NationStates Jolt Archive

Like the good folks standing with me, the American people were appalled and outraged at last Tuesday's attacks. And so were Muslims all across the world. Both Americans and Muslim friends and citizens, tax-paying citizens, and Muslims in nations were just appalled and could not believe what we saw on our TV screens.

These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it's important for my fellow Americans to understand that.

The English translation is not as eloquent as the original Arabic, but let me quote from the Koran, itself: In the long run, evil in the extreme will be the end of those who do evil. For that they rejected the signs of Allah and held them up to ridicule.

The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war.

When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that's made brothers and sisters out of every race -- out of every race.

Fairly simple question. Do you agree with these statements?

I honesty do not know the tenants of Islam

Fairly simple question. Do you agree with these statements?

With the bolded ones, yes. The unbolded part contains some inaccuracies.

Islam is just another statement of allegience. It means neither peace nor war; it's just another group. I therefore do not agree with Mr Dubya on that front. However, I agree in the sense that the violent few are not representative of the majority.

Sure, what the hell.

Well the Five Pillars of Islam are:

Shahādah: Testifying that there is none worthy of worship except Allah (Tawhid) and that Muhammad is His servant and messenger (Nubuwwah). The profession of faith in Allah.

Salat: Performing the five daily prayers. These are carried out while facing Mecca.

Zakāt: The giving of an obligatory portion of one's wealth that belongs to the poor (if one has the means and has maintained a threshold for one year)

Sawm: Fasting from dawn to dusk in the month of Ramadan.

Hajj: The Pilgrimage to Mecca during the month of Dhu al-Hijjah, which is compulsory once in a lifetime for one who has the ability to do it.

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam)

It doesn't appear the core beliefs of Islam fall one way or the other on the issue of "peace"

I disagree.

Bush is going flip-floppy!

No, because bush did 11/9.

No, because bush did 11/9.
*9/11

*No, he didn't. Please, let us not go into that bullshit again.

*9/11

11/9 is the correct way to denote september 11th in most countries in the world. Date, month, year - instead of month, day, year which is less logical.

Of course, year, month, day would be even more logical - since then the numbers increase logically (20060627 would be the day following 20060626).

11/9 is the correct way to denote september 11th in most countries in the world. Date, month, year - instead of month, day, year which is less logical.

Of course, year, month, day would be even more logical - since then the numbers increase logically (20060627 would be the day following 20060626).
Oh, I know that, intellectually. I'm just so used to the American system of dating, as odd as it may be, that I prefer it. Further, I think 9/11 is the word(?) we should use to refer to the event regardless of where you are, as it's the original term used by the country affected.

Or I'm so tired that I have no idea what the hell I'm saying.

Well the Five Pillars of Islam are:

Shahādah: Testifying that there is none worthy of worship except Allah (Tawhid) and that Muhammad is His servant and messenger (Nubuwwah). The profession of faith in Allah.

Salat: Performing the five daily prayers. These are carried out while facing Mecca.

Zakāt: The giving of an obligatory portion of one's wealth that belongs to the poor (if one has the means and has maintained a threshold for one year)

Sawm: Fasting from dawn to dusk in the month of Ramadan.

Hajj: The Pilgrimage to Mecca during the month of Dhu al-Hijjah, which is compulsory once in a lifetime for one who has the ability to do it.

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam)

It doesn't appear the core beliefs of Islam fall one way or the other on the issue of "peace"


There be the facts. The rest is propaganda.
When Bush says Islam is a religion of peace, he's a liar.
What else is new?

*9/11


I do not fell that I have to use american notation. so I say 11/9. end of story.

Oh, I know that, intellectually. I'm just so used to the American system of dating, as odd as it may be, that I prefer it. Further, I think 9/11 is the word(?) we should use to refer to the event regardless of where you are, as it's the original term used by the country affected.

Or I'm so tired that I have no idea what the hell I'm saying.
no. the universal term is september 11th. since that is a date, most of us treat it like one and abbreviate it, so you say 9/11. But i say 1//9 because thats how dates are abbreviated in Poland.

Why are we debating the correct way to say 9/11!!!

