or killed? I think there is a lot of optimistic and active dreaming on the part of Muslims around the world. There is a lot of self (not God or Allah based) righteousness in Christianity and Islam. There is a lot of dillusion. What is true, is that Muslims can preach about killing Christians in their free cities. I've seen it in London and New York City. If I were to pass out a pamphlet in many Muslim parts of the world, I would become a statistic. Tell me this isn't true. Don't argue that Christians are just as bad, or talk about the Crusades, or talk about Iraq. Just tell me the truth about Islam and its violence. It's the job of the Christian nations to enforce its laws on the Christians. If you kill, you're punished. That's the way it works. But the Islamic nations, well, it doesn't work that way. There just seems to be a dillusional double standard. Oh, and before you start, I'm Indenpendent. I'm not Christian or Muslim, although to be fair my family is Christian, so that's where my opinion base is. I'm reserving commitment to a religion because God would understand why I'm jumping on the bandwagon of these two killer religions.

I don't think the vast majority of the billion Muslims on Earth were forced to convert.

Many millions have been forced. It's not like they're rounded up into stadiums and given the choice between being shot or being Muslim. But violence is on the agenda if you're not a Muslim in MANY parts of the world. That does not mean Islam is bad, it just means there are MANY people beating others into submission into the religion... literally. By the way, go to the southeast corner of the United States, and I bet Uncle Jed is doing this same thing. The difference? Uncle Jed will likely go to jail. Uncle Jed's Muslim counterpart will be treated as a hero.

That's exactly why forced conversions are condemned. Why have a member of your faith if he really doesn't believe in it. The #1 way to convert someone is Converting by Example. Show compassion, generosity, and helpfulness like a good Muslim should.

You're right Jamil. I for one, agree with what you're saying. But what you're saying doesn't agree with the actions of many millions of Muslims worldwide.

Honestly? The best book on Islam is Qur'an. Read it.

By its very nature, any book about a religion is going to be biased to some degree. I could suggest books by Muslims, but that could be contrued as biased in favor of Islam. I could suggest books by non-Muslims, but those could also be biased for or against.

Read Qur'an and then read books from a variety of sources. Don't ignore the flamers or trollers. Look to see what the people who think Islam is the great enemy are saying, which quotes from Qur'an they're using as "proof", and how they're interpreted those quotes. Then look for refutation of those opinions. Read the quotes for yourself as well and think on it. Read any commentary on the quotes you can find (good or bad) and make up your own mind. That's what Allah wants of you.

A little time and patience and study pays off.
I would agree. I have 4 translations and 1 transliteration of the Qur'an. Paralel reading is insightful, if humorous. (Ditto the Bible BTW...)

You should also check out the Skeptics Annotated Quran (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.html) (Bible & Book of Mormon there too.) Also Ishwar.com (http://ishwar.com/) is a great resource for the "holy" books of many religions.

Also, speak/thread with as many "apostates" as possible... from all sides. As Arthur Koestler said, "You hate our Cassandra cries and resent us as allies, but when all is said, we ex-Communists are the only people on your side who know what it's all about."

Positive sources for Islamic Conversion are people like Keru. People like Ibn Warraq speak from the other side.

