NationStates Jolt Archive

Im so sick of people on this site claiming that Islam is a hateful religion,and that it advoctes 'evil' deeds.
Any religion can be twisted to suit evil people and the evil deeds that they do,but it is wrong to think that the religion its self and the majority of moderates within it are all evil as some on this site have suggested.
For example, there are many christians in jail, that have commited murder and worse(ect)-but does the christian doctrine advocate these crimes-no!(or at least the majority of cghristian moderates would say no)
The problem is with humans in general not their religion,and bigoted,unsuported veiws and all fuel to the fire of hatred.
Is it any wonder that young muslims are turning to radical clerics when so many in the supposedly 'civilised' western world are adamant that all muslims are evil.Of course there are bigots within islam that advocate practices that no one in their right mind approves of-but there are people like this in every religion-not just islam.People on this site are saying that muslim men regard women not wearing the hijab as whores, well havent you ever heard a christian man regard an immodest dresser as a whore-I certainly have.

read some of this and tell me if you can really justify the belief that islam is a religion of hate.


In his final sermon Muhammad summarised the heart of Islam:
Belief in One God without images or symbols,
Equality of all the Believers without distinction of race or class, the superiority of individuals being based solely on piety;
Sanctity of life, property and honour;
Abolition of interest, and of vendettas and private justice;
Better treatment of women;
Obligatory inheritance and distribution of the property of deceased persons among near relatives of both sexes, and removal of the possibility of the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few."


The Five Pillars of Islam

These are five duties that every Muslim is obliged to perform.

Shahada:

Shahada is the Muslim profession of faith:

"I witness that there is no god but Allah,
and that Muhammad is the prophet of Allah"

Muslims say this when they wake up in the morning, and just before they go to sleep at night.

Salat:

A prayer ritual performed 5 times a day by all Muslims over the age of 10.

Salat is very different from praying on the inspiration of the moment. A precise ritual is followed at 5 separate times of day which are set aside for devotion:
Between first light and sunrise
After the sun has passed the middle of the sky
Between mid-afternoon and sunset
Between sunset and the last light of the day
Between darkness and dawn
While an individual can pray on their own, Muslims prefer to perform Salat with others, as this demonstrates the unity of all Muslims.

Having specific times each day to be close to Allah helps Muslims remain aware of the importance of their faith, and the role it plays in every part of life.

Sawm:

Abstaining each day during Ramadan, the 9th Muslim month.

Sawm is usually described as fasting, but it actually involves abstaining from all bodily pleasures between dawn and sunset. Not only is food forbidden, but also things like smoking, chewing gum, and any sexual activity.

Muslims must also make sure that they do not do or think, anything evil.

Sawm helps Muslims develop self-control, gain a better understanding of God's gifts and greater compassion towards the deprived.

Zakat:

Giving alms to the poor.

This is a compulsory gift of 2.5 % of one's savings each year in addition to any charitable gifts a Muslim makes.

Giving in this way is intended to free Muslims from the love of money. It reminds them that everything they have really belongs to God.

Money given as Zakat can only be used for certain specific things.

Hajj:

The pilgrimage to Mecca that all physically able Muslims should make at least once in their life. Mecca is the most holy place for Muslims


The literal meaning of Islam is peace; surrender of one’s will i.e. losing oneself for the sake of God and surrendering one’s own pleasure for the pleasure of God. The message of Islam was revealed to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings on him) 1, 400 years ago. It was revealed through angel Gabriel (on whom be peace) and was thus preserved in the Holy Quran. The Holy Quran carries a Divine guarantee of safeguard from interpolation and it claims that it combines the best features of the earlier scriptures.

The prime message of Islam is the Unity of God, that the Creator of the world is One and He alone is worthy of worship and that Muhammad (peace and blessings on him) is His Messenger and Servant. The follower of this belief is thus a Muslim - a Muslim’s other beliefs are: God’s angels, previously revealed Books of God, all the prophets, from Adam to Jesus (peace be on them both), the Day of Judgement and indeed the Decree of God. A Muslim has five main duties to perform, namely; bearing witness to the Unity of God and Muhammad (peace and blessings on him) as His Messenger, observing the prescribed prayer, payment of Zakat, keeping the fasts of Ramadhan and performing the pilgrimage to Mecca.

Islam believes that each person is born pure. The Holy Quran tells us that God has given human beings a choice between good and evil and to seek God’s pleasure through faith, prayer and charity. Islam believes that God created mankind in His image and by imbuing the attributes of God on a human level mankind can attain His nearness. Islam’s main message is to worship God and to treat all God’s creation with kindness and compassion. Rights of parents in old age, orphans and the needy are clearly stated. Women’s rights were safeguarded 1,400 years ago when the rest of the world was in total darkness about emancipation. Islamic teachings encompass every imaginable situation and its rules and principles are truly universal and have stood the test of time.

In Islam virtue does not connote forsaking the bounties of nature that are lawful. On the contrary one is encouraged to lead a healthy, active life with the qualities of kindness, chastity, honesty, mercy, courage patience and politeness. In short, Islam has a perfect and complete code for the guidance of individuals and communities alike. As the entire message of Islam is derived from the Holy Quran and indeed the Sunnah and Hadith (the traditions and practices of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings on him) it is immutable in the face of change in time and place. It may appear rigid to the casual eye, in actual fact it is most certainly an adaptable way of life regardless of human changes.

It is hard to see that side of islam when ever all you see on the new EVERYDAY is"another islamic suicide bomber has killed 5 marines and a dozen cilvillians." Now I know that islam in its purest form is wonderful, just as is christianity and every other faith. It bothers me though when the peaceful muslims don't speak up loud enough against the evil "muslims"

that is true

The literal meaning of Islam is peace; surrender of one’s will i.e. losing oneself for the sake of God and surrendering one’s own pleasure for the pleasure of God.
Actually, the literal meaning of ISLAM is submission, which while a form of peace, is not peace itself. Biiiiiiigggg difference.

There aren't enough muslims running around killing people for the amount of hysteria devoted to it. Even with the whole Iraqi business.

These people must have been bored to death pre-Osama and post cold-war.

is islam any worse than any other religion?

Where the hell is Keruvalia?

is islam any worse than any other religion?
Yep. It's worse than alot of other religions. Taoists, Buddhists, and Satanists, as far as I know, don't consider you a sinner for who you fuck.

is islam any worse than any other religion?No. Like the other Abrahamic faiths, it's based on the Olf Testament.

Keeping that in mind, though, Islam in it's "purest form" is just as vile & murderous as Judaeism & Christianity.

People who pick & choose which bits to follow are usually nice enough. Muslims are no exception. It's the orthodox nutters that are violent.

Scripture can & do justify almost any insane act you can think of. The trick is not to follow it blindly.

Actually, the literal meaning of ISLAM is submission, which while a form of peace, is not peace itself. Biiiiiiigggg difference.
I would like sources from both of you.

I would like sources from both of you.
http://www.reference.com/browse/crystal/16728

There aren't enough muslims running around killing people for the amount of hysteria devoted to it. Even with the whole Iraqi business.

These people must have been bored to death pre-Osama and post cold-war.
I'm pretty sure Osama was during the Cold War.

No. Like the other Abrahamic faiths, it's based on the Olf Testament.

It also has some new testament in there as well.

Keeping that in mind, though, Islam in it's "purest form" is just as vile & murderous as Judaeism & Christianity. Oh do explain this. Any religion in its purest form, will more than likely 98% of the time preach tolerance, love, forgiveness, and so on. How is that vile and murderous?

People who pick & choose which bits to follow are usually nice enough. Muslims are no exception. It's the orthodox nutters that are violent.

Scripture can & do justify almost any insane act you can think of. The trick is not to follow it blindly.


agreed.

No. Like the other Abrahamic faiths, it's based on the Olf Testament.

Keeping that in mind, though, Islam in it's "purest form" is just as vile & murderous as Judaeism & Christianity.

People who pick & choose which bits to follow are usually nice enough. Muslims are no exception. It's the orthodox nutters that are violent.

Scripture can & do justify almost any insane act you can think of. The trick is not to follow it blindly.

I think this is the point of the thread.

It also has some new testament in there as well.Yups.Oh do explain this. Any religion in its purest form, will more than likely 98% of the time preach tolerance, love, forgiveness, and so on. How is that vile and murderous?I wasn't talking about any religions, I was talking about the Abrahamic ones, and explicitly said so.
And.. I'm guessing you agree, since you said:agreed.Or were you agreeing to something other than the bit you quoted?

Yups.I wasn't talking about any religions, I was talking about the Abrahamic ones, and explicitly said so.
And.. I'm guessing you agree, since you said:Or were you agreeing to something other than the bit you quoted?


I agree that blindly following something is bad. However, i think a religion in its "purest form" is only good. I mean if Muslims were to truly submit unto God, and if Christians were to truly turn the other cheek and love thy neighbor, or whatever, wouldn't the world be 1000000000000X better?

I'm pretty sure Osama was during the Cold War.
He most certainly was. The SAS trained him and the Muhad'juhadeen and the CIA funded them to fight off the USSR.

I agree that blindly following something is bad. However, i think a religion in its "purest form" is only good. I mean if Muslims were to truly submit unto God, and if Christians were to truly turn the other cheek and love thy neighbor, or whatever, wouldn't the world be 1000000000000X better?
this is what im trying to say, you cant brand a religion by the actions of its most extreme followers

He most certainly was. The SAS trained him and the Muhad'juhadeen and the CIA funded them to fight off the USSR.
so the usa didnt just fund and give weapons to sadaam but also osama,biting them in the bum now isnt it

I agree that blindly following something is bad. However, i think a religion in its "purest form" is only good. I mean if Muslims were to truly submit unto God, and if Christians were to truly turn the other cheek and love thy neighbor, or whatever, wouldn't the world be 1000000000000X better?
There are a whole hell of a lot of passages glorifying violence against non-believers in the Koran. The Old Testament is, in large part, a chronicle of war and genocide at the command of god. If you take the Abrahamic religions in their entirity, not ignoring the violence and stressing the love like most worshippers do today, they're great religions for violent sociopaths.

this is what im trying to say, you cant brand a religion by the actions of its most extreme followers


:) that has been my point for a long time. Thats why often times I will stand up for Islam, but stand against Islamists, the radicals.

There are a whole hell of a lot of passages glorifying violence against non-believers in the Koran. The Old Testament is, in large part, a chronicle of war and genocide at the command of god. If you take the Abrahamic religions in their entirity, not ignoring the violence and stressing the love like most worshippers do today, they're great religions for violent sociopaths.

There seem to be a lot more psychopaths and sociopaths attracted to militant Islam these days. The number of Christian violent wankers seems to have dropped from previous numbers. Militant Islam is the new wave.

After all, since poor people don't have Communism to follow, they have to pick some ideology that allows them to be violent.

so the usa didnt just fund and give weapons to sadaam but also osama,biting them in the bum now isnt it
Indeed. And they picked the wrong warlords to bribe in Soomaalia, and look what's happened there in the last week or two.

There are a whole hell of a lot of passages glorifying violence against non-believers in the Koran. The Old Testament is, in large part, a chronicle of war and genocide at the command of god. If you take the Abrahamic religions in their entirity, not ignoring the violence and stressing the love like most worshippers do today, they're great religions for violent sociopaths.


Look at what time period they were in and also look at the peopl that surrounded them. God said do no murder, but it had to be done to protect the people, did it not?

It bothers me though when the peaceful muslims don't speak up loud enough against the evil "muslims"

I'm always a little troubled by this sort of statement. I'm really not sure why being a Muslim obligates one to be any louder in condemning bin Laden or his ilk than anyone else. I don't expect all Christians to reassure me constantly that they think Fred Phelps is a dickhead, because I assume that sane people in general think Fred Phelps is a dickhead. I don't expect men to have to prove continually that they, personally, think rape is bad, because I assume that sane people think rape is bad. I don't expect Catholics to go out of their way to let me know that they don't approve of priests molesting children, because I assume that sane people don't approve of child molestation. Unless one has good reason to believe that Muslims in general are insane and evil, I really don't see how it's their personal responsibility to go around yelling, "I am not a psychopath! Just in case you were wondering! Like everyone else who's not a psychopath, I think blowing up civilians is pretty crappy behavior! Please don't anyone blow up civilians on my account, because I'd really rather you not!"

(And besides, even if lots and lots of Muslims did spend all their spare time giving press conferences on how they don't happen to like blowing people up, can anyone really imagine the mass media covering that story? "Tonight at ten - local Muslim family is made up of perfectly normal people who don't do anything terribly exciting! Stay tuned for more updates!")

I'm always a little troubled by this sort of statement. I'm really not sure why being a Muslim obligates one to be any louder in condemning bin Laden or his ilk than anyone else. I don't expect all Christians to reassure me constantly that they think Fred Phelps is a dickhead, because I assume that sane people in general think Fred Phelps is a dickhead. I don't expect men to have to prove continually that they, personally, think rape is bad, because I assume that sane people think rape is bad. I don't expect Catholics to go out of their way to let me know that they don't approve of priests molesting children, because I assume that sane people don't approve of child molestation. Unless one has good reason to believe that Muslims in general are insane and evil, I really don't see how it's their personal responsibility to go around yelling, "I am not a psychopath! Just in case you were wondering! Like everyone else who's not a psychopath, I think blowing up civilians is pretty crappy behavior! Please don't anyone blow up civilians on my account, because I'd really rather you not!"

(And besides, even if lots and lots of Muslims did spend all their spare time giving press conferences on how they don't happen to like blowing people up, can anyone really imagine the mass media covering that story? "Tonight at ten - local Muslim family is made up of perfectly normal people who don't do anything terribly exciting! Stay tuned for more updates!")


Well in the news we never hear about how a Christian terrorist group suicide bomber a hospital. However we are bombarded with muslims that do it.With that there needs to be some sort of out cry from the Muslim pop to overthrow these radicals.

Where the hell is Keruvalia?

I've gone around and around with this. If people want to know my thoughts on all this, there is a search function. I'm tired of repeating myself. :)

I'm always a little troubled by this sort of statement. I'm really not sure why being a Muslim obligates one to be any louder in condemning bin Laden or his ilk than anyone else. I don't expect all Christians to reassure me constantly that they think Fred Phelps is a dickhead, because I assume that sane people in general think Fred Phelps is a dickhead. I don't expect men to have to prove continually that they, personally, think rape is bad, because I assume that sane people think rape is bad. I don't expect Catholics to go out of their way to let me know that they don't approve of priests molesting children, because I assume that sane people don't approve of child molestation. Unless one has good reason to believe that Muslims in general are insane and evil, I really don't see how it's their personal responsibility to go around yelling, "I am not a psychopath! Just in case you were wondering! Like everyone else who's not a psychopath, I think blowing up civilians is pretty crappy behavior! Please don't anyone blow up civilians on my account, because I'd really rather you not!"

(And besides, even if lots and lots of Muslims did spend all their spare time giving press conferences on how they don't happen to like blowing people up, can anyone really imagine the mass media covering that story? "Tonight at ten - local Muslim family is made up of perfectly normal people who don't do anything terribly exciting! Stay tuned for more updates!")

Apparently we do have to speak up because people don't use their heads and make the connection that the media only highlights the extreme stuff. The number of people who actually believe in the claims of the Da Vinci Code just staggers me.

Uneducated people unfortunately WILL associate Islam with violence if that's all they hear about it because they don't do research.

I agree that blindly following something is bad. However, i think a religion in its "purest form" is only good. I mean if Muslims were to truly submit unto God, and if Christians were to truly turn the other cheek and love thy neighbor, or whatever, wouldn't the world be 1000000000000X better?But those two religions, in their purest form - meaning, as outlined by scripture - aren't just about loving thy neighbour or turning the other cheek. Extreme prejudice, excessive violence, torturous punishments & putting millions, if not billions, of people to death is just as much part of scripture as the nice things are.

That's why I couldn't disagree more that the Abrahamic religions in their purest form, are positive or good. Hell, according to all three religions I should be put to death for having had sex with another man. My girlfriend should be either killed or severely tortured for having had sex with me, simply because we aren't married. I'm pretty sure all three religions also commands their followers to put us to death for being atheists.

It's not nice. It's not good. There's nothing positive about those religions in their pure form. They're recipies for mass destruction & the indiscriminate butcher of billions of human beings.

But no. I'm not saying the religions can't be good, or that the followers are all a bunch of homocidal maniacs. I'm well aware that most followers don't abide by much of the scripture, and generally only pay attention to the nice bits you mentioned. Nothing wrong with that at all.

To paraphrase the NRA, "Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people." Take a kitchen knife. It's used by millions of people every day, to no ill effect. It's used to prepare the food that nurishes our bodies, and would greatly complicate things if did not have easy acces to them. Now, many times in the past a disturbed individual has used this tool to murder another. Does that make the knife evil? No, it makes that person, while not neccassarily evil, certainly not very nice. Religion, like anything else, can be misused, or misinterperated. The problem is not with Islam, or any religion for that matter. It's the same problem that's plagued us through out the ages, the same problem that will continue to plague us for all eternity: People suck.

what im protesting about is the fact that people on NS seem to have a hidden agenda by singling out islam, possibly as another way to vent their racist/bigoted/unresearched veiws

what im protesting about is the fact that people on NS seem to have a hidden agenda by singling out islam, possibly as another way to vent their racist/bigoted/unresearched veiws

Nah, people bash my former religion (Christianity) too, both here and in the rest of society. It's all gotta stop.

what im protesting about is the fact that people on NS seem to have a hidden agenda by singling out islam, possibly as another way to vent their racist/bigoted/unresearched veiws

"Militant" Islam is the flavor du jour.

A while back, it was Communists.

what im protesting about is the fact that people on NS seem to have a hidden agenda by singling out islam, possibly as another way to vent their racist/bigoted/unresearched veiws
It's a convenient scapegoat. Just like the jews during pre-WW2 era, there has to be a specific soceity that others must revolve around so they can vent their problems and anger on. Believing that this group is of no relative importance, many people find no need to research deeper into the group, hence why they blame it with bigotry. It just happens that Islam is the target mostly since it's believed by the ignorant that all Muslims are Middle Eastern (despite the large populations of Chinese, Indonesian and African Muslims who do not look like the typical look of a Middle Easterner in any means).

I've gone around and around with this. If people want to know my thoughts on all this, there is a search function. I'm tired of repeating myself. :)

You got to work it, man. Work it!

Well in the news we never hear about how a Christian terrorist group suicide bomber a hospital. However we are bombarded with muslims that do it.With that there needs to be some sort of out cry from the Muslim pop to overthrow these radicals.
who is the muslim pop? all they show in the news are local religious leaders and mostly they call for jihad and destruction of israel.
anybody know if the islam had high autority?

Apparently we do have to speak up because people don't use their heads and make the connection that the media only highlights the extreme stuff. The number of people who actually believe in the claims of the Da Vinci Code just staggers me.