The real question is, Does Bush believe those statements, even though he made them? My guess would be, no, he does not, since they are incompatible with both his actions and his professed belief as an evangelical christian.

Ideally, it's right what he says about the faith. Truth is, it's not as easy as it seems in theory. There is always bloodshed, religions involved or not. And two, I don't know either if Bush is completely honest, being some sort of radical christian.

It's hard to believe he actually said that, so close to the event as well, his actions say something so very different. That speech, like all Presidential speeches, will have been written by someone else, I don't believe he meant it sincerely.

It is true that the terrorist acts committed in the name of Islam, by Muslim extremists throughout recent history are acts committed by and supported by the minority. Only an idiot would disagree with that.

Islam itself is as peaceful as the next religion bound by dogma, it's all in the intepretation. Islamic fundamentalists/extremists (there is a difference, there are also Islamists, who are a different and overlapping group too) get their policies from Islamic teachings as much as liberal Muslim pacifists do, it's all about selective reading and interpretation, not to mention cultural differences.

The terrorist acts and anti-US (and UK etc) setiment is culturally charged, granted Islam is a huge part of that culture, but it is not all bound up in the religion. It's about globalisation, or as many see it, Americanisation, modernisation and the persistent will of some cultures to impose their own upon others.

Other: NEVER!!! NEVER EVER EVER WILL I EVER EVER EVER AGREE WITH THAT F***ING MORON!!!! NEVER NEVER NEVER!!!!!!! IF HE SAYS WE SHOULD GIVE SMALL CHILDREN IN AFGHANISTAN HOMES, I WOULD CHANGE MY OPINION!!! NEVER NEVER NEVER!!!!!

Other: NEVER!!! NEVER EVER EVER WILL I EVER EVER EVER AGREE WITH THAT F***ING MORON!!!! NEVER NEVER NEVER!!!!!!! IF HE SAYS WE SHOULD GIVE SMALL CHILDREN IN AFGHANISTAN HOMES, I WOULD CHANGE MY OPINION!!! NEVER NEVER NEVER!!!!!

I think you are a moron.

No. It may not be a part of the religion to be violent, but it's a part of their lifestyle dating back to the days when the people of the Middle East were nomadic. Seeing as there were limited resources, it made the people more apt to attacking others for what they need. As they settled down over the centuries they never truly lost this tendency.

I think you are a moron.

That's the difference between you and me. You "think" I'm a moron. I damn well know I am.

That's the difference between you and me. You "think" I'm a moron. I damn well know I am.

:fluffle:

OK.
You're the first guy I said this to:

ESO, I <3 you!

:fluffle:

OK.
You're the first guy I said this to:

ESO, I <3 you!

<3? Wuzzat mean?

<3? Wuzzat mean?
It's a heart. Holy Newton, where have you been?

It's a heart. Holy Newton, where have you been?

Read my location.

No. It may not be a part of the religion to be violent, but it's a part of their lifestyle dating back to the days when the people of the Middle East were nomadic. Seeing as there were limited resources, it made the people more apt to attacking others for what they need. As they settled down over the centuries they never truly lost this tendency.

well, only 20% of muslims are from the Middle East, so what you are saying is in fact targetted at Arabs (read: Racist)

Also, Islam was brought to unite all people, but in particular muslims, who, for the reason you showed above, were fighting one another. Islam made all Muslims equal, and united all Arabs under the flag of the Islamic Caliphate. Islam was brought to end this fighting, it wasn't built upon the fighting.

Read my location.
11th? I hang out in the 9th. You should visit sometime, play ball with the bad boys.

11th? I hang out in the 9th. You should visit sometime, play ball with the bad boys.

Eh, I dono, I own an apartment down there, couple a nice dance clubs...I like to dance with the devil, if you know what I mean...

well, only 20% of muslims are from the Middle East, so what you are saying is in fact targetted at Arabs (read: Racist)

Also, Islam was brought to unite all people, but in particular muslims, who, for the reason you showed above, were fighting one another. Islam made all Muslims equal, and united all Arabs under the flag of the Islamic Caliphate. Islam was brought to end this fighting, it wasn't built upon the fighting.
Bush isn't concerned with, for example, French Muslims. The terrorists are in the Middle East and descendents of those people in Africa.