Let me ask this because I don't know what the Muslim perspective is on this issue: Do you think anyone is waging war on Muslims right now? Where do you think there is a future threat of war versus Muslims? I know right now that Christians in the most prominent Muslim countries have something to fear due to violence. Stop, before you go off, I know there are millions of good Muslims who see good Christians as brethren (although they see them as misguided). But I know, for example, in my home country of the USA, there aren't roving bands of Christians hunting down Muslims, and there aren't any widely based efforts to hurt Muslims (although isolated incidents in a country of 300 million are bound to occur). I know if I were to walk freely and unabashedly through most of the Muslim countries in the world, I would be in danger. Why? I haven't done anything to anybody. Muslims, with the exception of some stares and the very occasional violence (which is returned as much), freely roam throughout the USA. So, who is waging war? Islam? Christianity? I honestly would love to hear the Muslim perspective. I am not saying that is a smarta$$ way either. I am serious. I've traveled a lot, and I've met a lot of great Muslims, but even they have told me not to go to certain places due to my life being in danger. Christian missionaries are regularly beaten and killed. Muslim missionaries aren't. How is Islam a religion of peace when I can't peacefully walk through its lands without being threatened, beaten or killed? I think there is a lot of optimistic and active dreaming on the part of Muslims around the world. There is a lot of self (not God or Allah based) righteousness in Christianity and Islam. There is a lot of dillusion. What is true, is that Muslims can preach about killing Christians in their free cities. I've seen it in London and New York City. If I were to pass out a pamphlet in many Muslim parts of the world, I would become a statistic. Tell me this isn't true. Don't argue that Christians are just as bad, or talk about the Crusades, or talk about Iraq. Just tell me the truth about Islam and its violence. It's the job of the Christian nations to enforce its laws on the Christians. If you kill, you're punished. That's the way it works. But the Islamic nations, well, it doesn't work that way. There just seems to be a dillusional double standard. Oh, and before you start, I'm Indenpendent. I'm not Christian or Muslim, although to be fair my family is Christian, so that's where my opinion base is. I'm reserving commitment to a religion because God would understand why I'm jumping on the bandwagon of these two killer religions.

This is where all the extremists and fundamentalists come in. All the Muslim Radicals are fighting because they believe that the USA is waging a war on Islam. According to the Hadith and Qur'an, there will be a lot of conflict in the world before the Day of Judgement and many believe it's already begun.

http://www.geocities.com/mutmainaa/belief/major_signs.html - If you want to know about some of the signs.

Actually, I am looking for solid refutation of my points. That is what is known as debate.
You want a solid refutation? Go fuck yourself and your retarded, bigoted fight against "Islamo-fascism."

No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad
And when has Christianity and Catholicism ever repudiated the Crusades? Or Charlemagne's rampage through Europe? Or the Spanish Inquisition? Or the "Holy Wars" going on in the world right now, committed by American Christians against any other religion?

Frankly, I don't care if I'm going ballistic. I tend to do that when people base their opinions on generalisations and crap they've heard from the likes of John Shelley.

That is what is known as debate.
The only thing on debate here is your intelliegence, or most likely lack thereof.

This is where all the extremists and fundamentalists come in. All the Muslim Radicals are fighting because they believe that the USA is waging a war on Islam.
Whose fault is that? That is somthing that was preached to them.

According to the Hadith and Qur'an, there will be a lot of conflict in the world before the Day of Judgement and many believe it's already begun.

http://www.geocities.com/mutmainaa/belief/major_signs.html - If you want to know about some of the signs.
And the "Left Behind" dispensational postmillenialist nutburgers think the same thing on the Christian side (Revelations! WooHoo!) - but it has not led to the type of radicalisim we have seen in certain Islamic circles since the '80s. (It has mostly led to bad, but successful, books...)

Christian Millenialists wait for the Rapture & Ragnarok to deal with the Infidel-unbelievers. Radical Islamists are attacking/have attacked innocents by the thousands (please, no comparasons between the unfortunate tragedy collateral damage and directed attacks against unarmed civillians)

You want a solid refutation? Go fuck yourself and your retarded, bigoted fight against "Islamo-fascism."
Hmm, seems Keru would join me in that fight if he could - since it's abou violent people trying to hijack his religion.

And when has Christianity and Catholicism ever repudiated the Crusades? Or Charlemagne's rampage through Europe? Or the Spanish Inquisition? Or the "Holy Wars" going on in the world right now, committed by American Christians against any other religion?

Can't say about Catholicisim, but the Reformation was all about repudiating the Inquisition. IIRC the Pope also repudiated the actions of the Crusaders. But that is all Historical. I don't care what the Christians did to the Moslems did to the Christians back in the day. I'm worried about what a Radical Ideology is doing TODAY.