Uneducated people unfortunately WILL associate Islam with violence if that's all they hear about it because they don't do research.

Oh, granted. It just bothers me a little when the responsibility is put upon ordinary Muslims to somehow prove themselves non-evil, rather than upon the ignorant and uninformed to, y'know, stop being ignorant and inform themselves. It feels a little like endorsing a principle of "guilty until proven innocent." I don't deny that it's probably a good idea for Muslim spokespersons to do their best to vocally condemn extremists' behavior, but I don't feel like it's in any way their job or duty to do so, any more than it's my job or duty to apologize for the bad behavior of any white person, female person, or American person just because I happen to be white, female, and American. (And, like I said before, I simply can't imagine the media giving much coverage to stories of Muslims condemning terrorism. It's not terribly exciting. No one dies, nothing explodes in a ball of flame, no one rescues any cute fluffy kittens from certain death, and it doesn't involve celebrities having sex, which are clearly the hallmarks of Important News Stories.)

I'm pretty sure Osama was during the Cold War.

O that was when he was the brave Rambo III styled Russian killer. I was actually referring to the attack on NYC, which seemed to trigger the increase in muslim bashing.

There seem to be a lot more psychopaths and sociopaths attracted to militant Islam these days. The number of Christian violent wankers seems to have dropped from previous numbers. Militant Islam is the new wave.

After all, since poor people don't have Communism to follow, they have to pick some ideology that allows them to be violent.
Shit, it ain't just poor folks doing this stuff. Many of Al Qaeda's recruits are middle class or higher.

What we need is less I slam and more I salam.

What we need is less I slam and more I salam.

I believe you mean salad ^^

There seem to be a lot more psychopaths and sociopaths attracted to militant Islam these days. The number of Christian violent wankers seems to have dropped from previous numbers. Militant Islam is the new wave.

After all, since poor people don't have Communism to follow, they have to pick some ideology that allows them to be violent.

They should have stuck to Communism. Not even Tailgunner Joe McCarthy called for the mass murder and sterilization of Commies.

I'm getting pretty fucking sick of the Muslim bashers.

The kinds of people that do that, make me consider that maybe I should convert to Islam. It's kind of like how if someone with a contagious skin disease is coming my way I might cross the street.

They should have stuck to Communism. Not even Tailgunner Joe McCarthy called for the mass murder and sterilization of Commies.

You don't recall General Curtis LeMay, do you?

It is hard to see that side of islam when ever all you see on the new EVERYDAY is"another islamic suicide bomber has killed 5 marines and a dozen cilvillians." Now I know that islam in its purest form is wonderful, just as is christianity and every other faith. It bothers me though when the peaceful muslims don't speak up loud enough against the evil "muslims"
They don't speak up enough? They're screaming, but they don't get any press attention. Which gets better coverage? A suicide bomber blowing up people in a market, or a local imam decrying the hate and violence and xenophobia present in extremist Islam? It's the same thing with Christianity-- everyone knows when Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell makes another dumbshit inflammatory statement, but the thousands of preachers and pastors and priests who don't do that get no coverage.

You don't recall General Curtis LeMay, do you?

Oh yes, the brave little Air Force thug whose solution to every problem was "Nuke them back to the Stone Age." Bet he wouldn't have been so bold and arrogant about it if he had been a ground pounder. But hey, the administrtions back then had a lot more common sense than is present today in keeping that nutjob from getting what he wanted.

If LeMay was alive today no doubt Bin Ladin would have to wear a condom for the constant orgasms he'd get from Bombadeer Curtis throwing the Middle East into an impromptu game of Missile Command.

To say that it is impossible for one set of religious teachings to be more violent then another set of religious teachings is obsurd.

If you want to analyze a violent religion take a look at Judaism. Not only does it begin with Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac (in religious fanaticism), but also the genocidal death of Egyptian first borns and the slaughter of the Canaanites(sp?) of Jericho.

If you want to analyze a violent religion take a look at Judaism. Not only does it begin with Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac (in religious fanaticism), but also the genocidal death of Egyptian first borns and the slaughter of the Canaanites(sp?) of Jericho.

You Neo-Nazi you. Why do you hate The Jewish People™ so much?[/sarcasm]

If you want to analyze a violent religion take a look at Judaism. Not only does it begin with Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac (in religious fanaticism), but also the genocidal death of Egyptian first borns and the slaughter of the Canaanites(sp?) of Jericho.

Yes, but it's only politically correct to call Islam violent. Calling Judaism violent makes you an "anti-semite" nazi, and therefore socially unacceptable.

Don't worry, if people like New Mitanni or Deep Kimchi get their way and all the Muslims are dead, there'll be plenty of discussion about those dirty Jews.

To paraphrase the NRA, "Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people."

It's the same problem that's plagued us through out the ages, the same problem that will continue to plague us for all eternity: People suck.Would it be a bad pun if I said "Amen"? :p

Yes, but it's only politically correct to call Islam violent. Calling Judaism violent makes you an "anti-semite" nazi, and therefore socially unacceptable.

Don't worry, if people like New Mitanni or Deep Kimchi get their way and all the Muslims are dead, there'll be plenty of discussion about those dirty Jews.

I think you've got completely the wrong idea about PC, at least the stereotype of PC.

You Neo-Nazi you. Why do you hate The Jewish People™ so much?[/sarcasm]

Yeah, you can't talk smack about the Jews these days without being called a Neo-Nazi. What a hack.

I think you've got completely the wrong idea about PC, at least the stereotype of PC.Agreed. The stereotype PC is some rotter with a club who thinks he's special & got "authority" to mug you 'cos he's a bad dresser.

..Wait.. We're not talking about stereotypical Police Constables?

Yep. It's worse than alot of other religions. Taoists, Buddhists, and Satanists, as far as I know, don't consider you a sinner for who you fuck.
Taoists were involved in most of the various wars and massacres of pre-communist China. Schools of Taoism warred with each other by competitively currying favor with the ruling bureaucracy and then having their rivals arrested and killed.

When Buddhism moved into Tibet, long, long ago, the Buddhists waged violent war against the indigenous Bon religion.

No religion is immune.

Except maybe the Satanists.

It is hard to see that side of islam when ever all you see on the new EVERYDAY is"another islamic suicide bomber has killed 5 marines and a dozen cilvillians." Now I know that islam in its purest form is wonderful, just as is christianity and every other faith. It bothers me though when the peaceful muslims don't speak up loud enough against the evil "muslims"

That's media sensationalism for you.

Yes, but it's only politically correct to call Islam violent. Calling Judaism violent makes you an "anti-semite" nazi, and therefore socially unacceptable.

Don't worry, if people like New Mitanni or Deep Kimchi get their way and all the Muslims are dead, there'll be plenty of discussion about those dirty Jews.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I have never called for the death of "all the Muslims." I call for the overthrow, defeat and destruction of the evil creed that is Islam. The deluded followers of the child-raping desert bandit can practice any replacement religion they please (or none at all). Personally I'd be happy if they all converted to Buddhism.

As for your tired bloviating about "Nazis" and your inane equation of Jews with infidel Muslims, the greatest anti-Semites today are to be found in places like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran and other lands unfortunate enough to have been infected by Islam, where Jews are regularly equated with apes and dogs, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" are publicized and dramatized, the Holocaust is belittled if not denied, and Israel's destruction is demanded. And don't forget that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was one of Hitler's allies.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I have never called for the death of "all the Muslims." I call for the overthrow, defeat and destruction of the evil creed that is Islam.

So, perhaps you just call for the forced conversion. And we all know how well that worked out during the Crusades - you'd have to kill people to get them to let go of their religion and you know it, and are not uncomfortable with it.

As for your tired bloviating about "Nazis" and your inane equation of Jews with infidel Muslims,

What's with the "nazis" quote? Because nazis are a myth, their ideology of hatred is dead? please. Wake up and smell the sauerkraut.

And you castigate all Islam, but now insist on comparing "jews" with only infidel Muslims. Is that to say that you recognize terrorists are not truly Muslims - or do you just mean all Muslims are "infidels?" Either way, your self-indulgent hatred isn't convincing me. Best try to work on someone of lower intelligence, like Ny Nordland.


the greatest anti-Semites today are to be found in places like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran and other lands unfortunate enough to have been infected by Islam, where Jews are regularly equated with apes and dogs, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" are publicized and dramatized, the Holocaust is belittled if not denied, and Israel's destruction is demanded. And don't forget that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was one of Hitler's allies.

Actually, since the Middle East muslims are generally Semitic peoples, your position of "I hate all Muslims" is in fact anti-semitism.

But perhaps you're one of those nauseatingly rabid zionist Jews who consider non-Jews to be subhumans, especially those baby-eating Muslims, and the very fact that "Jews" are followers of a religion just like "Muslims" pisses you off cuz it compares you to the goyim? Either way, your position of hatred and stereotype is abominable filth from a bygone era as disgusting as the shit churned out by terrorist themselves.

I believe you mean salad ^^

Well you can't have I salami because there's no pork allowed.

I dunno though, the Hebrew race is the son of a wandering Syrian after all. I'm sure when the top Israeli boffins were tring to develop a nerve gas which would only target Arabs, they realised the bonds of blood between the tribes of Abraham.

Can't we all just ... get along?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e0/Han-arm.jpg/180px-Han-arm.jpg

Well you can't have I salami because there's no pork allowed.

I dunno though, the Hebrew race is the son of a wandering Syrian after all. I'm sure when the top Israeli boffins were tring to develop a nerve gas which would only target Arabs, they realised the bonds of blood between the tribes of Abraham.

Can't we all just ... get along?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e0/Han-arm.jpg/180px-Han-arm.jpg

...Naaaaa.

Blah fuckin' blah blah, New Mitanni. You sound just like those 'Christian-hating Euro-wimps' when THEY select sections of the Bible to make the same exact points about how evil, murderous and barbaric the religion is.

It's pretty sad to see when someone is so blinded by hatred they can't even see their own hypocrisy.

Im so sick of people on this site claiming that Islam is a hateful religion,and that it advoctes 'evil' deeds.

As the entire message of Islam is derived from the Holy Quran and indeed the Sunnah and Hadith (the traditions and practices of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings on him) it is immutable in the face of change in time and place.

The fact is that Islam is a hateful religion, and it does advocte 'evil' deeds. Islam stands condemned by the words of its own "prophet", which I quote directly from the so-called "immutable" word of Allah (not God) set forth in the Koran, as well as from the Hadith.

(Quotations taken from "Everyman's The Koran", translated by J.M. Rodwell, available on Amazon.com; emphasis added, verse numbering as set forth therein):

Sura 9:5: "And when the sacred months are passed, KILL those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them; and SEIZE THEM, BESIEGE THEM, AND LAY WAIT FOR THEM WITH EVERY KIND OF AMBUSH [terrorism in the 7th century!]; but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way, for God is Gracious, Merciful."

Sura 9:123: "Believers! WAGE WAR against such of the infidels as are YOUR NEIGHBORS, and let them find you rigorous: and know that God is with those who fear him."

Sura 5:19: "INFIDELS now are they who say, "Verily God is the Messiah ibn Maryam (son of Mary)!"

Sura 5:76: "INFIDELS now are they who say, 'God is the Messiah, Son of Mary;' for the Messiah said, 'O Children of Israel! worship God, my Lord and your Lord.' Whoever shall JOIN OTHER GODS WITH GOD, God shall forbid him the Garden, and his abode shall be the Fire; and the wicked shall have no helpers."

Sura 3:27: "Let not believers take infidels for their friends rather than believers: whoso shall do this hath nothing to hope from God . . . . "

Sura 5:56: "Believers! take not the Jews or Christians as friends. They are but one another's friends. If any one of you taketh them for his friends, he surely is one of them! God will not guide the EVIL DOERS."

Sura 4:91: "They desire that ye should be infidels as they are infidels, and that ye should be alike. Take therefore none of them for friends, till they have FLED THEIR HOMES FOR THE CAUSE OF GOD. If they turn back, then SEIZE THEM, AND SLAY THEM WHEREVER YE FIND THEM; BUT TAKE NONE OF THEM AS FRIENDS OR HELPERS . . . ."

Sura 4:92: "Ye will find others who seek to gain your confidence as well as that of their own people: So oft as they return to sedition, they shall be overthrown in it: But if they leave you not, nor propose terms of peace to you nor withhold their hands, then SEIZE THEM, AND SLAY THEM, WHEREVER YE FIND THEM. Over these have we given you undoubted power."

Sura 4:97: "Those believers who sit at home free from trouble, and those who DO VALIANTLY IN THE CAUSE OF GOD WITH THEIR SUBSTANCE AND THEIR PERSONS, shall not be treated alike. God hath assigned to those who contend earnestly with their persons and with their substance, a rank above those who sit at home. . . ."

Sura 4:102: "And when ye go forth to WAR in the land, it shall be no crime in you to cut short your prayers, if ye fear lest the infidels come upon you; Verily, THE INFIDELS ARE YOUR UNDOUBTED ENEMIES!"

Sura 4:76: "Let those then fight on the path of God, who BARTER THIS PRESENT LIFE for that which is to come: for whoever FIGHTETH on God's path, whether he be slain or conquer, we will in the end give him a great reward."

Sura 4:78: "They who believe, fight on the path of God; and THEY WHO BELIEVE NOT, fight on the path of Thagout: FIGHT THEREFORE AGAINST THE FRIENDS OF SATAN. . . ."

Sura 3:151-152: "And if ye shall be slain or die on the path of God, then pardon from God and mercy is better than all your amassings;
"For if ye die or be slain, verily unto God shall ye be gathered."

Sura 4:38: "Men are SUPERIOR TO WOMEN on account of the qualities with which God hath gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband's absence, because God hath of them been careful. But chide those for whose refractoriness ye have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart, and SCOURGE THEM: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great!" [So "God" commands wife-beating!]

Sura 4:28: "Forbidden to you also are married women, EXCEPT THOSE WHO ARE IN YOUR HANDS AS SLAVES: This is the law of God for you. . . . "

Sura 4:29: "And whoever of you is not rich enough to marry free believing women, then let him marry such of your believing maidens AS HAVE FALLEN INTO YOUR HANDS AS SLAVES; God well knoweth your faith . . . ."

Sura 2:91-92: "SAY [emphasis in original]: Whoso is the enemy of Gabriel--For he it is who by God's leave hath caused the Koran to descend on thy heart, the confirmation of previous revelations, and guidance, and good tidings to the faithful--
"Whoso is an enemy to God or his angels, or to Gabriel, or to Michael, shall have God as his enemy: for verily GOD IS AN ENEMY TO THE INFIDELS."

I’ve limited myself to the first nine suras of the Koran, since otherwise I could go on for page after page, but this evil work is replete with such teachings from cover to cover. Intolerance, oppression, the abuse of women, aggression, imperialism and terrorism are fully compatible with, indeed are PRESCRIBED by, Islam.

Oh, one last quotation, for those Muslim apologists and enablers who tell us that “we all worship the same God”:

Sura 109–UNBELIEVERS
“Say: O ye unbelievers!
I worship not that which ye worship,
And ye do not worship that which I worship;
I shall never worship that which ye worship,
Neither will ye worship that which I worship.
To you be your religion; to me my religion.”
[Until we've imposed Islam on the entire world, that is.]

Turning now to the Hadith, from which "the entire message of Islam" is also derived, we see proof of the evil character of Muhammed and the wicked nature of Islam on practically every page.

I limit myself here to excerpts from several volumes of the Bukhari Hadith (see http://www.witness-pioneer.org/hadeeth/ ). Again, I could go on for page after page.

Volume 4: Jihad

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 46: “Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "The example of a Mujahid in Allah's Cause-- and Allah knows better who really strives in His Cause----is like a person who fasts and prays continuously. Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty." [So much for "jihad" being a "personal struggle" or "defense against attackers."]

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 48: Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Whoever believes in Allah and His Apostle, offer prayer perfectly and fasts the month of Ramadan, will rightfully be granted Paradise by Allah, no matter whether he fights in Allah's Cause or remains in the land where he is born." The people said, "O Allah's Apostle ! Shall we acquaint the people with the is good news?" He said, "Paradise has one-hundred grades which Allah has reserved for the Mujahidin who fight in His Cause, and the distance between each of two grades is like the distance between the Heaven and the Earth. So, when you ask Allah (for something), ask for Al-firdaus which is the best and highest part of Paradise." (i.e. The sub-narrator added, "I think the Prophet also said, 'Above it (i.e. Al-Firdaus) is the Throne of Beneficent (i.e. Allah), and from it originate the rivers of Paradise.")

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 65: Narrated Abu Musa: A man came to the Prophet and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet said, "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause." [Again, "jihad" = "aggressive war"]

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 80i: Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "Allah welcomes two men with a smile; one of whom kills the other and both of them enter Paradise. One fights in Allah's Cause and gets killed. Later on Allah forgives the 'killer who also get martyred (In Allah's Cause)." [So, killers for Allah can commit any crime and still be rewarded!]

Volume 7: Wedlock, Marriage

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 13o: [Prostitution endorsed for soldiers!]
Narrated 'Abdullah: We used to participate in the holy battles led by Allah's Apostle and we had nothing (no wives) with us. So we said, "Shall we get ourselves castrated?" He forbade us that and then allowed us to marry women with a temporary contract (2) and recited to us: -- 'O you who believe ! Make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no transgression.'

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 18: Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry." [How convenient!]

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 33: Narrated Usama bin Zaid: The Prophet said, "After me I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women." [This one says it all.]

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 121: Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "If a man invites his wife to sleep with him and she refuses to come to him, then the angels send their curses on her till morning." ["God" says women have to put out whenever men say so!]

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 125: Narrated 'Abdullah bin Abbas: During the lifetime of Allah's Apostle, the sun eclipsed. Allah's Apostle offered the prayer of (the) eclipse) and so did the people along with him. He performed a long Qiyam (standing posture) during which Surat-al-Baqara could have been recited; then he performed a pro-longed bowing, then raised his head and stood for a long time which was slightly less than that of the first Qiyam (and recited Qur'an). Then he performed a prolonged bowing again but the period was shorter than the period of the first bowing, then he stood up and then prostrated. Again he stood up, but this time the period of standing was less than the first standing. Then he performed a prolonged bowing but of a lesser duration than the first, then he stood up again for a long time but for a lesser duration than the first. Then he performed a prolonged bowing but of lesser duration than the first, and then he again stood up, and then prostrated and then finished his prayer. By then the sun eclipse had cleared. The Prophet then said, "The sun and the moon are two signs among the signs of Allah, and they do not eclipse because of the death or birth of someone, so when you observe the eclipse, remember Allah (offer the eclipse prayer)." They (the people) said, "O Allah's Apostle! We saw you stretching your hand to take something at this place of yours, then we saw you stepping backward." He said, "I saw Paradise (or Paradise was shown to me), and I stretched my hand to pluck a bunch (of grapes), and had I plucked it, you would have eaten of it as long as this world exists. Then I saw the (Hell) Fire, and I have never before, seen such a horrible sight as that, and I saw that the majority of its dwellers were women." The people asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is the reason for that?" He replied, "Because of their ungratefulness." It was said. "Do they disbelieve in Allah (are they ungrateful to Allah)?" He replied, "They are not thankful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favors done to them. Even if you do good to one of them all your life, when she seems some harshness from you, she will say, "I have never seen any good from you.' "

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 132: Narrated 'Abdullah bin Zam'a: The Prophet said, "None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day."