Bush isn't concerned with, for example, French Muslims. The terrorists are in the Middle East and descendents of those people in Africa.

Oh my. Where were the London bombers from again? Oh that's right, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK. *rolls eyes* This is exactly the problem, Bush and many, many others tie race, nationality and religion together (often linked, yes, but not always mutually exlusive).

Your previous comments imply racism and for the record, we were all nomadic once, your logic is flawed. You appear to be saying that those from the Middle-East were incapable of adjusting to a settled, agriculture-based lifestyle. Again, apparently racist.

Oh my. Where were the London bombers from again? Oh that's right, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK. *rolls eyes* This is exactly the problem, Bush and many, many others tie race, nationality and religion together (often linked, yes, but not always mutually exlusive).
I understand that of course. Thus the reference to the French Muslims who have recently been rioting. Although Bush is concerned, it's not his primary concern. Same with the London bombings. His primary concern leads him to the Middle East.

Your previous comments imply racism and for the record, we were all nomadic once, your logic is flawed. You appear to be saying that those from the Middle-East were incapable of adjusting to a settled, agriculture-based lifestyle. Again, apparently racist.
I'm not saying they weren't able to adjust, I'm saying that they evolved into what they are today, dramatically altered but possessing this one trait. Besides, they were nomadic in a dry, hot environment. Most others are nomadic where hunting and gathering was simpler until a population rise caused an agricultural boom.

The 11th of September of the year 2001.

11/9 is the way to go.

American's say 9/11 because it is the same as 911!!! That's why the government planned it then so everyone can remember it.

The real question is, Does Bush believe those statements, even though he made them? My guess would be, no, he does not, since they are incompatible with both his actions and his professed belief as an evangelical christian.

Of course. I doubt he believes them any more than any other politician really believes the rhetoric that he spoonfeeds his constituents.

The real question is, Does Bush believe those statements, even though he made them? My guess would be, no, he does not, since they are incompatible with both his actions and his professed belief as an evangelical christian.
well, evangelical christians and islamic fundamentalists do have an enemy in common so my POV is that this is just a temporary alliance, until the third party is wiped out.

I am a jelly donut.

Fairly simple question. Do you agree with these statements?
Indeed, every time a conservative bigot sarcastically refers ot Islam as a "religion of peace" I love to remind them how it was their boy Bush who first used the term.

The real question is, Does Bush believe those statements, even though he made them? My guess would be, no, he does not, since they are incompatible with both his actions and his professed belief as an evangelical christian.
They're not incompatible with his actions or beliefs. He has waged stupid wars on two countries, but not because the people who live there were Muslim. And I don't think that evangelical Christianity exactly calls for a crusade against Islam.

But he probably doesn't care either way, being a politician.

The 11th of September of the year 2001.

11/9 is the way to go.

American's say 9/11 because it is the same as 911!!! That's why the government planned it then so everyone can remember it.
dude..just stop talking...it's really disrespectfull

11th? I hang out in the 9th. You should visit sometime, play ball with the bad boys.

C'mon up to Connecticut, we're the 5th, and we got the good pizza!

There be the facts. The rest is propaganda.
When Bush says Islam is a religion of peace, he's a liar.
What else is new?

He's playing politician. There are LOTS of muslims in the world, and he has to try and keep their hearts and minds from hating us..too much.

That and he'd be branded a racist if he said what you're thinking.

Indeed, every time a conservative bigot sarcastically refers ot Islam as a "religion of peace" I love to remind them how it was their boy Bush who first used the term.

The ones who mock "the religion of peace," I would say they aren't bothered by it since they probably dismiss Bush's comments as being politically correct pandering to the evil 'left.' Many conservatives are disillusioned with Bush anyway, especially the radical ones who don't think Bush is going far enough (either with anti-immigration policy, or anti-free market policy, or anti-Middle East policy).

To them Bush was mostly just a puppet for people to bash, so they can ignore his words when they disagree with their views and not feel like hypocrites.