Frankly, I don't care if I'm going ballistic. I tend to do that when people base their opinions on generalisations and crap they've heard from the likes of John Shelley.

Who is John Shelly? :confused:

The only thing on debate here is your intelliegence, or most likely lack thereof.
Keru seems to think otherwise. But maybe he's a retarded bigot too. Whadda ya think Keru?

Whose fault is that? That is somthing that was preached to them.

By people that think that there's a war against Islam happening...


And the "Left Behind" dispensational postmillenialist nutburgers think the same thing on the Christian side (Revelations! WooHoo!) - but it has not led to the type of radicalisim we have seen in certain Islamic circles since the '80s. (It has mostly led to bad, but successful, books...)

Christian Millenialists wait for the Rapture & Ragnarok to deal with the Infidel-unbelievers. Radical Islamists are attacking/have attacked innocents by the thousands (please, no comparasons between the unfortunate tragedy collateral damage and directed attacks against unarmed civillians)

I'm on a different subject. He asked if there is a war on Islam and according the Qur'an there will be.

By people that think that there's a war against Islam happening...

I'm on a different subject. He asked if there is a war on Islam and according the Qur'an there will be.
And because there is a Clerical element that is willing to teach this, there is a propagation of dar al-harb/Jihad theology on a Global scale.

Which brings us nicely back to the original topic of Islam as a Religion of Peace, and why it has a hard time getting people to believe it. QED.

Thorlania's point though really wasn't addressed. Why should US non-muslims be in danger for their lives in Muslim countries when Muslims are not in danger for their lives here? (I can't speak to the Hindu/Muslim (India/Pakistan/Bangladeshi) conflicts, so I won't.)

What socio-cultural paradigm allows Radical Islamicists to view all US Citizens (Infidel or not) as combatants (worthy of killing) when, barring individual psychosys, the US does not?

You're a flame-baiting idiot, you know that Syniks? All religions are a matter of interpritation, and there's always violet idiots who'll interpret ANYTHING as 'We should kill everyone who disagrees with us'. Look at Jack Chick, the man who says Dungeons and Dragons is training for witchcraft. Should we take that to mean ALL Christians are utter idiots? You're an American, and most of your posts are right-wing racist tripe, so should I take that to mean all Americans are assholes like you?

I don't quite understand where you get off on these pointless anti-islamic crusades of yours. They're childish, petulant and pointless. Personally, even though I'm not a muslim and not religious in the slightest, I can still respect others views and understand that, just possibly, there is the slightest possibility that just because someone is a muslim doesn't automatically mean they're a crazed suicide bomber with the morals of a serial rapist. Just as I'm able to understand that not all conservatives are corrupt greedy neo-nazis, and not all Americans are hopelessly overwieght idiots with a mindless hatred of anything that isn't exactly the same as them.
You know I'm glad I ignored this the first time. Maybe you've had time to see that I am NOT posting "right-wing racist tripe" and do, in fact, respect other views - as long as they don't include wanting to kill me. Unless someone has hijacked my login, which I doubt, I don't see how your rant applies to me. Though I do enjoy the abuse. Pot, Kettle, Black. Thank you for your time.

It's funny. I've been called Leftist epithets by real right-wing bigots, and called a Nazi/Right-wing epithets by Leftists. I guess that puts me nicely in the center of things.

BTW, it's largely because I respect the opinions of Muslims that firmly hold Islam to be a peaceful religion that I asked this question. Someone is hijacking Islam, and it would do the world a lot of good to find out who and how to deal with it.

FYI 'yall, I would like to continue this but I won't have access this weekend. I'm not running out on the thread though. I think, with a few exceptions, we are getting some good discussion in.

I'm enjoying it anyway. :p

Maybe we'll pick it up Monday? :fluffle:

Off to read a paper on Socianisim (a non-trinitarian, post Nicean Christology attributed to Michael Servetus)

TTFN

Do you think anyone is waging war on Muslims right now?

Yes. Organizations like Al-Qaeda are waging war against true Islam and destroying the great good that Muslims have done throughout the centuries.