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137: Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection." [So “God” says it’s OK not only to rape but to impregnate female captives!]

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 173: Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: The Prophet said, "If you enter (your town) at night (after coming from a journey), do not enter upon your family till the woman whose husband was absent (from the house) shaves her pubic hair and the woman with unkempt hair, combs her hair" Allah's Apostle further said, "(O Jabir!) Seek to have offspring, seek to have offspring!"

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 129: Narrated Anas: Allah's Apostle took an oath that he would not visit his wives for one month, and he sat in an upper room belonging to him. Then, on the twenty ninth day he came down. It was said, "O Allah's Apostle! You had taken an oath not to visit your wives for one month." He said, "The (present) month is of twenty-nine days." [It depends on what the meaning of "month" is! Gee, maybe Bill Clinton was a closet Muslim!]

Volume 8: Punishment of Disbelievers at War with Allah and His Apostle

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 794: Narrated Anas: Some people from the tribe of 'Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die. [“In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful”, torture and mutilation of prisoners is commanded by the "prophet"]

And then there was Aisha:

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64: Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65: Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." [Yes, you read right: a fifty-something desert bandit "marrying" a six-year-old girl and raping her at age nine!]

It staggers the imagination to think that anyone with an IQ above room temperature could believe in a "prophet" who molests children, hates women and approves of the torture and mutilation of helpless prisoners. It also provides the requisite background and atmosphere for analyzing the savagery of al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad and Hamas, not to mention Indonesian terrorists who murder schoolgirls and Somali invaders who rape and beat Swedish women.

Of course, when confronted by irrefutable proof of the evil nature of their creed in the form of the words of their own "prophet", Muslim apologists invariably cry, "Out of context!", as if there were any context that would justify, let alone sanctify, such dogmas. Or they wail, "Faulty translation!" Or they say, "Islam was under attack by those rascally infidels!" Or any other excuse they can conjure up. Of course, this is fully in accord with the Islamic doctrine of [I]taqiyya, by which Muslims are authorized, indeed encouraged, to lie about the true nature of their beliefs in order to deceive unbelievers.

To all non-infidels: read the Koran and the Hadith for yourself. Read what Muslim "spiritual advisors" have said down through the ages about the real agenda of Islam. Read about what has happened to those people unfortunate enough to have been overrun by Muslim aggression.

Know your enemy.

I don't think there are more Islamic idiots than Christian ones. That's not discriminating.

Actually, since the Middle East muslims are generally Semitic peoples, your position of "I hate all Muslims" is in fact anti-semitism.

You're misinformed, or being deliberately dishonest with the English language.

Anti-Semitism is a term used to refer exclusively to predjuice against Jews. The term was first developed by Moritz Steinschneider to refer to the predjuice against Jews. Then, anti-Semitic societies that promoted hatred of Jews in Germany picked up on it. It has always been used to refer to Jews exlusively, and that is how it is used today in the English language. See a dictionary:

Mirriam-Webster - : hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

See wikipedia:

"Despite the use of the prefix "anti," the terms Semitic and Anti-Semitic are not antonyms."

"The term anti-Semitism has historically referred to prejudice towards Jews alone, and this was the only use of this word for more than a century. It does not traditionally refer to prejudice toward other people who speak Semitic languages (e.g. Arabs or Assyrians). Bernard Lewis, Professor of Near Eastern Studies Emeritus at Princeton University, says that "Anti-Semitism has never anywhere been concerned with anyone but Jews."

To equate Semite with anti-Semitism is to commit the fallacy of equivocation.

In addition, to argue that Arabs can't be anti-Semitic because they are Semitic people, aside from being the fallacy of equivocation, is a fallacy called 'argument by ethnicity.'

Well, I guess that's one way to avoid coherent argument - just repeat yourself over and over. Where'd you learn that one, NM? Der Sturmer?

And still he remains in denial.

One might ask you the same question, as you invariably refer to Nazis and Nazism whenever you open your yap.

As for "avoiding coherent argument", you have yet to advance anything resembling a coherent argument. With you, like the typical Islamofascist apologist, it's always,"Out of context" or "Selective quotation" or "those damn Christians are just as bad" or "Nazi Nazi Nazi". I suggest that it's because the reasoned argument I have presented, fully backed by textual support, is beyond your ability to address, let alone refute.

So I'll make it easy for you. I challenge you to explain (1) why the "prophet" described in Bukhari Hadith Volume 8, Book 82, Number 794 is not a man of evil character and (2) why those who believe in this "Tradition" should not be characterized as being of evil character.

Of course, this assumes that you are capable of putting together any kind of reasoned response that doesn't rely on your usual "Nazi Nazi Nazi", and that may be assuming facts not in evidence.

You're misinformed, or being deliberately dishonest with the English language.

Anti-Semitism is a term used to refer exclusively to predjuice against Jews. The term was first developed by Moritz Steinschneider to refer to the predjuice against Jews.

Then Mr Steinschneider was being deliberately dishonest with the English language when he used the term "Semite" to refer exlusively to Jews. I mean, not that Mr Steinschneider would be biased about it, right?


In addition, to argue that Arabs can't be anti-Semitic because they are Semitic people, aside from being the fallacy of equivocation, is a fallacy called 'argument by ethnicity.'

I didn't argue that they "can't be anti-Semitic."

Besides that, even taking your common-use hostage definition to mean only Jews, a Jew could be anti-Semitic via being a self-hating Jew.

And still he remains in denial.

One might ask you the same question, as you invariably refer to Nazis and Nazism whenever you open your yap.

As for "avoiding coherent argument", you have yet to advance anything resembling a coherent argument. With you, like the typical Islamofascist apologist, it's always,"Out of context" or "Selective quotation" or "Nazi Nazi Nazi". I suggest that it's because the reasoned argument I have presented, fully backed by textual support, is beyond your ability to address, let alone refute.

So I'll make it easy for you. I challenge you to explain (1) why the "prophet" described in Bukhari Hadith Volume 8, Book 82, Number 794 is not a man of evil character and (2) why those who believe in this "Tradition" should not be characterized as being of evil character.

Of course, this assumes that you are capable of putting together any kind of reasoned response that doesn't rely on your usual "Nazi Nazi Nazi", and that may be assuming facts not in evidence.

And still you have nothing but the same tired, Ann Coulter-esque whining about how you look, sound and goose-step like a Nazi. As if you didn't know you do. "Gosh, I only advocate hatred based on religion... why you big bad Euro-wimps call me a nazi? Nazis don't do that!"

BTW, how come you responded to the deleted post, but not the one which points out that you're a complete hypocrite for babbling about "Christian haters" when you use the exact same 'argument' technique that Christian haters use to point out how evil Christianity (or all religions) is?

Maybe you're not Christian enough to care about going to Hell for hypocrisy?

So Checklandia - what exactly lies 'between darkness and dawn'? It's kind of an on/off sort of thing, from where I sit.

Here's another point, New Mitanni. Feel free to ignore it.

You say "Islam is a hateful religion" as if that's a bad thing.

But you admit you yourself are hateful. Let me guess - do as you say, not as you do? Come on, I thought you lawyers were supposed to be consistent. Or maybe you're about as much of a lawyer as you aren't a dumb fuckin' nazi. ;)

Im so sick of people on this site claiming that Islam is a hateful religion,and that it advoctes 'evil' deeds.
Any religion can be twisted to suit evil people and the evil deeds that they do,but it is wrong to think that the religion its self and the majority of moderates within it are all evil as some on this site have suggested.
For example, there are many christians in jail, that have commited murder and worse(ect)-but does the christian doctrine advocate these crimes-no!(or at least the majority of cghristian moderates would say no)
The problem is with humans in general not their religion,and bigoted,unsuported veiws and all fuel to the fire of hatred.
Is it any wonder that young muslims are turning to radical clerics when so many in the supposedly 'civilised' western world are adamant that all muslims are evil.Of course there are bigots within islam that advocate practices that no one in their right mind approves of-but there are people like this in every religion-not just islam.People on this site are saying that muslim men regard women not wearing the hijab as whores, well havent you ever heard a christian man regard an immodest dresser as a whore-I certainly have.

Lets be fair here. I'll give you my analysis of Islam, as a professional in the area. I hold a degree in religious studies, so I might know just a little bit more about it than the average Westerner, or even the average Muslim.

Religions, in general, are neutral. Islam is no more "hateful" or "evil" in itself than any other religion. However, Islam is easily subject to corruption, for lack of a better word. That is, Islamic texts are easily interpreted to advocate "evil" deeds. This isn't disputed in modern scholarship. Its only disputed among moderate Muslims and Islamic apologists. The fact that extremist Muslims who believe they are the only "good" Muslims use the Koran to justify their actions, and sincerely believe that their violent version of Jihad is purely Islamic and from God, proves that fact.

Comparing the Koran to other religious texts, there are more verses that are easily interpreted to adovcate violence. Moderate Muslims would argue against the interpretation, as would extremist Muslims. However, interpretation is subjective, and both groups are purely Islamic. Once again, extremist Islam is acknowledged in the scholarly world, and only disputed by moderate Muslims and Islamic apologists. You wont find a single scholarly work that makes the fallacious claim "oh, they aren't real Muslims."

Your comparisons of Islam to Christianity here are accurate. There are extremists in Christianity just as there are in Islam. However, in modern times, there are more accounts of extremist violence in Islam than in Christianity. Christianity has its ugly past too, with things like the Inquisitions and Crusades. But, its false to pretend like those things were not part of Christian doctrine, because they were. Just like it is false to pretend like violence is not a part of Islamic doctrine - the fact that large portions of Muslims are able to interpret it such makes it so.

The fact that Islamic clerics in high positions around the world condone and advocate violent Jihad, and support terror groups, demonstrates this as well. Islam, like all religions, is not static. Its doctrines are not sola scriptura - even the religions that claim this don't actually practice it, because it is sola scriptura through the lense of personal interpretation. And that personal interpretation is just as much Islam as the personal interpretation of moderates. To claim otherwise is to take an etic, ethnocentric POV.

Its also inaccurate to claim "the problem is with humans, not the religion." No human being exists in a vacuum. Religion is a strong factor in life, and it effects human beings. In places that are heavily religious, it influences the way people view the world around them to extreme degrees. Rarely can you account for behavior in the guise of religious extremism without religion as a cause. It isn't the only cause, but it is a cause.

Then Mr Steinschneider was being deliberately dishonest with the English language when he used the term "Semite" to refer exlusively to Jews. I mean, not that Mr Steinschneider would be biased about it, right?

You're singling out Steinschneider, but the fact is, in English today we know what it means. There is a concensus on that issue. So much so, its lexically defined as such. It isn't equivalent with being Semitic, and an attempt to equate the two is the fallacy of equivocation.

I didn't argue that they "can't be anti-Semitic."

Besides that, even taking your common-use hostage definition to mean only Jews, a Jew could be anti-Semitic via being a self-hating Jew.

Yes, Jews can be anti-Semitic. We have Jewish Holocaust deniers today and have had Jews who supported Hitler and the Nazi regime. I think I mentioned an application of the same fallacy in the previous post - argument by ethnicity. To claim "Oh, its a Jew saying it, so it can't be anti-Semitic" is a textbook example of the fallacy of argument by ethnicity.

Aside from that, its not unthinkable to the open mind that people can (and do) often hate their own people.

You're singling out Steinschneider, but the fact is, in English today we know what it means. There is a concensus on that issue.

Language can change. And I don't consent.

I know, I know - "popular usage." But as George Carlin once said, popular usage can take a flying fuck at a rolling donut.

And why is it there is no word for people who hate Muslims, anyway? Other than "stupid," that is, which obviously doesn't have the same marketing potential as Mr Steinschneider's narrow, self-centered choice.

Here's another point, New Mitanni. Feel free to ignore it.

You say "Islam is a hateful religion" as if that's a bad thing.

But you admit you yourself are hateful. Let me guess - do as you say, not as you do? Come on, I thought you lawyers were supposed to be consistent. Or maybe you're about as much of a lawyer as you aren't a dumb fuckin' nazi. ;)

Your opinion of me is not the issue. The nature of Islam is the issue. But there's no point having a discussion since you refuse to address the issue. Go back to grad school or wherever you developed your remarkable powers of reasoning.

BTW: props to Ann Coulter ;)

Your opinion of me is not the issue. The nature of Islam is the issue.

Which is another way of saying you're a total fuckin' hypocrite, and don't give a shit. The topic at hand is all to be discussed - except when you feel like calling someone a "Euro-wimp," then magically your opinion about other people becomes important.

I'll remember that next time you whine about "Christian haters."

You despise them but are happy to use their same tactics. Kinda like how if you weren't a cowardly lawyer you'd be strapping a bomb to your chest and killing some of those "inferior" Muslims that "infest" your country.

But there's no point having a discussion since you refuse to address the issue. Go back to grad school or wherever you developed your remarkable powers of reasoning.

There's no point to having a discussion because you are as close-minded and hateful as any Terrorist or Nazi that ever lived. Go back to masturbating to Ann Coulter or wherever it is you learned to launch hatemongering rants online.

And why is it there is no word for people who hate Muslims, anyway? Other than "stupid," that is, which obviously doesn't have the same marketing potential as Mr Steinschneider's narrow, self-centered choice.

Actually we use Islamophobia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia) now I think.

But, when evaluating anti-Semitism, its important to remember that there is not just a Jewish religion, but a Jewish ethnicity. There is no Christian or Muslim ethnicity, although most Muslims are identified with various Arab ethnicities. So even if we used the term anti-Semitism to refer to hatred of any group that could be called Semitic, hatred of Islam wouldn't be anti-Semitism, because Islam is a religion. I could be an Anglo Muslim, an Asian Muslim, etc.

Which is another way of saying you're a total fuckin' hypocrite, and don't give a shit. The topic at hand is all to be discussed - except when you feel like calling someone a "Euro-wimp," then magically your opinion about other people becomes important.

I'll remember that next time you whine about "Christian haters."

You despise them but are happy to use their same tactics. Kinda like how if you weren't a cowardly lawyer you'd be strapping a bomb to your chest and killing some of those "inferior" Muslims that "infest" your country.



There's no point to having a discussion because you are as close-minded and hateful as any Terrorist or Nazi that ever lived. Go back to masturbating to Ann Coulter or wherever it is you learned to launch hatemongering rants online.

ROFLMAO

Your opinion of me is not the issue. The nature of Islam is the issue. But there's no point having a discussion since you refuse to address the issue. Go back to grad school or wherever you developed your remarkable powers of reasoning.

BTW: props to Ann Coulter ;)
The nature of Islam is not the issue of this thread. The nature of Islam-bashing is. You do nothing to show that there is anything behind it but plain vanilla bigotry. Trostia is right when he says that, with all your Quran quotes, you are using the exact same tactic that "christian-hating euro-wimps" use to bash Christianity, and with just as much depth. And your hysterical rants about the evils of Islam create a strong impression that, for you, terrorism is nothing more than excuse for you to express a hatred you've always carried.

BTW, Ann Coulter is a shrill, camera-hogging bitch who writes like a 1930s pamphleteer. :p

Actually we use Islamophobia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia) now I think.

But, when evaluating anti-Semitism, its important to remember that there is not just a Jewish religion, but a Jewish ethnicity.

Islamophobia. Sounds too soft and new-agey for my tastes.

Well, as for the so-called Jewish ethnicity, I don't believe that. If I converted to Judaism today, would I suddenly have a different ethnicity? No, so clearly not all Jews share the same ethnicity (unless we assume no one converts to Judaism). I think it clouds the issue, also, by meaning any "anti" Jewish sentiments is automatically presumed to be against the "Jewish ethnicity" (even if it's against the religion itself).

Oh well. Off-topic, perhaps? Perhaps.

Islamophobia. Sounds too soft and new-agey for my tastes.

Well, as for the so-called Jewish ethnicity, I don't believe that. If I converted to Judaism today, would I suddenly have a different ethnicity? No, so clearly not all Jews share the same ethnicity (unless we assume no one converts to Judaism). I think it clouds the issue, also, by meaning any "anti" Jewish sentiments is automatically presumed to be against the "Jewish ethnicity" (even if it's against the religion itself).

Oh well. Off-topic, perhaps? Perhaps.

Actually, you would change your ethnicity if you converted. In the same respect, a Jew who converts to Christianity leaves their ethnicity. Ethnicity is not synonymous with "race", the latter of which is rejected as virtually mythical by modern anthropology. Ethnicity is defined by culture - beliefs, nationality, location, religion, etc. Genetics is actually a very small part of it, and people of different 'races', or different genetic phenotypes, can actually share the same ethnicity.

Actually, you would change your ethnicity if you converted. In the same respect, a Jew who converts to Christianity leaves their ethnicity. Ethnicity is not synonymous with "race", the latter of which is rejected as virtually mythical by modern anthropology. Ethnicity is defined by culture - beliefs, nationality, location, religion, etc. Genetics is actually a very small part of it, and people of different 'races', or different genetic phenotypes, can actually share the same ethnicity.

I don't believe in "races" either, though my friend popular-usage disagrees.

Still, according to you, it seems ethnicity doesn't differ much from culture at all. So what then is the difference between the two, and if there isn't much if any, would it be fair to describe any culture (or subculture) as its own 'ethnicity?'

Second opinion to Tropical Sands on this:
If your religion was the only thing that changed, then no, your ethnicity would not have changed.
However, if you were to move to a Jewish neibourhood, join a shul, etc. then you would have changed ethnicity.
And since it's very uncommon to do the first without doing the second, you almost certainly would changed ethnicity if you converted to Judaism.

Still, according to you, it seems ethnicity doesn't differ much from culture at all. So what then is the difference between the two, and if there isn't much if any, would it be fair to describe any culture (or subculture) as its own 'ethnicity?'

It doesn't actually differ from culture much in the sense that culture is a large part of ethnicity. Genetics, nationality, etc. are also a part of ethnicity. And whereas with culture you can adopt a culture, you can't adopt many types of ethnicity. Without being born a certain place, you may never be ethnically x. And for the few types of ethnicity that you can adopt, you generally have to be accepted by the existants of that ethnicity.

So, while culture is a part of it, ethnicity is a much more broad term that encompasses it. And there is no real black or white on the issue. This type of thing tends to be a soft science.

Second opinion to Tropical Sands on this:
If your religion was the only thing that changed, then no, your ethnicity would not have changed.
However, if you were to move to a Jewish neibourhood, join a shul, etc. then you would have changed ethnicity.
And since it's very uncommon to do the first without doing the second, you almost certainly would changed ethnicity if you converted to Judaism.