Fairly simple question. Do you agree with these statements?

I remember when Bush said that. It outraged a lot of his far right supporters. In a little meeting with Blair back then he also said that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, which of course infurated the far right Christian supporters again.

Of course, Bush is a politician. This is a political statement, not a real evaluation of Islam. If he had to make a statement regarding Scientology, he would probably say something nice too.

I remember when Bush said that. It outraged a lot of his far right supporters. In a little meeting with Blair back then he also said that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, which of course infurated the far right Christian supporters again.

Of course, Bush is a politician. This is a political statement, not a real evaluation of Islam. If he had to make a statement regarding Scientology, he would probably say something nice too.

Heh. Exactly - his comments are dismissed when too "political" a rhetoric for one group, but embraced when its just right as far as melodrama goes ('Axis of Evil', or 'War on Terror' for example - these comments were never dismissed even by the far right).

Perhaps the question is, is everything he (or any other politician) says to be dismissed as mere empty rhetoric, or is there actual value in the words (if not the spirit behind them)?

well, only 20% of muslims are from the Middle East, so what you are saying is in fact targetted at Arabs (read: Racist)

Also, Islam was brought to unite all people, but in particular muslims, who, for the reason you showed above, were fighting one another. Islam made all Muslims equal, and united all Arabs under the flag of the Islamic Caliphate. Islam was brought to end this fighting, it wasn't built upon the fighting.

What the person you responded to said is that Islam as a religion reflects the culture and society of pre-Islamic nomads. And he was right, that much is a historical fact.

You responding by saying that only 20% of Muslims are from the Middle East (today) doesn't refute that point. Islam originated in the Middle East, and spread. Thus, it reflects pre-Islamic Middle Eastern culture, exactly as asserted. Many of the traditions and myths in the Koran existed as the traditions and myths of pre-Islamic pagans in the area, as did many of the rules and practices endorsed.

Your clai that "Islam made all Muslims" equal is not just false, but misleading. What about the Dhimmi, Jews and Christians, who are explictly not equal under Islam? What about those that don't even fall under the category of Dhimmi? In this fashion, it can truly be argued that Islam promotes Apartheid, since Sharia law dictates a religion-based class system.

And, lets pretend that wars within Muslim kingdoms didn't occur more than wars between Muslims and Christians. To claim "Islam brought an end to the fighting" is to ignore the two civil wars in the Umayyad dynasty (omg, Muslims killing each other), annd then the Abbasiads then taking over the Umayyads. There was more war in the early history of Islam (first 200 years) than in the early history of the United States.

Heh. Exactly - his comments are dismissed when too "political" a rhetoric for one group, but embraced when its just right as far as melodrama goes ('Axis of Evil', or 'War on Terror' for example - these comments were never dismissed even by the far right).

Perhaps the question is, is everything he (or any other politician) says to be dismissed as mere empty rhetoric, or is there actual value in the words (if not the spirit behind them)?

We can't dismiss everything any politican says as rhetoric, and it is a double standard for Bush supporters to selectively dismiss this as to facilitate their blind support for the GOP. I've always voted against Bush, but for me it seems much easier to believe that he really believes in this Axis of Evil thing than his statements on Islam.

The value in the words, forgetting who said them and why they may have been said, is questionable. Islam, like all religions, is neutral. It isn't a "religion of war" any more than it is a "religion of peace." In fact, religions are not monolithic entities that stand by themselves. A religion is partly defined by, and doesn't exist without followers. Thus, we have extremist Muslims. Their version of Islam is definately not an "Islam of peace." And we have moderates and liberal Muslims, such as the various adherents to Sufi orders within the major sects of Islam. They seem pretty peaceful.

Islam doesn't have to be an evil religion or a religion of peace. This is a false dichotomy created as a result of Islamic apologists and Islamophobes. Rather, it is both - to some it is a religion of peace, and praticed as such, and to others it is a religion of war. The same can be said of virtually all religions, though the degree to which some religions have become "religions of war" throughout history would say something about the way their nature allows them to be interpreted.