Where do you think there is a future threat of war versus Muslims?

It's mostly going to be internal strife. I don't see any holy war against Muslims any time in the near future and doubtful in my lifetime.

How is Islam a religion of peace when I can't peacefully walk through its lands without being threatened, beaten or killed?

Oh ... you can't walk through Bedford-Stuy without being threatened, beaten, or killed either ... does that prove all of America is violent and wants to hurt the world?

And the "Left Behind" dispensational postmillenialist nutburgers

That made me giggle. :)

Keru seems to think otherwise. But maybe he's a retarded bigot too. Whadda ya think Keru?

I very well could be! I think someone accused me of it once, but it didn't last long.

This is where all the extremists and fundamentalists come in. All the Muslim Radicals are fighting because they believe that the USA is waging a war on Islam. According to the Hadith and Qur'an, there will be a lot of conflict in the world before the Day of Judgement and many believe it's already begun.

http://www.geocities.com/mutmainaa/belief/major_signs.html - If you want to know about some of the signs.

Sweet. Thank you very much. I am going to check it out. I appreciate it.

Oh ... you can't walk through Bedford-Stuy without being threatened, beaten, or killed either ... does that prove all of America is violent and wants to hurt the world?

I can walk all over populated America, and only rarely will I be in danger. The point is, as you seem to have overlooked (or I underexplained), that if I were a Christian in Muslim countries, the danger to me would be my religion, or, the reaction of a LARGE portion of the Muslim population's reaction to my religion. If I walk into a "bad" section of town anywhere on Earth, then I am in trouble. That covers your point. My point is that in Muslim countries, unlike most Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, etc, people are in danger if they are not Muslim. Muslims are all over the USA and other western countries. That is as much to do with tolerance (as much as people will want to say Islam is not tolerated in the west) as to do with true believers. The problem is, in Muslim countries is Asia, the Pacific and of course the Middle East, intolerance equals a serious and almost omnipresent threat of violence. Can't you see that the threat of injury or death is much greater for a Christian, advertising themselves as such, in any Muslim capital across the world, than for a Muslim advertising themselves as such, in say London, Berlin, New York (Washington D.C.) or Beijing even?

I'm asking whomever is here.What was your question again?

My point is that in Muslim countries, unlike most Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, etc, people are in danger if they are not Muslim.

You have some proof of this?

I've only been Muslim since November 2004 and, prior to that, have been in some of the countries you've mentioned. Before embracing Islam, I was a practicing Orthodox Jew. If I can walk through such places with kippah and talit without problems, where are you getting your information? I entered Saudi Arabia with an Israeli stamp on my passport - even though everyone says that if you try to get into Saudi with an Israeli stamp, they'll cut off your head.

Do you think that Allah was simply watching out for me and told all Muslims to leave me alone? Or is it possible that maybe, just maybe, you're wrong?

It almost seems to me like you're trying to troll. Maybe not, but it is obvious you don't really know what you're talking about.

Islam is very similar to Christianity in my eyes, but more imperialist.

You have some proof of this?

I've only been Muslim since November 2004 and, prior to that, have been in some of the countries you've mentioned. Before embracing Islam, I was a practicing Orthodox Jew. If I can walk through such places with kippah and talit without problems, where are you getting your information? I entered Saudi Arabia with an Israeli stamp on my passport - even though everyone says that if you try to get into Saudi with an Israeli stamp, they'll cut off your head.

Do you think that Allah was simply watching out for me and told all Muslims to leave me alone? Or is it possible that maybe, just maybe, you're wrong?

It almost seems to me like you're trying to troll. Maybe not, but it is obvious you don't really know what you're talking about.

Besides, arent Muslims required to be hospitable to guests? I've been to Muslim countries and in the homes of Muslim friends and neighbours in South Africa, and was treated with absolute courtesy...

NEWSFLASH!

Islam is Christianity with an added text about Mohammed. Osama Bin Laden counts as much to Islam that Fred Phelps does to Christianity. Hate to break up the party...