Yes, you're right. Thats a more in depth explanation of it, and hopefully it helps to outline some of the key factors of ethnicity, such as behavior, location, daily life, etc.

The nature of Islam is not the issue of this thread. The nature of Islam-bashing is. You do nothing to show that there is anything behind it but plain vanilla bigotry. Trostia is right when he says that, with all your Quran quotes, you are using the exact same tactic that "christian-hating euro-wimps" use to bash Christianity, and with just as much depth. And your hysterical rants about the evils of Islam create a strong impression that, for you, terrorism is nothing more than excuse for you to express a hatred you've always carried.

BTW, Ann Coulter is a shrill, camera-hogging bitch who writes like a 1930s pamphleteer. :p

The original issue of this thread was the allegedly beneficent nature of Islam, for which support from various Islamic sources was adduced. My response to the original issue was citation of support from the same Islamic sources that demonstrate the non-beneficent, i.e., evil nature of Islam. If you consider quotation of the very words of the Koran and Hadith is "plain vanilla bigotry," then you distort the meaning of the term "bigotry" out of recognition.

The words of Omar Ahmad, co-founder of CAIR, fully support my view of Islam as aggressive, hostile and deadly: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." When CAIR leaders, like a certain Austrian, proclaim that they mean to dominate the world, the prudent man takes them seriously and acts accordingly.

The minions of Islam are already attempting to impose their beliefs on non-Muslim nations such as Norway, Denmark and France. There is no doubt that, should (God forbid) a critical mass of Muslims build up in America, we will see similar attempts to intimidate women into changing their choice of dress, murders of those who oppose Islam, and other outrages already occurring in Europe. Such acts fully motivate opposition to, indeed contempt for, Islam among all Western societies.

As for "bashing Christianity," you and anyone else are free to think and say whatever you please. Unlike Muslims, I don't care if you criticize, condemn or even hate the Christian faith and say so publicly for all to hear. I'm fully prepared to argue in response. However, I'm not going to defend everything done by self-described Christians, or by the Catholic or other Christian churches, over the centuries. Christendom has a lot to be ashamed of. Christendom has also, to a greater or lesser extent, renounced, repudiated and attempted to make amends for past excesses and yes, past evil acts. Christian anti-Semitism is one such evil. The process continues today, and a lot of evils remain to be addressed, including priestly pedophilia and other sexual abuses. But I digress. My point is, Christianity has at least attempted to reform itself, starting with the "Reformation" itself.

I see no such reformation occurring in Islam, nor any indication that it will ever occur in any Muslim-dominated nation. (The only exception I am aware of is Turkey, and that's because Kemal Ataturk was IIRC basically an atheist or agnostic and had the military support to reform what was left of the old Ottoman Empire.) In particular, I see no sign that Muslim teachers and religious leaders in any Muslim-dominated nation repudiate any of the unsavory teachings I have cited. And since Islam is supposed to be based on the final, immutable revelation (as the original poster asserts), you explain to me how such a reformation is even possible.

As for "hysterical rants," we can use more such ranting when it comes to homicide bombings, murders of helpless captives live on camera, and flying airplanes into buildings (and I personally know people who worked both in the WTC and the Pentagon, so that damn well gives me the right to rant), and sure as hell a lot more "ranting" than we hear about trivia like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

Finally, your description of Ann Coulter is more aptly applied to Michael Moore and Howard Dean.

Im so sick of people on this site claiming that Islam is a hateful religion,and that it advoctes 'evil' deeds.
Any religion can be twisted to suit evil people and the evil deeds that they do,but it is wrong to think that the religion its self and the majority of moderates within it are all evil as some on this site have suggested.
For example, there are many christians in jail, that have commited murder and worse(ect)-but does the christian doctrine advocate these crimes-no!(or at least the majority of cghristian moderates would say no)
The problem is with humans in general not their religion,and bigoted,unsuported veiws and all fuel to the fire of hatred.
Is it any wonder that young muslims are turning to radical clerics when so many in the supposedly 'civilised' western world are adamant that all muslims are evil.Of course there are bigots within islam that advocate practices that no one in their right mind approves of-but there are people like this in every religion-not just islam.People on this site are saying that muslim men regard women not wearing the hijab as whores, well havent you ever heard a christian man regard an immodest dresser as a whore-I certainly have.

read some of this and tell me if you can really justify the belief that islam is a religion of hate.


In his final sermon Muhammad summarised the heart of Islam:
Belief in One God without images or symbols,
Equality of all the Believers without distinction of race or class, the superiority of individuals being based solely on piety;
Sanctity of life, property and honour;
Abolition of interest, and of vendettas and private justice;
Better treatment of women;
Obligatory inheritance and distribution of the property of deceased persons among near relatives of both sexes, and removal of the possibility of the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few."


The Five Pillars of Islam

These are five duties that every Muslim is obliged to perform.

Shahada:

Shahada is the Muslim profession of faith:

"I witness that there is no god but Allah,
and that Muhammad is the prophet of Allah"

Muslims say this when they wake up in the morning, and just before they go to sleep at night.

Salat:

A prayer ritual performed 5 times a day by all Muslims over the age of 10.

Salat is very different from praying on the inspiration of the moment. A precise ritual is followed at 5 separate times of day which are set aside for devotion:
Between first light and sunrise
After the sun has passed the middle of the sky
Between mid-afternoon and sunset
Between sunset and the last light of the day
Between darkness and dawn
While an individual can pray on their own, Muslims prefer to perform Salat with others, as this demonstrates the unity of all Muslims.

Having specific times each day to be close to Allah helps Muslims remain aware of the importance of their faith, and the role it plays in every part of life.

Sawm:

Abstaining each day during Ramadan, the 9th Muslim month.

Sawm is usually described as fasting, but it actually involves abstaining from all bodily pleasures between dawn and sunset. Not only is food forbidden, but also things like smoking, chewing gum, and any sexual activity.

Muslims must also make sure that they do not do or think, anything evil.

Sawm helps Muslims develop self-control, gain a better understanding of God's gifts and greater compassion towards the deprived.

Zakat:

Giving alms to the poor.

This is a compulsory gift of 2.5 % of one's savings each year in addition to any charitable gifts a Muslim makes.

Giving in this way is intended to free Muslims from the love of money. It reminds them that everything they have really belongs to God.

Money given as Zakat can only be used for certain specific things.

Hajj:

The pilgrimage to Mecca that all physically able Muslims should make at least once in their life. Mecca is the most holy place for Muslims


The literal meaning of Islam is peace; surrender of one’s will i.e. losing oneself for the sake of God and surrendering one’s own pleasure for the pleasure of God. The message of Islam was revealed to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings on him) 1, 400 years ago. It was revealed through angel Gabriel (on whom be peace) and was thus preserved in the Holy Quran. The Holy Quran carries a Divine guarantee of safeguard from interpolation and it claims that it combines the best features of the earlier scriptures.

The prime message of Islam is the Unity of God, that the Creator of the world is One and He alone is worthy of worship and that Muhammad (peace and blessings on him) is His Messenger and Servant. The follower of this belief is thus a Muslim - a Muslim’s other beliefs are: God’s angels, previously revealed Books of God, all the prophets, from Adam to Jesus (peace be on them both), the Day of Judgement and indeed the Decree of God. A Muslim has five main duties to perform, namely; bearing witness to the Unity of God and Muhammad (peace and blessings on him) as His Messenger, observing the prescribed prayer, payment of Zakat, keeping the fasts of Ramadhan and performing the pilgrimage to Mecca.

Islam believes that each person is born pure. The Holy Quran tells us that God has given human beings a choice between good and evil and to seek God’s pleasure through faith, prayer and charity. Islam believes that God created mankind in His image and by imbuing the attributes of God on a human level mankind can attain His nearness. Islam’s main message is to worship God and to treat all God’s creation with kindness and compassion. Rights of parents in old age, orphans and the needy are clearly stated. Women’s rights were safeguarded 1,400 years ago when the rest of the world was in total darkness about emancipation. Islamic teachings encompass every imaginable situation and its rules and principles are truly universal and have stood the test of time.

In Islam virtue does not connote forsaking the bounties of nature that are lawful. On the contrary one is encouraged to lead a healthy, active life with the qualities of kindness, chastity, honesty, mercy, courage patience and politeness. In short, Islam has a perfect and complete code for the guidance of individuals and communities alike. As the entire message of Islam is derived from the Holy Quran and indeed the Sunnah and Hadith (the traditions and practices of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings on him) it is immutable in the face of change in time and place. It may appear rigid to the casual eye, in actual fact it is most certainly an adaptable way of life regardless of human changes.


Its not so much the religion ...in fact its not the religion at all. Those that have hijacked it for political reasons are no different than the Christians who have made an art of doing the same thing....although they stopped about 5 or 6 hundred years ago ..
If you want to point out the differences... its a clash of cultures..Islamic culture is like anti matter to western culture . being " secular ' in an Islamic country is often not possible and tolerance for western attitudes and morals is in some area's either non existant or into the satan must die stage .
Westerners for the most part do not live by the book ...except for some area's of the US ..So having a whole country following a religouse law is an anathma to most of us. the internet and global comunications have brought the razors edge to both cultures and from this meeting we get Wahabi's and Jihadist etc. They just want to kill the devil that is tempting good muslims to leave the one and only faith .

What can be so wrong with that ? depending on how you answer that question shows how large the gulf is between our cultures.
And for those that think it not possible for Muslims and non Muslims to live together and prosper...look at the United states for an example .

Its not so much the religion ...in fact its not the religion at all. Those that have hijacked it for political reasons are no different than the Christians who have made an art of doing the same thing....although they stopped about 5 or 6 hundred years ago ..

So, why do you call the extremist interpretation of Islam "hijacking" it? Why, when laypeople evaluate religion, do they assume that the moderate interpretation of the religion is the religion, but the extremist forms somehow hijacked it and deviated from the actual religion?

So, why do you call the extremist interpretation of Islam "hijacking" it? Why, when laypeople evaluate religion, do they assume that the moderate interpretation of the religion is the religion, but the extremist forms somehow hijacked it and deviated from the actual religion?

For me, it's mostly because I believe rational people more often. If rational Muslims tell me one thing, but raving nutjob terrorists another, I'm not going to side with the latter.

Also, there is the issue of popularity. A religion that fulfils the spiritual requirements of so many people (i.e a "Major World Religion") can't simply be a cult appealing to "evil people" and terrorists. It obviously has more merit than simply "followers of a baby raping terrorist meanie" (or however New Mitanni puts it).

If Islam was narrowly confined, like say, Scientology, with few adherants, I might believe it to appeal to such a narrowly defined group as "evil people."

Lastly, this is hardly unique to Islam. All major religions have their fringe-yokel groups with their own, shall we say special, interpretation. As to why that is? I don't know - perhaps because painting everyone of a single religion with the same brush is a generalization of limited use.

Yes, I know not all Muslims are fundy assholes. To say they are is like blaming all African Americans for the worthless scum of human beings that inhabit the west side.

And if anyone of the Mushrikûn (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allâh (the Qur'ân), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not. (Quran 9:6)

Something tells me Bush uses the Dawood translation. Missed a bit.
1956
Dawood, N.J., The Koran (London, 1956). 11 edns. An Iraqi Jew. Speaks of the influence of Jewish and Christian teachings on the Prophet and condemning the traditional Sura order follows the chronological Sura order. Marred by serious mistakes of translation 'bani Adam" (al-Araf VII:31) is rendered as children of Allah [correct translation is 'children of Adam'], in Al-Baqarah II:191 'al fitnatu asyaddu minal qatl(i)' is mistranslated as 'idolatry is worse than carnage' [correct translation is 'oppression is worse than slaughter'].

Yes, it does sound evil. The gross generalization, ignorance, and bigotry of those who bash Islam and Muslims on NS forums and in other places is as hateful and disturbing as the bashing of Christendom that also frequently occurs (not that athiests get a free ride either).

The only problem I have with Islam is the lack of alcohol. I mean, come on! But I'm from an Irish-Catholic family.....hey i cant be expected to completely understand other cultures! ;)

As for the usage of quotes from the Quran (Koran? please be generous and forgiving of my spelling), come on, dude. One could easily pull out quotes from both Leviticus and the letters (epistles) of St. Paul showing support for slavery and domination of men over women. Christianity didnt exactly write the handbook for fair and equal treatment of others.

As for the usage of quotes from the Quran (Koran? please be generous and forgiving of my spelling), come on, dude. One could easily pull out quotes from both Leviticus and the letters (epistles) of St. Paul showing support for slavery and domination of men over women. Christianity didnt exactly write the handbook for fair and equal treatment of others.

Interesing you should mention slavery, I was just thinking about it in respect to Islam. And long after Judaism and Christianity had abandoned slavery (the former had abandoned it in ancient times, Christianity abandoned it in early antiquity), it was being practiced by Muslims. In fact, it was Muslim traders in Africa who bare joint responsibility with Europeans for the Western slave trade.

Yet, we often don't hear about the Arab Muslim role in the slave trade to the length that we hear about the European role. And to be fair, Muslims used the Koran to justify keeping slaves just like Christians used the Bible (during the slave trade) to justify keeping slaves.

Yes, it does sound evil. As for the usage of quotes from the Quran (Koran? please be generous and forgiving of my spelling), come on, dude. One could easily pull out quotes from both Leviticus and the letters (epistles) of St. Paul showing support for slavery and domination of men over women. Christianity didnt exactly write the handbook for fair and equal treatment of others.

If that was about my quote then it's the other way round. It's a quote from the Quran specifically telling muslims to protect and shepard dhinni (gentiles basically).

Interesing you should mention slavery, I was just thinking about it in respect to Islam. And long after Judaism and Christianity had abandoned slavery (the former had abandoned it in ancient times, Christianity abandoned it in early antiquity), it was being practiced by Muslims. In fact, it was Muslim traders in Africa who bare joint responsibility with Europeans for the Western slave trade.

Yet, we often don't hear about the Arab Muslim role in the slave trade to the length that we hear about the European role. And to be fair, Muslims used the Koran to justify keeping slaves just like Christians used the Bible (during the slave trade) to justify keeping slaves.

Maybe (US history I'm awesome on, world and religion history, not so much), but didnt both Christianity and Judaism have a head start on Islam? I mean they were both founded so much earlier, right? I wonder if a person went from the founding of the religion to when the practice of slavery was abandoned, what the lengths of time would be? (I have no idea, just a curious thought). And I cannot speak about the rest of the world, but in the US Christians had, bought, and sold slaves, and as you mentioned, justitified it in religion up until 1865, hardly antiquity.

And people ought to know that slaves were bought in Africa from Africans, generally the prisoners of warring tribes. I did not know the Africans who were selling the slaves were Arab Muslims, though.

If that was about my quote then it's the other way round. It's a quote from the Quran specifically telling muslims to protect and shepard dhinni (gentiles basically).

It wasn't. I should have been more specific. I was talking about the following quotes:
The fact is that Islam is a hateful religion, and it does advocte 'evil' deeds. Islam stands condemned by the words of its own "prophet", which I quote directly from the so-called "immutable" word of Allah (not God) set forth in the Koran, as well as from the Hadith.

(Quotations taken from "Everyman's The Koran", translated by J.M. Rodwell, available on Amazon.com; emphasis added, verse numbering as set forth therein):

Sura 9:5: "And when the sacred months are passed, KILL those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them; and SEIZE THEM, BESIEGE THEM, AND LAY WAIT FOR THEM WITH EVERY KIND OF AMBUSH [terrorism in the 7th century!]; but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way, for God is Gracious, Merciful."

Sura 9:123: "Believers! WAGE WAR against such of the infidels as are YOUR NEIGHBORS, and let them find you rigorous: and know that God is with those who fear him."
Sura 4:29: "And whoever of you is not rich enough to marry free believing women, then let him marry such of your believing maidens AS HAVE FALLEN INTO YOUR HANDS AS SLAVES; God well knoweth your faith . . . ."
To all non-infidels: read the Koran and the Hadith for yourself. Read what Muslim "spiritual advisors" have said down through the ages about the real agenda of Islam. Read about what has happened to those people unfortunate enough to have been overrun by Muslim aggression.

Know your enemy.
The above is the vile quotations of the Koran which i was referencing (i cut a lot out, his whole hateful post is on page 5, which i have not the patience to read. Bigotry is highly offensive to me, it is an issue on which i am thin-skinned).

Maybe (US history I'm awesome on, world and religion history, not so much), but didnt both Christianity and Judaism have a head start on Islam? I mean they were both founded so much earlier, right? I wonder if a person went from the founding of the religion to when the practice of slavery was abandoned, what the lengths of time would be? (I have no idea, just a curious thought). And I cannot speak about the rest of the world, but in the US Christians had, bought, and sold slaves, and as you mentioned, justitified it in religion up until 1865, hardly antiquity.

They did have an earlier start, but I don't think that means that Muslim culture had to "catch up" per se. During the Middle Ages, Muslim culture was way ahead of Christian culture, yet the majority of slaves were kept by Muslims. To be fair, some Christians kept slaves, but it didn't pick up until the big European slave trade.

In fact, Muslims had entire slave armies, like the Mamluks. Who, ironically enough, managed to rise to power.

And people ought to know that slaves were bought in Africa from Africans, generally the prisoners of warring tribes. I did not know the Africans who were selling the slaves were Arab Muslims, though.

Warring tribes is what we hear a lot, and that did account for a lot of slaves, but thats only half of the story. Europeans didn't buy the slaves (in general) directly from black Africans who caputred them in battle. Tribal peoples sold them to the Arab Muslims, who acted as middle men, then selling them to Europeans. And of course, sometimes Europeans just came in and raided entire villages and got their own slaves. Its a very complex set of events, but the degree to which Muslims were involved in the slave trade is played down a lot.

The above is the vile quotations of the Koran which i was referencing (i cut a lot out, his whole hateful post is on page 5, which i have not the patience to read. Bigotry is highly offensive to me, it is an issue on which i am thin-skinned).

So what makes his quotations of the Koran vile? Why is it that when people point out bad things in the Koran, it becomes "OMG racist, bigot, etc.", but when the same is pointed out in the Bible, regarding, say, homosexuality, people never, ever say that?

I've never once heard someone call a a gay rights activist a "bigot" for pointing out anti-gay scriptures in the Bible, for example. It seems like in practice, it is much more acceptable to criticize Christianity than to criticize Islam. I know I've gotten a lot more support for my criticism of Christianity on NSG than I have for my criticism of Isalm, too.

Once I started a thread called "Pagan influences in Christianity." No problem, except perhaps one or two Christians saying I was "bashing." I bet if I started a thread titled "Pagan influences in Islam", a much larger portion of the NSG population, including some who normally don't comment on general religion threads, would condemn me for bashing Islam.

As for the usage of quotes from the Quran (Koran? please be generous and forgiving of my spelling), come on, dude. One could easily pull out quotes from both Leviticus and the letters (epistles) of St. Paul showing support for slavery and domination of men over women. Christianity didnt exactly write the handbook for fair and equal treatment of others.

You'd have a point if all Christians were fundamentalists. Clearly that isn't the case. The Catholic Church in particular asserts that both Scripture and church tradition are essential, and that the Church's understanding has evolved over time. Thus the Catholic Church isn't bound by literal readings of the Old Testament, nor by literal readings of St. Paul. The Bible is viewed as being divinely inspired, but written by humans for people at a particular time. Catholic doctrine has certainly changed over the centuries, albeit slowly. No Catholic I know, for example, cites Scripture in favor of slavery. Thus, Christians can renounce and repudiate outdated or, as some would say, "evil" teachings, yet remain Christians. Furthermore, the Biblical teachings most often challenged by anti-Christians are Old Testament excerpts or excerpts from St. Paul, rather than the core teachings of the faith as put forth by Christ Himself.

Since Islam claims to be based on an allegedly final, immutable revelation from God, it logically follows that believing Muslims must be fundamentalists who must believe every word of this "revelation" as it is written and who cannot alter any of it since every word comes directly from God Himself. Muslims thus are bound to believe in every doctrine contained in the Koran, both the allegedly good (most of which were appropriated, in more or less distorted form, from Judaism and Christianity) and the clearly evil ("lying in ambush", aggressive war, wife-beating, "take not the Jews and Christians for your friends," etc.). Similarly with the Hadith, since according to the shahada, Mohammed is "God's prophet".

I submit that on balance, the teachings of Islam tip to the side of evil, and thus maintain that Islam as a whole is an evil creed. Muslims can only be "good" to the extent that they renounce and repudiate the evil teachings, in other words, to the extent that they are not believing Muslims. If a Muslim says to me, for example, "I don't believe anyone should rape female captives," my reply is, "How can you consider yourself a Muslim? Aren't you attempting to change part of that allegedly "final immutable revelation"?"

I have yet to see a satisfactory answer to this question.

Ok, I am too lazy to read 6 pages of debating..Someone sum up the arguements this far :D

Up until the 1600s most of the slaves taken by the Barbary coast slavers came from Europe. Entire towns in the west of Ireland were cleared out in a night. Over a million slaves would have been taken from the western seaboard over a few hundred years. That's why you get arabs with red hair and blue eyes.

St. Paddy himself was brought to Ireland as a slave. He did pretty well for himself though. We've always been pro immigration in Ireland.

I was just thinking, if there's any Irish blood in the Iraqis then that whole occupation thing might drag on for about 800 years.

So what makes his quotations of the Koran vile? Why is it that when people point out bad things in the Koran, it becomes "OMG racist, bigot, etc.", but when the same is pointed out in the Bible, regarding, say, homosexuality, people never, ever say that?

I've never once heard someone call a a gay rights activist a "bigot" for pointing out anti-gay scriptures in the Bible, for example. It seems like in practice, it is much more acceptable to criticize Christianity than to criticize Islam. I know I've gotten a lot more support for my criticism of Christianity on NSG than I have for my criticism of Isalm, too.

Once I started a thread called "Pagan influences in Christianity." No problem, except perhaps one or two Christians saying I was "bashing." I bet if I started a thread titled "Pagan influences in Islam", a much larger portion of the NSG population, including some who normally don't comment on general religion threads, would condemn me for bashing Islam.

You might be right. It might be a knee-jerk reaction. For some reason I am not offended as much when people attack groups that I belong to (like Christianity) as when they attack groups i do not belong to. I cannot explain this bizarre fact.

However, he DID start out saying Islam was a hateful religion, and while it may have hateful parts, I think it is a bit hasty to say the whole religion is hateful. I get upset when people twist the words of the Bible to make arguments against homosexuality, as well.

It wasn't. I should have been more specific. I was talking about the following quotes:

The above is the vile quotations of the Koran which i was referencing (i cut a lot out, his whole hateful post is on page 5, which i have not the patience to read. Bigotry is highly offensive to me, it is an issue on which i am thin-skinned).

Yes, of course, opposition to Islam, however well-supported by reference to its actual teachings, must be "bigotry." Tell me, is there any "non-bigoted" way to express opposition to Islam? Or does all opposition to anything equate to "bigotry"? If that's the case, are you an anti-Nazi "bigot"? How about an anti-pedophile "bigot"? Or an anti-pedophile priest "bigot"?

Ok, I am too lazy to read 6 pages of debating..Someone sum up the arguements this far :D


My imaginary friend could beat up your imaginary friend!
My imaginary friend does/doesn't give fashion tips!
Can't we all get along?
WWJD
WWMD
Some dead guys in a desert eating dates and riding camels wrote some stuff down.
Some dead guys in a marble palace wearing dresses huffed some good shit and made this stuff up.

You'd have a point if all Christians were fundamentalists. Clearly that isn't the case. The Catholic Church in particular asserts that both Scripture and church tradition are essential, and that the Church's understanding has evolved over time. Thus the Catholic Church isn't bound by literal readings of the Old Testament, nor by literal readings of St. Paul. The Bible is viewed as being divinely inspired, but written by humans for people at a particular time. Catholic doctrine has certainly changed over the centuries, albeit slowly. No Catholic I know, for example, cites Scripture in favor of slavery. Thus, Christians can renounce and repudiate outdated or, as some would say, "evil" teachings, yet remain Christians. Furthermore, the Biblical teachings most often challenged by anti-Christians are Old Testament excerpts or excerpts from St. Paul, rather than the core teachings of the faith as put forth by Christ Himself.

Since Islam claims to be based on an allegedly final, immutable revelation from God, it logically follows that believing Muslims must be fundamentalists who must believe every word of this "revelation" as it is written and who cannot alter any of it since every word comes directly from God Himself. Muslims thus are bound to believe in every doctrine contained in the Koran, both the allegedly good (most of which were appropriated, in more or less distorted form, from Judaism and Christianity) and the clearly evil ("lying in ambush", aggressive war, wife-beating, "take not the Jews and Christians for your friends," etc.). Similarly with the Hadith, since according to the shahada, Mohammed is "God's prophet".

I submit that on balance, the teachings of Islam tip to the side of evil, and thus maintain that Islam as a whole is an evil creed. Muslims can only be "good" to the extent that they renounce and repudiate the evil teachings, in other words, to the extent that they are not believing Muslims. If a Muslim says to me, for example, "I don't believe anyone should rape female captives," my reply is, "How can you consider yourself a Muslim? Aren't you attempting to change part of that allegedly "final immutable revelation"?"

I have yet to see a satisfactory answer to this question.

Ahh, I see your point now. And I will agree that blindly accepting every single part of ANY religion is a recipe for disaster. It seems to me that by your definition, the population of Muslims is actually incredibly small, since most followers of Islam do not believe in things like raping female captives.

Yet a person can still believe most of what is taught, and disagree. For instance, I consider myself Catholic, and go to Mass on a regular basis, yet I believe that the Church is completely wrong on its stance of homosexuality. I can only hope that for Muslims it is much the same. The believe in the basic principals of Islam - such as those outlined by the OP which did not seem at all objectionable - while rejecting the parts of the Koran which nearly anyone today would find objectionable, such as the subjugation of women. I hope this was somewhat satisfactory to you.

Yes, of course, opposition to Islam, however well-supported by reference to its actual teachings, must be "bigotry." Tell me, is there any "non-bigoted" way to express opposition to Islam? Or does all opposition to anything equate to "bigotry"? If that's the case, are you an anti-Nazi "bigot"? How about an anti-pedophile "bigot"? Or an anti-pedophile priest "bigot"?
You posted this while i was replying to you. I did not actually understand what you had been trying to say, and i apologize for the misunderstanding. Please read my reply above to what you said.

You posted this while i was replying to you. I did not actually understand what you had been trying to say, and i apologize for the misunderstanding. Please read my reply above to what you said.

Apology accepted. Sorry if I came off as a bit testy :)

With respect to your preceding post, anyone has the right to hope. I think, however, that such hope is misplaced.

When I hear Muslim apologists deny that Islam is at its core a violent, oppressive, expansionist creed, it reminds me of the woman whose husband suspected her of having an affair. She repeatedly denied it. Finally, the husband caught her in flagrante delicto, at which point she told him, "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" My eyes can read Islamic teachings, observe the evil actions of Islamic terrorists, assassins, rapists and wife-killers, and take note of the atmosphere created by Islam that makes such actions acceptable and even laudable. When a Muslim tells me otherwise, I choose to believe my own eyes.

Apology accepted. Sorry if I came off as a bit testy :)

With respect to your preceding post, anyone has the right to hope. I think, however, that such hope is misplaced.

When I hear Muslim apologists deny that Islam is at its core a violent, oppressive, expansionist creed, it reminds me of the woman whose husband suspected her of having an affair. She repeatedly denied it. Finally, the husband caught her in flagrante delicto, at which point she told him, "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" My eyes can read Islamic teachings, observe the evil actions of Islamic terrorists, assassins, rapists and wife-killers, and take note of the atmosphere created by Islam that makes such actions acceptable and even laudable. When a Muslim tells me otherwise, I choose to believe my own eyes.

Islam is evil at the core? the same islam that prohibits suicide? Killing of innocents, the people of the book(jews and christians) the same islam that asks for a tithing to help out the poor. Islam is like every other religion. It has its dark points where there are a bunch of dicks that choose to give it a bad name..Same thing happened to the christians during the middle ages. Doesn't mean either one is evil at the core.

Apology accepted. Sorry if I came off as a bit testy :)

With respect to your preceding post, anyone has the right to hope. I think, however, that such hope is misplaced.

When I hear Muslim apologists deny that Islam is at its core a violent, oppressive, expansionist creed, it reminds me of the woman whose husband suspected her of having an affair. She repeatedly denied it. Finally, the husband caught her in flagrante delicto, at which point she told him, "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" My eyes can read Islamic teachings, observe the evil actions of Islamic terrorists, assassins, rapists and wife-killers, and take note of the atmosphere created by Islam that makes such actions acceptable and even laudable. When a Muslim tells me otherwise, I choose to believe my own eyes.
:) Its okay, I warranted it.

Although that is what I see on television, the Muslims I have met are not and i do not think ever would become the terrorists, assassins, rapists, and wife killers of whom you speak. And my hope may be misplaced and naive. But I'll keep it, all the same. Also, I find that throughout history Christianity has also created an atmosphere which made those same actions acceptable and laudable. Granted that is not so much the case any more (altho there are still those fundamentalists who bomb abortion clinics, etc). Religion taken with the wrong attitude is always dangerous, regardless of what religion it is.

And on that note, good night.

Islam is evil at the core? the same islam that prohibits suicide? Killing of innocents, the people of the book(jews and christians) the same islam that asks for a tithing to help out the poor. Islam is like every other religion. It has its dark points where there are a bunch of dicks that choose to give it a bad name..Same thing happened to the christians during the middle ages. Doesn't mean either one is evil at the core.

Jihad. Oppression of women. Sharia law, including physical mutilation and death for choosing another religion, i.e., "apostasy". "Take not the Jews and Christians for your friends." Dar al-Islam vs. Dar al-Harb. Taqiyya. Jizya (discriminatory taxation of non-Muslims as mandated by the Koran, sura 9:29). A "prophet" who abuses a nine-year-old girl.

I maintain: Islam is evil overall, whatever good elements it may also have appropriated from Judaism and Christianity.

Jihad. Oppression of women. Sharia law, including physical mutilation and death for choosing another religion, i.e., "apostasy". "Take not the Jews and Christians for your friends." Dar al-Islam vs. Dar al-Harb. Taqiyya. Jizya (discriminatory taxation of non-Muslims as mandated by the Koran, sura 9:29). A "prophet" who abuses a nine-year-old girl.

I maintain: Islam is evil overall, whatever good elements it may also have appropriated from Judaism and Christianity.


Where does it call for a physical Jihad against all non-muslism, which is what you are applying. Also where does it say" oppress the women"? I'd like some Qur'anic verses here. I'll crack my Qur'an open to prove you wrong. ;)

Where does it call for a physical Jihad against all non-muslism, which is what you are applying. Also where does it say" oppress the women"? I'd like some Qur'anic verses here. I'll crack my Qur'an open to prove you wrong. ;)

Why does it have to call for "physical Jihad?" The fact that Muslims have interpreted it as being physical Jihad demonstrates that NM is actually write about many versions of Islam. It doesn't say "physical Jihad", like the extremists often interpret it, any more than it says "metaphorical Jihad", like the moderates interpret it. The fact is, both are valid and historical Islamic interpretations. Both are the interpretations that have been made by major Islamic leaders throughout history and continue today.

So, why do you call the extremist interpretation of Islam "hijacking" it? Why, when laypeople evaluate religion, do they assume that the moderate interpretation of the religion is the religion, but the extremist forms somehow hijacked it and deviated from the actual religion?


Where in the bible does it say " go to foriegn lands and convert heathens to christ " ? Where does it say kill them if you have to ? Give them smallpox blankets and commit genocide ? Why is we have so many Christian sects ?
Methodist and Baptist and Catholic and Mormon and jehova witness etc.
When did God say to go to the holy lands and take them back from the heathen Muslims ? That was a POPE who interpreted the BIBLE and spoke directly to God...The TEN commandmants are similar to the Pillars of Islam..
So why do sects ...such as Wahabis seem to find selective passages in the book or just make them up or as Imans just chose to INTERPRET them to mean what they want them to mean ?

Thats what I call HIJACKING a religion.

Patton ordered a Chaplain to come up with a prayer for good wheather so he could kill Germans . He gave the Chaplain a medal ...must have been a great prayer .

" We are doing Gods work " has left millions of dead bodies in its wake .

No. Like the other Abrahamic faiths, it's based on the Olf Testament.

Keeping that in mind, though, Islam in it's "purest form" is just as vile & murderous as Judaeism & Christianity.

People who pick & choose which bits to follow are usually nice enough. Muslims are no exception. It's the orthodox nutters that are violent.

Scripture can & do justify almost any insane act you can think of. The trick is not to follow it blindly.
I don't disagree with you exactly, just wanted to point out that there is a difference between an "orthodox" Muslim and a terrorist. Most terrorists of the Islamic faith would more accurately fall into the fundamentalist category - different from Orthodox.

Where does it call for a physical Jihad against all non-muslism, which is what you are applying. Also where does it say" oppress the women"? I'd like some Qur'anic verses here. I'll crack my Qur'an open to prove you wrong. ;)

Read my previous post #61. And since I didn't post it previously, consider this:

Sura 9:29: "Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled."

There is no way to deny the fundamentally aggressive, expansionist, imperialist nature of Islam.

Im so sick of people on this site claiming that Islam is a hateful religion,and that it advoctes 'evil' deeds.

< mega-snip >
I don't think any reasonable person could claim that ALL muslims are potential suicide bombers or hijackers, etc. Where the problem comes in is that most suicide bombers are, in fact, muslim, and the press obviously plays up all the instances of suicide bombers because it's "news" in their eyes. Those who get all of their information via mass media thus see only that side of islam.

If you have a solution to this problem, I'd love to hear it.

I don't think any reasonable person could claim that ALL muslims are potential suicide bombers or hijackers, etc. Where the problem comes in is that most suicide bombers are, in fact, muslim, and the press obviously plays up all the instances of suicide bombers because it's "news" in their eyes. Those who get all of their information via mass media thus see only that side of islam.

If you have a solution to this problem, I'd love to hear it.
Well, to be fair, most suicide bombers are male. So why should we focus on the Muslim-ness of suicide bombers, as opposed to their male-ness? If the occurance of Muslim suicide bombers is to be used as justification for persecution of Muslims in general, then why shouldn't the prevalence of male suicide bombers be used to support precisely the same policies enacted against all males?

Well, to be fair, most suicide bombers are male. So why should we focus on the Muslim-ness of suicide bombers, as opposed to their male-ness? If the occurance of Muslim suicide bombers is to be used as justification for persecution of Muslims in general, then why shouldn't the prevalence of male suicide bombers be used to support precisely the same policies enacted against all males?

Hehe, reminds me of Sean Penn's line from The Interpreter. "The only thing all suicide bombers have in common is that they are not afraid to die."

Well, to be fair, most suicide bombers are male. So why should we focus on the Muslim-ness of suicide bombers, as opposed to their male-ness? If the occurance of Muslim suicide bombers is to be used as justification for persecution of Muslims in general, then why shouldn't the prevalence of male suicide bombers be used to support precisely the same policies enacted against all males?

Oh, please. They aren't becoming homicide bombers in the name of "maleness".

Oh, please. They aren't becoming homicide bombers in the name of "maleness".
So? If somebody is crazy enough to blow themselves up in a crowd of people, why are you taking their word for it when they tell you their motivations? Do you think Son of Sam really committed his various crimes because his talking dog told him to, or might there be some other explanation?

Hehe, reminds me of Sean Penn's line from The Interpreter. "The only thing all suicide bombers have in common is that they are not afraid to die."
Personally, I take suicide bombing very seriously, and I think it is irresponsible to close our eyes to possible means of explaining why a person might engage in such an act. We should examine all possibilities equally, if we want to have the best possible chance of figuring out how to prevent these things from happening.

So? If somebody is crazy enough to blow themselves up in a crowd of people, why are you taking their word for it when they tell you their motivations? Do you think Son of Sam really committed his various crimes because his talking dog told him to, or might there be some other explanation?

After having seen interviews with failed suicide bombers on TV (a BBC show filmed in Israel), I get the impression that a lot of them do it for the money that goes to their families if they are successful.

As for Son of Sam, he did it for the dog AND he was crazy.

Well, to be fair, most suicide bombers are male. So why should we focus on the Muslim-ness of suicide bombers, as opposed to their male-ness? If the occurance of Muslim suicide bombers is to be used as justification for persecution of Muslims in general, then why shouldn't the prevalence of male suicide bombers be used to support precisely the same policies enacted against all males?
Talk to the mass media about it. I'm sure they'll love the idea.

So? If somebody is crazy enough to blow themselves up in a crowd of people, why are you taking their word for it when they tell you their motivations? Do you think Son of Sam really committed his various crimes because his talking dog told him to, or might there be some other explanation?
Yes, there most definitely is another explanation for it: the branches of Islam which teach their extreme version of the religion. Almost every suicide bomber has been a product of the extremist Hadassas ( I think I got that right ) which are almost always the only instruction poor, young muslim men recieve. I.e., they're brainwashed.

After having seen interviews with failed suicide bombers on TV (a BBC show filmed in Israel), I get the impression that a lot of them do it for the money that goes to their families if they are successful.

I think there are many reasons why a person might be convinced to become a martyr for a cause, and most of them have to do with desperation on one level or another. It's kind of along the same lines as why some people are vulnerable to cults, while other people aren't the least bit swayed. If you want to understand what is really going on, and if you want any chance at all of saving people from this kind of trap, you can't be satisfied with simply blaming the cult/religion.


As for Son of Sam, he did it for the dog AND he was crazy.
In my experience, crazy people are slightly more likely than average to do crazy things. I would venture to guess that crazy Muslims might be more likely to do crazy things, just as crazy Christians are probably more likely to do crazy things. I don't think being Muslim or Christian will innoculate a person against crazy.

Ever since I saw Clancy's Sum of All Fears, I was scared to death that a terrorist organization would simply work with anyone with a grudge against the U.S. including 'ordinary Americans' like the guy at the docks who finally planted the bomb in the end.

But to my knowledge, and correct me if I'm wrong, Al Qaeda has so far only worked with muslims. It has worked with non-Arabs, but they were muslim converts correct? Now this is in no way a statement about my muslim colleagues but it seems like Al Qaeda operatives do have a certain thing in common.

Yes, there most definitely is another explanation for it: the branches of Islam which teach their extreme version of the religion. Almost every suicide bomber has been a product of the extremist Hadassas ( I think I got that right ) which are almost always the only instruction poor, young muslim men recieve. I.e., they're brainwashed.
Yet there are many people who receive this indoctrination and yet do NOT become suicide bombers. And there are individuals who belong to so-called "mainstream" religious organizations, yet who engage in horrendous acts of religious martyrdom. I don't think your explanation is sufficient, any more than it would be sufficient of me to say that most suicide bombers are male because males are all brainwashed into being violent criminals.

In my experience, crazy people are slightly more likely than average to do crazy things. I would venture to guess that crazy Muslims might be more likely to do crazy things, just as crazy Christians are probably more likely to do crazy things. I don't think being Muslim or Christian will innoculate a person against crazy.

I'm far more likely to blame the people who paid and recruited the suicide bomber, and the people who built the bombs. That said, if there was a suicide bomber nearby, I would have no trouble immediately shooting them in the head. I'm also inclined to believe that the recruiters pay lip service to their message, because what they really crave is power and the fun of killing (Hemingway was right, you know).

And isn't sanity just a one-trick pony, anyways? I mean you only get one trick - rational thinking. But if you're good and crazy - oooooh baby - the sky's the limit.

Yet there are many people who receive this indoctrination and yet do NOT become suicide bombers. And there are individuals who belong to so-called "mainstream" religious organizations, yet who engage in horrendous acts of religious martyrdom. I don't think your explanation is sufficient, any more than it would be sufficient of me to say that most suicide bombers are male because males are all brainwashed into being violent criminals.
I suspect that, like most things in life, this particular problem has multiple "causes." Some of them seem to be ( at least to me ): poverty, youth, religious extremist teachings, lack of alternative training/information. Perhaps we could include a particular personality type more inclined to violence, but there's very little evidence for that so far.

I'm far more likely to blame the people who paid and recruited the suicide bomber, and the people who built the bombs. That said, if there was a suicide bomber nearby, I would have no trouble immediately shooting them in the head. I'm also inclined to believe that the recruiters pay lip service to their message, because what they really crave is power and the fun of killing (Hemingway was right, you know).

Pretty much, yeah. I guess I just have a problem with letting suicide bombers off the hook by pinning the blame on Islam. If some dickhead blows himself up then I don't want somebody telling me it was the fault of the big bad religion.

Plenty of people are Muslim and don't blow shit up, so that's a bullshit excuse, just like it's a bullshit excuse when some guy commits rape and then claims he couldn't help it because he's a man.


And isn't sanity just a one-trick pony, anyways? I mean you only get one trick - rational thinking. But if you're good and crazy - oooooh baby - the sky's the limit.
Can't argue with that. :)

I don't disagree with you exactly, just wanted to point out that there is a difference between an "orthodox" Muslim and a terrorist. Most terrorists of the Islamic faith would more accurately fall into the fundamentalist category - different from Orthodox.I disagree, actually. Fundamentalists are orthodox. The connotation of fundamentalism, is the militant anti-secularism, but any truely orthodox follower of one of the Abrahamic religions, will automatically be militant. The various scripture promotes fundamentalism, so it's basically two words for the same.

This makes me fundamentally opposed to using the word "fundamentalists" to describe orthodox believers, because it promotes a confused & purely theoretical difference between orthodox followers & orthodox followers. I'm a big fan of calling a spade a spade, expecially because I believe the "fundamentalist" crap actually convinces people that some orthodox followers aren't completely unhinged psychopaths, just itching to go on a killing-spree.

Orthodoxy is bloody menace. Fooling ourselves about that isn't doing anyone any favours.

all religions have bigotry, horrible passages ect, but what some people on this site are insinuating is that all muslims are rapists ,wife beaters ect.This is a generalisation and is not true.
I could easily say the same about christianity, it has vile verses, it has been responsible for many deaths but I wouldnt go as far as saying because of this the whole doctrine of christianity is evil, and that all christians are murderers and rapists....that is the point of my thread.
I mean listen to these verses
To the woman, god said'I will increase your suffering in childbirth and you will give birth to your children in pain.You will be dependant on your husband and he will lord it over you
also abraham says this
your servant is in your power do with her as you please
and
The angel of yaweh said to her 'go back to your mistress and humbly submit yourself to her'
not only this but god kills people,noahs flood,soddom and gomorrah(i know this was because they were'sinful')God asks abraham to sacrifice his only son(human sacrifices)
you claim that mohammed married a 9 year old, well christian kings have married 4 year olds,in egypt girls gave birth at 13,there are countless examples from 2000-600 years ago that point to people marrying children-its not just islam!
hell jacob had 2 wives!(but god made one barren because she was prittier than the other)
god sends plauges on a regular basis,turns rivers to blood, sends famines,kills egyptian first borns(what had the kids done?)

'because of this I will take the life of your first born son'
Gos shows preferances for one race over another(the israelites)
'your right hand ,o yahweh,shatters the enemy.In the splendour of your majesty you crush your foes....you streched out your right hand;the earth swallowed them'

God condones slavery'when you but a hebrew slave he will serve you for 6 years....If his master gave him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters,the wife and children belong to his master'
'when a man sells his daughter as a slave she she is not free to go as men slaves do'
'whover strikes his mother or father shall be put to death'
'whoever sacrifices to any God other than Yahweh shall die'
'when a woman gives birth to a male child she will be unclean for 7 days as in the days of her monthly period'
'moses said to the people'let some of you go off to war and attack the Midanites,for you have to carry out Yahwehs vengance'
'so kill all the male children.Kill also all the women who have slept with a man.Spare only the lives of the young girls who have not slept with a man and take them for yourselves'
there are countless more examples showing thast God has a backwards veiw of women,where God has advocated war and much more.
Would you say this was the 'real' message of christianity, no its not-of course its not, but this is what some people do with the Koran,they pick out the sworst bits and claim this is the 'real' message of islam that all followers agree with and believe.This is bigotry at its finest.

Pretty much, yeah. I guess I just have a problem with letting suicide bombers off the hook by pinning the blame on Islam. If some dickhead blows himself up then I don't want somebody telling me it was the fault of the big bad religion.

Plenty of people are Muslim and don't blow shit up, so that's a bullshit excuse, just like it's a bullshit excuse when some guy commits rape and then claims he couldn't help it because he's a man.
Which is another way of saying that people will find any excuse to justify doing what their base natures incline them to do.

all religions have bigotry, horrible passages ect, but what some people on this site are insinuating is that all muslims are rapists ,wife beaters ect.This is a generalisation and is not true.
I could easily say the same about christianity, it has vile verses, it has been responsible for many deaths but I wouldnt go as far as saying because of this the whole doctrine of christianity is evil, and that all christians are murderers and rapists....that is the point of my thread.
I mean listen to these verses
To the woman, god said'I will increase your suffering in childbirth and you will give birth to your children in pain.You will be dependant on your husband and he will lord it over you
also abraham says this
your servant is in your power do with her as you please
and
The angel of yaweh said to her 'go back to your mistress and humbly submit yourself to her'
not only this but god kills people,noahs flood,soddom and gomorrah(i know this was because they were'sinful')God asks abraham to sacrifice his only son(human sacrifices)
you claim that mohammed married a 9 year old, well christian kings have married 4 year olds,in egypt girls gave birth at 13,there are countless examples from 2000-600 years ago that point to people marrying children-its not just islam!
hell jacob had 2 wives!(but god made one barren because she was prittier than the other)
god sends plauges on a regular basis,turns rivers to blood, sends famines,kills egyptian first borns(what had the kids done?)

'because of this I will take the life of your first born son'
Gos shows preferances for one race over another(the israelites)
'your right hand ,o yahweh,shatters the enemy.In the splendour of your majesty you crush your foes....you streched out your right hand;the earth swallowed them'

God condones slavery'when you but a hebrew slave he will serve you for 6 years....If his master gave him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters,the wife and children belong to his master'
'when a man sells his daughter as a slave she she is not free to go as men slaves do'
'whover strikes his mother or father shall be put to death'
'whoever sacrifices to any God other than Yahweh shall die'
'when a woman gives birth to a male child she will be unclean for 7 days as in the days of her monthly period'
'moses said to the people'let some of you go off to war and attack the Midanites,for you have to carry out Yahwehs vengance'
'so kill all the male children.Kill also all the women who have slept with a man.Spare only the lives of the young girls who have not slept with a man and take them for yourselves'
there are countless more examples showing thast God has a backwards veiw of women,where God has advocated war and much more.
Would you say this was the 'real' message of christianity, no its not-of course its not, but this is what some people do with the Koran,they pick out the sworst bits and claim this is the 'real' message of islam that all followers agree with and believe.This is bigotry at its finest.

Old Testament citations have little to do with Christianity as defined in the New Testament. They only go to show that you're dodging the issue and spinning.

And since you're quoting from the Bible, here's one for you: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" Matthew 7:3 (King James Version). If any creed ever had a beam in its eye, it's Islam, for the reason set forth in post #61 and discussed at length subsequently.

I note that you have failed to address any of the points raised so far. I submit that it's because the specific teachings I cite, as well as the entire concepts of jihad, Sharia law, inequality of women, taqiyya, jizya, etc. are in fact indefensible, and since they are core beliefs of Islam, they render Islam as a whole an evil creed, regardless of any "good" elements that may accidentally be present therein.

"War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not. 2:216"

"Those who make war with Allah and his messenger will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. That is how they will be treated in this world, and in the next they will have an awful doom. 5:33"

"Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of God, whether he is slain or victorious, soon we shall give him a great reward. - Surah 4:74"

"Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to the rich and greedy Christian monks and Jewish rabbis. 9:34"

"Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another. - 48:25"

You call that a religion of peace and justice? There are definately some good Muslims out there, I know quite a few myself, but no wonder we have wacko terrorists blowing themselves up and then justifying themselves with the Quaran... :sniper:

Old Testament citations have little to do with Christianity as defined in the New Testament. They only go to show that you're dodging the issue and spinning.Or that you are..

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." - Luke 16:17 NAB

Which is another way of saying that people will find any excuse to justify doing what their base natures incline them to do.
I don't know if I would use the term "base nature," but yeah...that's pretty much how I see it. Which is why I find it tiresome when people leap to blame Islam for the actions of some crazy fucks who happen to seize on Islam as a handy excuse for the bullshit that they decided to pull.

I don't know if I would use the term "base nature," but yeah...that's pretty much how I see it. Which is why I find it tiresome when people leap to blame Islam for the actions of some crazy fucks who happen to seize on Islam as a handy excuse for the bullshit that they decided to pull.

Well, it would be harder for the crazy fucks to get together and agree on something if there weren't madrassas run by crazy fucks training them to do this from the day they can first read in Arabic.

Well, it would be harder for the crazy fucks to get together and agree on something if there weren't madrassas run by crazy fucks training them to do this from the day they can first read in Arabic.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I regard organized superstition as a very handy network for crazy people. I just don't feel that it is fair to blame superstition when an individual decides to do something as batshit insane as blowing themselves up. Plenty of people are quietly superstitious, and never feel the need to blow anybody up, so it's not the superstition that is the root of that particular problem.

Well, it would be harder for the crazy fucks to get together and agree on something if there weren't madrassas run by crazy fucks training them to do this from the day they can first read in Arabic.All the shit done in the name of religion, would be harder if people didn't automatically assume scriture was "good" & "moral".

Oh, don't get me wrong, I regard organized superstition as a very handy network for crazy people. I just don't feel that it is fair to blame superstition when an individual decides to do something as batshit insane as blowing themselves up. Plenty of people are quietly superstitious, and never feel the need to blow anybody up, so it's not the superstition that is the root of that particular problem.

Maybe we need to do what L. Ron Hubbard did, and invent a new superstition that will keep the crazies busy.

"The law and the prophets lasted until John; but from then on the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone who enters does so with violence. It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest part of a letter of the law to become invalid." Luke 16:16-17.

Compare:

"Amen, I say to you, among those born of women there has been none greather than John the Baptist; het the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent are taking it by force. All the prophets and the law prophesied up to the time of John." Matthew 11:11-13

These and other related passages refer to the fulfillment of prophecy by Christ's teachings. Christians are no longer bound by the Mosaic Law, but by the New Covenant established by Christ.

Nice try.

I don't know if I would use the term "base nature," but yeah...that's pretty much how I see it. Which is why I find it tiresome when people leap to blame Islam for the actions of some crazy fucks who happen to seize on Islam as a handy excuse for the bullshit that they decided to pull.
As I indicated earlier, I suspect this is due more to the sensationalization of violence and the lack of information about the rest of Islam than to anything else.

Why wouldn't you use the term "base nature?"

As I indicated earlier, I suspect this is due more to the sensationalization of violence and the lack of information about the rest of Islam than to anything else.

Could be.


Why wouldn't you use the term "base nature?"
Mostly because these days I am really nit-picky about the terms I use, due to all the spazzes who leap to exactly the wrong conclusion whenever I use certain words. "Nature," to many people, implies that the trait is something biologically innate or coded at birth, and I don't think that is necessarily the case here. When you talk about a person's "base nature," it has a similar ring to the language used by people who used to say the lower classes are born with a base nature, or the people who insist that certain racial groups are innately more violent, etc.

Honestly, though, it's really just me being nit-picky. :)

Nice try.Thanks. We could probably spend the rest of the day clubbering eachother with Bible quotes, but since I think that's both pointless & boring, I offer instead a bit of advice from Jesus

"For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." - Matthew 19:12

The next time your kid wants to borrow the scissors, you may ask him why... For the road to heaven is apparently paved with mutilated genitals.

Thanks. We could probably spend the rest of the day clubbering eachother with Bible quotes, but since I think that's both pointless & boring, I offer instead a bit of advice from Jesus

"For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." - Matthew 19:12

The next time your kid wants to borrow the scissors, you may ask him why... For the road to heaven is apparently paved with mutilated genitals.
Ahh, but Deuteronomy 23 tells us that, "He who is wounded in the stones, or has his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh."

Ahh, but Deuteronomy 23 tells us that, "He who is wounded in the stones, or has his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh."

Ah, so the next time I kill someone in combat, I'll be sure to cut off his stones.

Ahh, but Deuteronomy 23 tells us that, "He who is wounded in the stones, or has his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh."Quite possibly, but apparently, the OT don't count for Christians.

Quite possibly, but apparently, the OT don't count for Christians.
I dunno. The parts about being gay seem to count a whole lot with the Christians. Maybe it's only the parts about sex that count?

Frankly, I think this subject is one that isn't getting nearly enough attention. I mean, does God want us to go around cutting off penises, or not? You'd think men would be at least a little bit curious about this one.

Quite possibly, but apparently, the OT don't count for Christians.
Not true. Just for some.

Most Christians read the Bible like they use a salad bar. They take what they want and leave the rest.

Thanks. We could probably spend the rest of the day clubbering eachother with Bible quotes, but since I think that's both pointless & boring, I offer instead a bit of advice from Jesus

"For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." - Matthew 19:12

The next time your kid wants to borrow the scissors, you may ask him why... For the road to heaven is apparently paved with mutilated genitals.

OUCH!!!

OUCH!!!
I know of a good mohel...

I know of a good mohel...

Wait, don't tell me: he charges $200/hr plus tips :D

Could be.


Mostly because these days I am really nit-picky about the terms I use, due to all the spazzes who leap to exactly the wrong conclusion whenever I use certain words. "Nature," to many people, implies that the trait is something biologically innate or coded at birth, and I don't think that is necessarily the case here. When you talk about a person's "base nature," it has a similar ring to the language used by people who used to say the lower classes are born with a base nature, or the people who insist that certain racial groups are innately more violent, etc.

Honestly, though, it's really just me being nit-picky. :)
Uh ... ok. :)

Wait, don't tell me: he charges $200/hr plus tips :DNah, he just enjoys a good roasted sausage.

New Mitanni, the New Testament isn't all nice & good either. It's not as bad as the OT, but it could - and probably should - be argued that nothing is as bad as the OT, so that in itself really doesn't mean much. And as you might have noticed, a lot of Christians actually do believe the OT still counts, so the discussion is moot, methinks.

Nastyness is an integral part of all the Abrahamic religions. Most followers are just highly selective about which things to follow & which to ignore - a perfectly understandable attitude, if you ask me. No doubt, strict adherence to scripture, would force most families to kill eachother off in various ways.

Bringing me back to my original point about orthodoxy. Orthodoxy & fundamentalism aren't two seperate things. The three religions doesn't just back fundamentalist terrorism, they demand it. If everyone were orthodox, we'd probably all be dead. Each tied to his or her own little pole, cooking over his or her own little bonfire.

It's just one of those facts people can't really avoid. The Abrahamic religions are utterly deranged. I'm just grateful most of their followers don't pay much atttention to them.

Nah, he just enjoys a good roasted sausage.

New Mitanni, the New Testament isn't all nice & good either. It's not as bad as the OT, but it could - and probably should - be argued that nothing is as bad as the OT, so that in itself really doesn't mean much. And as you might have noticed, a lot of Christians actually do believe the OT still counts, so the discussion is moot, methinks.

Nastyness is an integral part of all the Abrahamic religions. Most followers are just highly selective about which things to follow & which to ignore - a perfectly understandable attitude, if you ask me. No doubt, strict adherence to scripture, would force most families to kill eachother off in various ways.

Bringing me back to my original point about orthodoxy. Orthodoxy & fundamentalism aren't two seperate things. The three religions doesn't just back fundamentalist terrorism, they demand it. If everyone were orthodox, we'd probably all be dead. Each tied to his or her own little pole, cooking over his or her own little bonfire.

It's just one of those facts people can't really avoid. The Abrahamic religions are utterly deranged. I'm just grateful most of their followers don't pay much atttention to them.

I'll say it again: the possibility of reform exists within Christianity, and has been implemented to a greater or lesser extent in many Christian denominations, particularly those that are non-fundamentalist, such as the Catholic Church. Whatever unsavory or "evil" doctrines may be present in the Old and even the New Testaments can be and in many cases have been renounced by such denominations.

I see no such possibility of reform with respect to Islam, again because the entire creed is based on the concept that it represents the final, immutable revelation from God. Islam is therefore stuck with its evil teachings, which again IMO outweigh any good teachings it may also include. If you disagree, please explain how reform of Islam would be possible.

Thanks. We could probably spend the rest of the day clubbering eachother with Bible quotes, but since I think that's both pointless & boring, I offer instead a bit of advice from Jesus

"For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." - Matthew 19:12

The next time your kid wants to borrow the scissors, you may ask him why... For the road to heaven is apparently paved with mutilated genitals.

I guess this is the point where New Mitanni calls you a "Christian hater."

Hmm, hmm? Guess not.

I see no such possibility of reform with respect to Islam, again because the entire creed is based on the concept that it represents the final, immutable revelation from God. Islam is therefore stuck with its evil teachings, which again IMO outweigh any good teachings it may also include. If you disagree, please explain how reform of Islam would be possible.It's depends on what you mean. I, for example, wouldn't hold the Catholic Church up as an example of a morally acceptable church. Far from it. The anti-birthcontrol dogma alone helps perpetuate a situation that's starting to look like genicide.

But on Islam.. Good question. If moderate European Muslims are any indication, that immutable word of God is just as easy to manipulate as the infallible word of the Bible. Last time I read serious surveys, only a minority of orthodox Muslims wanted anything to do with Sharia or had problems with secular democracy & law.

Very few Christian cults have taken to rewriting, editing or otherwise modifying the Bible, yet the bulk of them can & do function perfectly well in secular democracies, with the possible exception of America. By the looks of things, the same thing is possible for Muslims. I, for one, see no reason to abandon hope just yet.

That said, I do think it's critical that we start talking about what the consequences of orthodoxy really are, and I think it's important to focus on all the major world religions, so we can avoid stigmatising certain minorities - because when we start doing that, people stops listening to eachother.

I think we need a new Enlightenment period.I guess this is the point where New Mitanni calls you a "Christian hater."

Hmm, hmm? Guess not.eh.. He could, but why would he? I'm not speaking out against religion, I'm speaking out against orthodoxy. Since very few people are actually orthodox, I think it's worth making the distinction.

He could, but why would he? I'm not speaking out against religion, I'm speaking out against orthodoxy. Since very few people are actually orthodox, I think it's worth making the distinction.

Because he earlier implied (when confronted about his hatemongering) that his opponents were either "Euro-wimps" or "Christian haters."

I mean, I guess not everyone needs to be consistent. Its okay to hate Islam, but Christian hating is wrong. Because New Mitanni says so.

The anti-birthcontrol dogma alone helps perpetuate a situation that's starting to look like genicide.

That's a rather ironic statement, don't you think? ;)

But on Islam.. Good question. If moderate European Muslims are any indication, that immutable word of God is just as easy to manipulate as the infallible word of the Bible.

I don't think so-called "moderate European Muslims" are any indication. First of all, I see no evidence that they have any influence in Muslim-dominated nations or with the bulk of Muslims worldwide. Second, I don't see them exerting any positive influence even within their communities in Europe. To the contrary, I see little except cartoon riots, assaults against Western women, and incessant demands that their nations of residence accommodate them, rather than their accommodating the nations who have allowed them to reside within their borders. Third, in view of the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya, I find it difficult to believe anything any Muslim has to say on any topic pertinent to Islam.

If there were a 21st century equivalent of Kemal Ataturk on the scene, I might think otherwise, but I see no such figure anywhere.

eh.. He could, but why would he? I'm not speaking out against religion, I'm speaking out against orthodoxy.

Of course, and you make some salient points.

BTW: Every time I read a post by the profound and persuasive analyst formerly known as Santa Barbara (IIRC), I'm reminded of a Shakespearean reference to sound and fury. I'm also reminded of a section from William S. Burroughs' Naked Lunch ;)

To the contrary, I see little except cartoon riots, assaults against Western women, and incessant demands that their nations of residence accommodate them, rather than their accommodating the nations who have allowed them to reside within their borders.


Which leads to the single possible conclusion that Islam and all muslims are evil savages.
It is indeed utterly impossible for media companies to have such things as agendas, as they are all born with a strongly expressed truth-gene, forcing them depict The Real World (TM) even if they would want to do otherwise (does not apply to the Left-Wing Media Conspiracy (TM), naturally).

Which leads to the single possible conclusion that Islam and all muslims are evil savages.
It is indeed utterly impossible for media companies to have such things as agendas, as they are all born with a strongly expressed truth-gene, forcing them depict The Real World (TM) even if they would want to do otherwise (does not apply to the Left-Wing Media Conspiracy (TM), naturally).

Oh, the media have their agendas, alright. They just tend to be anti-Bush, anti-American and/or anti-Western agendas.

The facts speak for themselves.

Oh, the media have their agendas, alright. They just tend to be anti-Bush, anti-American and/or anti-Western agendas.

The facts speak for themselves.

As i said, it does not apply to the Left-Wing Media Conspiracy (TM).

Because New Mitanni says so.Oh well.. I haven't read all ~160 posts in this thread, and I don't really think I will. But you, he & everyone else are welcome to call me a Christian hater if it makes any of you feel better. I've been called far worse than that ;) That's a rather ironic statement, don't you think?Yes well.. That just makes it that much worse. But it's a nice example of religious morality getting in the way of what even a blind retarded rat can see is the right thing to do.I don't think so-called "moderate European Muslims" are any indication. First of all, I see no evidence that they have any influence in Muslim-dominated nations or with the bulk of Muslims worldwide.And they wouldn't. Muslims aren't organised like Christians are. What a couple of Imams preach in some London suburb, has nothing to do with wankers in Saudi Arabia.
The organisation of the Christian Churches & Judaeism is absent in Islam, though I personally consider that a good thing. Several Muslim countries, primarily Saudi Arabia & Iran, are trying to establish themselves as the Muslim "authority" at the moment. I can't say I'd be pleased to see them succede, and I think it would cause a hell of a lot of problems for Muslim minorities around the world & the people they live among.

The funding of Madrassa-esque private schools abroad is already a cause for social scisms & helps isolate the more conservative Muslims from the rest of society. It should be said though, that religious Zionists & in particular American evangelicals, are doing exactly the same.Second, I don't see them exerting any positive influence even within their communities in Europe. To the contrary, I see little except cartoon riots, assaults against Western women, and incessant demands that their nations of residence accommodate them, rather than their accommodating the nations who have allowed them to reside within their borders.In Denmark, where the cartoons came from, the initial outcry was at most a muffled cough. 14 of the then 75 Imams, the most orthodox of the lot, cried foul & tried to make a big fuss. Initially, the Danish Muslim minority was quite calm about it.
Not satisfied, the gang of 14 eventually managed to stir things up, helped by the Danish government & their supporting party DF (which is a sort of combined platform created by the Danish Nazi party, half the old Populists & several less infamous groups of Fascists & jingoists). On their own, the 14 would've been powerles, but unfortunately, a big powerful band of extreme rightwing nationalists were ready to help give the Muslim minority a bad name, & unsurprisingly sized the opportunity to great effect.

I bet you didn't read that in your newspaper ;)

What you probably don't know either, is that Danish Muslims held public demonstrations speaking out against the newspaper AND the gang of 14 & the uninformed attacks from the rest of the world. Long speeches were held. Tears were shed. The formation of a couple of special interest groups with massive Danish funding took place. Photo-ops were had. Babies were held above the heads of their parents, waving Danish flags. Folk music were played, and other than a massive hit to Danish exports, the net effect of the whole thing, was actually quite positive.

There clearly is a problem with orthodox Muslims in secular democracies, but moderate Muslims outnumber those gits 100 to 1 or so. It's a bit unfair to paint the lot with the same brush.
That said, I agree that there's a disproportionate number of orthodox Muslims, when compared to Christianity. I must admit I'm a bit unsure about Judaeism, but I'd guess TS would know. That man knows all.

If my social worker friend is any sort of useful source, the rape phenomena has everything to do with Muslim orthodoxy. It's apparently a bit of a public secret that boys from orthodox families, raised in a society they're taught is devoid of morality, get fucked up in the head. To someone like me, that theory does sound a bit far fetched, but then.. I haven't tried it. I didn't even have parents, so I probably can't relate to what it's like growing up learning nothing but contradictions. Apparently most of those guys aren't just rapists either, but general violent misfits from hell.Third, in view of the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya, I find it difficult to believe anything any Muslim has to say on any topic pertinent to Islam.Trust religion to teach the kids to lie, eh? Heh. I'm no concensus office, but I get the impression that very few Muslims anywhere, practice this doctrine. I know it's been heavily frowned on by the Muslims I've discussed religion with, but that's anecdotal evidence at best.If there were a 21st century equivalent of Kemal Ataturk on the scene, I might think otherwise, but I see no such figure anywhere.And I still disagree. I actually think the cartoon incident is a great example of how moderate Muslims can become more of an integral part of secular democracies. The "reality" presented worldwide in the media had very little to do with what actually happened in Denmark, and contrary to what most people probably think, the whole thing was great for the Danish democracy & Muslim minority, to the dismay of the alarmists on both sides. Muslims now have better representation in Denmark than they had before it all happened, and a lot of them have now experienced what it is to take part in the democratic process.
Not only that, but it also started one initiativ I consider very important: a Danish Imam education. This means crackpots from the darkest dunes of Saudi Arabia will no longer be able to set up shop in Denmark (when the education's finished, that is). I think that would go a long way towards combating the orthodox elements.Of course, and you make some salient points.I can only return the compliment :)

.In Denmark, where the cartoons came from, the initial outcry was at most a muffled cough. 14 of the then 75 Imams, the most orthodox of the lot, cried foul & tried to make a big fuss. Initially, the Danish Muslim minority was quite calm about it.
Not satisfied, the gang of 14 eventually managed to stir things up, helped by the Danish government & their supporting party DF (which is a sort of combined platform created by the Danish Nazi party, half the old Populists & several less infamous groups of Fascists & jingoists). On their own, the 14 would've been powerles, but unfortunately, a big powerful band of extreme rightwing nationalists were ready to help give the Muslim minority a bad name, & unsurprisingly sized the opportunity to great effect.

I bet you didn't read that in your newspaper ;)

What you probably don't know either, is that Danish Muslims held public demonstrations speaking out against the newspaper AND the gang of 14 & the uninformed attacks from the rest of the world.

Actually my sister-in-law is from Denmark, so I've heard more than you might think. Reports from her family on the behavior of Muslims in Denmark, both in connection with the cartoons and in other matters, tend to reinforce the sinister image of Muslims in Europe, despite isolated incidents of apparently civilized behavior on the part of a certain percentage of them. I haven't written them up and one might say they're anecdotal, but I found them believable.

Actually my sister-in-law is from Denmark, so I've heard more than you might think. Reports from her family on the behavior of Muslims in Denmark, both in connection with the cartoons and in other matters, tend to reinforce the sinister image of Muslims in Europe, despite isolated incidents of apparently civilized behavior on the part of a certain percentage of them. I haven't written them up and one might say they're anecdotal, but I found them believable.

:rolleyes:

Riiiiiight. Much like my "Kansas cousin" says Fred Phelps represents all Christians.

Argument debunked.

Look at you, carrying on with all kinds of irrelevant nonsense liberally spiced with remarks that can be used just as well against you, with just a few edits. I love posters like you. :D

The original issue of this thread was the allegedly beneficent nature of Islam, for which support from various Islamic sources was adduced. My response to the original issue was citation of support from the same Islamic sources that demonstrate the non-beneficent, i.e., evil nature of Islam. If you consider quotation of the very words of the Koran and Hadith is "plain vanilla bigotry," then you distort the meaning of the term "bigotry" out of recognition.

The words of Omar Ahmad, co-founder of CAIR, fully support my view of Islam as aggressive, hostile and deadly: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." When CAIR leaders, like a certain Austrian, proclaim that they mean to dominate the world, the prudent man takes them seriously and acts accordingly.
And here you are doing exactly what Trostia said you do, i.e. using the lame tactics of the kinds of people you yourself criticize.

The minions of Islam[EDIT: CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISM] are already attempting to impose their beliefs on non-Muslim[EDIT: CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST] nations such as Norway, Denmark and France[EDIT: THE USA]. There is no doubt that, should (God forbid) a critical mass of Muslims[CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS] build up in America, we will see similar attempts to intimidate women into changing their choice of dress, murders of those who oppose Islam[EDIT: THEIR VERSION OF CHRISTIANITY], and other outrages already occurring in Europe[EDIT: ON TELEVSION SHOWS LIKE THE 700 CLUB AND IN AND AROUND ABORTION CLINICS, GAY PUBLIC EVENTS, AND THE FUNERALS OF SOLDIERS]. Such acts fully motivate opposition to, indeed contempt for, Islam[EDIT: CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISM] among all Western societies.
The edits illustrate that there is little qualitative difference between one set of extremists and another. As I've said repeatedly, the Muslim extremists are in the news because it's their turn to be the pain in all our asses, but Christian extremists have already shown themselves to be just as murderous -- gay bashing; contracts on doctors who perform abortions -- and just as motivated to force their beliefs on the rest of the world -- Christian Dominionists; repeated, near daily, attempts to get their scriptures enshrined as law at both the state and federal levels. Resolve the Muslim issues, we'll be getting blown up for Christ next.

Bottom line: Islam is not the problem. Extremism and bigotry are the problems -- and that makes you part of the problem.

As for "bashing Christianity," you and anyone else are free to think and say whatever you please. Unlike Muslims, I don't care if you criticize, condemn or even hate the Christian faith and say so publicly for all to hear. I'm fully prepared to argue in response. However, I'm not going to defend everything done by self-described Christians, or by the Catholic or other Christian churches, over the centuries. Christendom has a lot to be ashamed of. Christendom has also, to a greater or lesser extent, renounced, repudiated and attempted to make amends for past excesses and yes, past evil acts. Christian anti-Semitism is one such evil. The process continues today, and a lot of evils remain to be addressed, including priestly pedophilia and other sexual abuses. But I digress. My point is, Christianity has at least attempted to reform itself, starting with the "Reformation" itself.
How nice that you agree with me. Of course, I'm not one of those who bash Christianity, because, unlike you, I don't condemn an entire religion for the bad actions of a few extremists.

And as for that Christian reformation, it is far from fully accomplished, and there is no law that says there can never be any backsliding.

I see no such reformation occurring in Islam, nor any indication that it will ever occur in any Muslim-dominated nation. (The only exception I am aware of is Turkey, and that's because Kemal Ataturk was IIRC basically an atheist or agnostic and had the military support to reform what was left of the old Ottoman Empire.) In particular, I see no sign that Muslim teachers and religious leaders in any Muslim-dominated nation repudiate any of the unsavory teachings I have cited. And since Islam is supposed to be based on the final, immutable revelation (as the original poster asserts), you explain to me how such a reformation is even possible.
Exactly the same way it is possible for Christianity to do, even though Christianity claims to be the "final, immutable revelation."

As for "hysterical rants," we can use more such ranting when it comes to homicide bombings, murders of helpless captives live on camera, and flying airplanes into buildings (and I personally know people who worked both in the WTC and the Pentagon, so that damn well gives me the right to rant), and sure as hell a lot more "ranting" than we hear about trivia like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.
And now that we have you, we are guaranteed countless hours of such amusements.

Finally, your description of Ann Coulter is more aptly applied to Michael Moore and Howard Dean.
Hold your breath until I argue against that. :p

Interesing you should mention slavery, I was just thinking about it in respect to Islam. And long after Judaism and Christianity had abandoned slavery (the former had abandoned it in ancient times, Christianity abandoned it in early antiquity), it was being practiced by Muslims. In fact, it was Muslim traders in Africa who bare joint responsibility with Europeans for the Western slave trade.

Yet, we often don't hear about the Arab Muslim role in the slave trade to the length that we hear about the European role. And to be fair, Muslims used the Koran to justify keeping slaves just like Christians used the Bible (during the slave trade) to justify keeping slaves.
That is a fair observation. Unfortunately, the keeping of slaves in supposedly reformed Christian countries is not dead, even though it is illegal. Human trafficking of children for slave labor as household servants and in the sex trade is on the rise in major cities in South America and the US. This very day, there are WASP rich bitches with townhouses on Central Park West buying African and Asian children to be house slaves, right here in the US, after all we've been through. :mad:

Human trafficking and slavery is a global problem and is not unique to Islam.

You'd have a point if all Christians were fundamentalists. Clearly that isn't the case. <snip>
You'd have a point if all Muslims were terrorists. Clearly that isn't the case.

If a Muslim says to me, for example, "I don't believe anyone should rape female captives," my reply is, "How can you consider yourself a Muslim?
Why is it that, according to you, Christians are allowed to ignore the vicious parts of the Bible, but Muslims aren't allowed to ignore the vicious parts of the Quran?

Why? Why, because you're a bigot.

Aren't you attempting to change part of that allegedly "final immutable revelation"?"

I have yet to see a satisfactory answer to this question.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If Christians can try to reform themselves despite the fact that they are the "final immutable revelation," then so can Muslims.

And if a minority of Muslims can backslide into violence and bigotry, then so can a minority of Christians.

There is no difference between them. Neither religion is the cause of terrorism.

Why is it that, according to you, Christians are allowed to ignore the vicious parts of the Bible, but Muslims aren't allowed to ignore the vicious parts of the Quran?

Is there some part of "final immutable revelation" that you don't get? Or are you deliberately obtuse?

Let me explain it again, in nice simple words. "Final" = "last, terminal, no more after this one." "Immutable" = "unchangeable, unalterable, don't add anything, don't delete anything." This is Islam's own characterization of itself. Therefore, Muslims are stuck with every last word of the Koran. And since Mohammed was "God's Prophet," they're stuck with the Hadith too.

Reform requires change. That which is "immutable" cannot be changed. Thus, the "revelation" that is Islam cannot be changed, and therefore can't be reformed. One can only "reform" Islamic beliefs to the extent one chooses not to be a believing Muslim.

Many Christian denominations, mine included, don't consider the New Testament, let alone the Old Testament, as either final or immutable. Christianity can be, and has been, reformed as its understanding has developed over the centuries.

Are you getting the picture yet?


Why? Why, because you're a bigot.

No, because their own "prophet" denies them the ability to do so.


Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If Christians can try to reform themselves despite the fact that they are the "final immutable revelation," then so can Muslims.

See above. Repeat as needed.

Christian extremists have already shown themselves to be just as murderous -- gay bashing; contracts on doctors who perform abortions -- and just as motivated to force their beliefs on the rest of the world -- Christian Dominionists; repeated, near daily, attempts to get their scriptures enshrined as law at both the state and federal levels.

There is simply no comparison between the miniscule number of "Christian extremists" who have the agenda you describe and the tens of millions of Muslims whose agenda I and others have described. Nor is there any comparison between the miniscule number of crimes committed by "Christian extremists" and the thousands of murders, bombings, rapes, beatings, mutilations, etc. committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. Nor is there any comparison between the "attempts to get their scriptures enshrined as law", virtually all of which have been blocked or overturned, and the actual imposition of Sharia law by Muslims in nations they have overrun, not to mention their attempts to import Sharia law into civilized nations (e.g., Canada, where the attempt was fortunately rebuffed, at least so far). Assertions to the contrary are simply not intellectually honest, and you know it.

I submit that your own positions are colored by more than a little extremism. Think about it.

Unlike you, I don't condemn an entire religion for the bad actions of a few extremists

"Unlike me", I don't "condemn an entire religion for the bad actions of a few extremists" either. Had you carefully considered my posts instead of engaging in politically correct posturing in defense of poor misunderstood Muslims and against perceived "bigotry", you would have figured out that my position against Islam is based on its own words and the acts of its own "prophet". I don't even need to "condemn" Islam because Islam condemns itself.

Perhaps not as much logical thinking and ability to construct reasoned arguments without mischaracterizing opposing positions rubbed off on you while you were working in the legal world as one might have hoped.

Is there some part of "final immutable revelation" that you don't get? Or are you deliberately obtuse?
You're the one being deliberately obtuse. You have to be to keep up with this ridiculous fiction that Christians are somehow more able to be civilized than Muslims. It's not that you're complaining that Muslims are not acting civilized now. It's this idiotic insistence that they are not capable of ever doing so. There is nothing but your own personal prejudice against Muslims that could lead you to think that, because in fact, there is nothing to distinguish Muslims from any other group of people in the world or Islam from any of the other Abrahamic religions.

So, Attorney Head-Bang, tell me this: Since both Christianity and Islam claim to be the "final immutable revelation" and both have sacred books that advocate violence against various parties, what is it that would prevent Muslims from overcoming those negative attitudes? Hm? What is it that, according to you, makes Christians so much more civilizable than Muslims?

Let me explain it again, in nice simple words. "Final" = "last, terminal, no more after this one." "Immutable" = "unchangeable, unalterable, don't add anything, don't delete anything." This is Islam's own characterization of itself. Therefore, Muslims are stuck with every last word of the Koran. And since Mohammed was "God's Prophet," they're stuck with the Hadith too.
And you've been a Muslim how long and studied under how many imams to make you such an expert in what Muslims are allowed to think? I'm sorry, but I'm inclined to dismiss this paragraph as just a bullshit interpretation that you made up.

Reform requires change. That which is "immutable" cannot be changed. Thus, the "revelation" that is Islam cannot be changed, and therefore can't be reformed. One can only "reform" Islamic beliefs to the extent one chooses not to be a believing Muslim.
And in addition to being the world authority on all things Muslim, you also have psychic powers and can predict the future of the more than a billion Muslims on the planet, and that's how you know they will never, ever change?

Many Christian denominations, mine included, don't consider the New Testament, let alone the Old Testament, as either final or immutable. Christianity can, and has been, reformed as its understanding has developed over the centuries.

Are you getting the picture yet?
Yeah, I'm getting the picture that you are applying a double standard. Not all Christians are fundamentalists. Not all Christians think their faith is the "final immutable revelation." Not all Christians bomb clinics or attack gays. But a minority do.

Yet when people say the exact same thing about Muslims -- that only a minority are fundamentalist whackos or terrorists -- you start jumping up and down on your desk and screaming about how EVIL Islam is.

Based, by the way, on nothing but your personal opinion.

No, because their own "prophet" denies them the ability to do so.
And didn't Jesus say that nobody could enter the kingdom of god except through him and by being "born again"? Yet not every Christian is a Born Again Christian. This is just your double standard again. You choose simply to paint over a billion people, from all cultures and walks of life, as some kind of Borg hive mind, incapable of independent thought or change. This is your bigotry at work.

See above. Repeat as needed.
Ditto.

There is simply no comparison between the miniscule number of "Christian extremists" who have the agenda you describe and the tens of millions of Muslims whose agenda I and others have described. Nor is there any comparison between the miniscule number of crimes committed by "Christian extremists" and the thousands of murders, bombings, rapes, beatings, mutilations, etc. committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. Nor is there any comparison between the "attempts to get their scriptures enshrined as law", virtually all of which have been blocked or overturned, and the actual imposition of Sharia law by Muslims in nations they have overrun, not to mention their attempts to import Sharia law into civilized nations (e.g., Canada, where the attempt was fortunately rebuffed, at least so far). Assertions to the contrary are simply not intellectually honest, and you know it.
Tens of millions all sharing the same agenda? Tens of millions of rapists, murderers, terrorists, and all the other items in your Whole Earth Catalogue of Why You Hate Muslims? Show me those numbers, please. Otherwise, this sounds just like more of your hyberbole. You must be a lot of fun at court. The clerks must laugh and laugh.

I submit that your own positions are colored by more than a little extremism. Think about it.
Yeah, keep telling yourself that anyone who disagrees with you must be an extremist terrorist-lover, if it makes you feel any the less out of control.

FYI, I'm not an extremist. What I am is unyielding in my opposition to bigotry in all its guises.

And you've been a Muslim how long and studied under how many imams to make you such an expert in what Muslims are allowed to think? I'm sorry, but I'm inclined to dismiss this paragraph as just a bullshit interpretation that you made up.

Just for the record, I have studied under Imams and secular experts on Islam. In addition, I've gotten a degree that contains that field and while I don't claim to be an 'expert' per se, I'm probably as close as it gets on NSG. Yet, you still reject a lot of what I say about Islam. I think you're just playing the Islamic apologist, trying to be PC, and not taking an honest view.

The fact is, Islam isn't a bad or evil religion. But, it has wide potential for abuse. And today, a dispreportionate number of Muslims abuse it. The fact that we have Muslim groups against Islamic terror testifies to that. Not a single religious group on earth except Islam currently has organizations to combat its own religious terrorism.

And when you do things like compare modern day sex slavery to the slave trade, not only is it an offensive and gross distortion of history that spits on the memory of those involved in the slave trade, it demonstrates that you aren't really interested in an honest analysis of Islam, but that you're just interested in playing the apologist for Islam.

Yeah, I'm getting the picture that you are applying a double standard. Not all Christians are fundamentalists. Not all Christians think their faith is the "final immutable revelation." Not all Christians bomb clinics or attack gays. But a minority do.

Yet when people say the exact same thing about Muslims -- that only a minority are fundamentalist whackos or terrorists -- you start jumping up and down on your desk and screaming about how EVIL Islam is.

Based, by the way, on nothing but your personal opinion.

Yawn.

Let's try this one more time. Christianity as a whole does not make the claim that the New Testament is the "final immutable revelation". The Catholic Church in particular (which FYI is the majority denomination in terms of membership) is not a fundamentalist denomination and looks to church tradition and apostolic teaching authority as well as scripture.

Islam as a whole does make the claim that is the "final immutable revelation." Far from being my "personal opinion", this point is acknowledged and professed by the original poster of this thread. I have yet to hear any Muslim deny this core dogma. I challenge you to cite any evidence to the contrary.

If you still refuse to recognize this and hold Islam to its own words, then there's no point in further discussion. Enjoy your valiant crusade against "bigotry" in whatever arguments may be made against your own "final immutable" opinions.

Islam as a whole does make the claim that is the "final immutable revelation." Far from being my "personal opinion", this point is acknowledged and professed by the original poster of this thread. I have yet to hear any Muslim deny this core dogma. I challenge you to cite any evidence to the contrary.

While you're right that they view the Koran as a brick of gold dropped out of heaven so to speak, the real issue isn't that alone. It has to do with the way Muslims interpret it. There are just as many Muslims that interpret verses about Jihad to be peaceful as there are Muslims that interpret them to be violent.

On that note, the Koran does have more "questionable verses" than any other religious text. Thus, it is much easier to interpret the Koran for a militant stance than it is with other religious texts. Salmon Rushdie, a former Muslim and noted scholar on Islam, has pointed that out.

Just for the record, I have studied under Imams and secular experts on Islam. In addition, I've gotten a degree that contains that field and while I don't claim to be an 'expert' per se, I'm probably as close as it gets on NSG. Yet, you still reject a lot of what I say about Islam. I think you're just playing the Islamic apologist, trying to be PC, and not taking an honest view.

The fact is, Islam isn't a bad or evil religion. But, it has wide potential for abuse. And today, a dispreportionate number of Muslims abuse it. The fact that we have Muslim groups against Islamic terror testifies to that. Not a single religious group on earth except Islam currently has organizations to combat its own religious terrorism.

I'm interested in your view on the issue of Islam as the "final immutable revelation" and the possibility of purging the unsavory elements discussed at length in this thread. In your opinion, can Islam reform itself and remain Islam? If so, how?

It's depends on what you mean. I, for example, wouldn't hold the Catholic Church up as an example of a morally acceptable church. Far from it. The anti-birthcontrol dogma alone helps perpetuate a situation that's starting to look like genicide.

I heard thru the grapevine that the Vatican is revisiting its position on birth control - particularly the use of condoms in places where HIV/AIDS has become an epidemic. I dunno if its true or not, but one can hope.

(And in my neighborhood, its hardly genocide. On the contrary 12 out of 150 seniors at my old Catholic high school ended up pregnant. My sister tried to start a club to supply information and support for thoses facing issues, but the school wouldnt let her.)

Ok, that was definately sidetracked.
Back on topic: I've said it before and I'll say it again. The only problem I have with Islam is that it doesnt allow for the drinking of alcohol. How does such a religion maintain any membership? Oh well.

While you're right that they view the Koran as a brick of gold dropped out of heaven so to speak, the real issue isn't that alone. It has to do with the way Muslims interpret it. There are just as many Muslims that interpret verses about Jihad to be peaceful as there are Muslims that interpret them to be violent.

In my view, it's not just jihad that's cause for concern. If that were the only issue, I might be willing to consider it an artifact of a violent inception that is no longer "operative." It's a whole suite of unsavory teachings, including inter alia jihad, the whole concept of Sharia law, including its imposition of physical mutilation and the death penalty for changing religions, i.e., "apostasy", the profound contempt for and oppression of women, the Dar al-Islam/Dar al-Harb opposition, the institution of jizya, the doctrine of taqiyya, not to mention the way Mohammed always seemed to have a convenient "revelation" to justify anything he wanted to do, up to and including "marrying" a six-year-old girl.

Again, I'm interested in your view on this issue.

I'm interested in your view on the issue of Islam as the "final immutable revelation" and the possibility of purging the unsavory elements discussed at length in this thread. In your opinion, can Islam reform itself and remain Islam? If so, how?

I doubt unsavory elements will ever be purged. The traditions of Islam, and the texts of Islam, are too ambiguous in respect to those elements to ever develop a single coherent doctrine that accepts any type of reformation. On one hand, we have surahs that endorse peace, and others that clearly endorse violence. Muslims that want to be reformists will accept the peace-endorsing surahs while reinterpreting the violent ones, and ones that want to be extremists will accept the violent surahs while claiming the peaceful ones apply only to Muslims.

Islam also reflects a culture that had institutionalized and ritualized violence. Bedouins were known for feuding, for their "me against the world" mentality, and institutions like kidnapping for ransom (which we still see today in Islamic cultures). Nothing has weeded that bedouin mentality out of Islamic culture, and nothing ever will weed it out of the Koran.

The closest adherents to Islam that can be called reformist are Sufi orders and individual moderate communities. Saudi Arabia is probably the perfect model of what future Islamic states would look like if a 'reform' occured, and things like internal conflict and terror stopped. It isn't exactly reformed in the sense that we can see Christianity reformed in Europe and the United States, but it doesn't reflect extremist terror either. On that note, I wouldn't call Saudi Arabia progress or anything positive. But a 'reform' in the Sudan, for example, would result in a second Saudi Arabia. Or an Iran.

Back to Sufi orders, which tend to be very peaceful and represent 'reform' in its truest sense in Islam, in general they are accepted by the overall Muslim community. I've encountered Muslims (on NSG, too) that reject Sufism as a valid form of Islam though. That alone makes the idea of a real reform questionable.

In my view, it's not just jihad that's cause for concern. If that were the only issue, I might be willing to consider it an artifact of a violent inception that is no longer "operative." It's a whole suite of unsavory teachings, including inter alia jihad, the whole concept of Sharia law, including its imposition of physical mutilation and the death penalty for changing religions, i.e., "apostasy", the profound contempt for and oppression of women, the Dar al-Islam/Dar al-Harb opposition, the institution of jizya, the doctrine of taqiyya, not to mention the way Mohammed always seemed to have a convenient "revelation" to justify anything he wanted to do, up to and including "marrying" a six-year-old girl.

Again, I'm interested in your view on this issue.

You're quite right about that. If you want to see how things like Sharia are applied, you only have to look to Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Afghanistan. If that isn't a cause for concern, I don't know what is. The fact that it is currently applied as the law in some states, and the fact that it produces horrible results, should testify to the nature of it.

On one hand, we have surahs that endorse peace, and others that clearly endorse violence. Muslims that want to be reformists will accept the peace-endorsing surahs while reinterpreting the violent ones, and ones that want to be extremists will accept the violent surahs while claiming the peaceful ones apply only to Muslims.

Isn't the Koran divided into "Mecca verses", which camer earlier, and "Medina verses", which came later? And doesn't Islam declare that later "revelations" supplant earlier ones? As I seem to recall from my study of the Koran (certainly less extensive than yours, but likely more than most non-specialists), most of the "peaceful" teachings are contained in Mecca verses, while most of the "violent" teachings appear in Medina verses, and thus replace the earlier teachings. Is this correct? If so, aren't Muslims being deceitful when they point to "peaceful" teachings that may or may not have been superseded?

Islam also reflects a culture that had institutionalized and ritualized violence. Bedouins were known for feuding, for their "me against the world" mentality, and institutions like kidnapping for ransom (which we still see today in Islamic cultures). Nothing has weeded that bedouin mentality out of Islamic culture, and nothing ever will weed it out of the Koran.

Doesn't this provide the requisite connection between Islam and the violence seen in the Middle East, Europe and elsewhere?

Isn't the Koran divided into "Mecca verses", which camer earlier, and "Medina verses", which came later? And doesn't Islam declare that later "revelations" supplant earlier ones? As I seem to recall from my study of the Koran (certainly less extensive than yours, but likely more than most non-specialists), most of the "peaceful" teachings are contained in Mecca verses, while most of the "violent" teachings appear in Medina verses, and thus replace the earlier teachings. Is this correct? If so, aren't Muslims being deceitful when they point to "peaceful" teachings that may or may not have been superseded?

Yes, thats the general idea. Although most Muslims find ways to reconcile everything. Its common among militant Muslims to interpret verses that call for peace as only talking about peace toward other Muslims, thus allowing them to wage physical, violent Jihad against non-Muslims. I'm not sure to what extent extremist Muslims use Medina verses over Mecca verses, or to what extent they ignore Mecca verses in lieu of Medina verses. The Medina verses do tend to be far more militant though, you're right.

Doesn't this provide the requisite connection between Islam and the violence seen in the Middle East, Europe and elsewhere?

Absolutely. Although, it isn't PC to say so. For some reason, we're allowed to criticize Christianity for "causing" the Crusades, Inquisition, etc. And we're allowed to criticize the Bible for endorsing violence. Gay rights groups are allowed to point out clearly anti-gay verses in the Torah. Yet, when it comes to pointing out that the Koran does categorically endorse violence in many instances, it suddenly becomes Islamophobia or Muslim bashing.

I've yet to find a serious work on Islam that does not make a connection to Islam and the early violent history of Bedouins. And the fact that modern Muslims are using a text based on old Bedouin traditions and values makes it pretty clear that they are going to exhibit at least some old Bedouin values themselves.

I'm still baffled that people would pretend that Islam is perfectly pure and benign when we have states basing laws on Sharia that are equivalent to South African apartheid. The very concept of Dhimmi as outlined in the Koran, and as practiced in Saudi Arabia and Iran, makes people second class citizens based on their religions and ethnicity. And woe unto those who do not even make it into the Dhimmi category.

Yes, thats the general idea. Although most Muslims find ways to reconcile everything. Its common among militant Muslims to interpret verses that call for peace as only talking about peace toward other Muslims, thus allowing them to wage physical, violent Jihad against non-Muslims. I'm not sure to what extent extremist Muslims use Medina verses over Mecca verses, or to what extent they ignore Mecca verses in lieu of Medina verses. The Medina verses do tend to be far more militant though, you're right.


Absolutely. Although, it isn't PC to say so. For some reason, we're allowed to criticize Christianity for "causing" the Crusades, Inquisition, etc. And we're allowed to criticize the Bible for endorsing violence. Gay rights groups are allowed to point out clearly anti-gay verses in the Torah. Yet, when it comes to pointing out that the Koran does categorically endorse violence in many instances, it suddenly becomes Islamophobia or Muslim bashing.

I've yet to find a serious work on Islam that does not make a connection to Islam and the early violent history of Bedouins. And the fact that modern Muslims are using a text based on old Bedouin traditions and values makes it pretty clear that they are going to exhibit at least some old Bedouin values themselves.

I'm still baffled that people would pretend that Islam is perfectly pure and benign when we have states basing laws on Sharia that are equivalent to South African apartheid. The very concept of Dhimmi as outlined in the Koran, and as practiced in Saudi Arabia and Iran, makes people second class citizens based on their religions and ethnicity. And woe unto those who do not even make it into the Dhimmi category.

Thanks for your insights. I would hope that other readers take what you have to say seriously instead of reverting to namecalling and accusations of "bigotry."

Thanks for your insights. I would hope that other readers take what you have to say seriously instead of reverting to namecalling and accusations of "bigotry."

So, let's see here.

"All muslims are violent. If they aren't, they aren't muslims. EVEN IF THEY FOLLOW ALL ASPECTS OF ISLAM BUT THE VIOLENCE. Violence, indeed, that was ALSO promoted in the Bible. Which most muslims do. The religion can't be reformed, even though it, seemingly, WAS."

I thought lawyers were supposed to be good at arguing?

While you're right that they view the Koran as a brick of gold dropped out of heaven so to speak, the real issue isn't that alone. It has to do with the way Muslims interpret it. There are just as many Muslims that interpret verses about Jihad to be peaceful as there are Muslims that interpret them to be violent.

On that note, the Koran does have more "questionable verses" than any other religious text. Thus, it is much easier to interpret the Koran for a militant stance than it is with other religious texts. Salmon Rushdie, a former Muslim and noted scholar on Islam, has pointed that out.

there is no doubt that the koran is open to abuse, and that is has verses that are easier to misconstrue than other religions, but the fact is there are people involves in this debate(not you btw)that have an anti-islamic'blik' and are claiming that all muslims are rapists, murders and terrorists-which is why I started this post.If you look at my origional post the main featuresof Islam,just like the main features of christianity are love thy neighbour as thyself, and love god, jesus died on the cross and was risen from the dead,the five pillars of Islam are the main features of Islam.Just like not all christians think we should stone people and condem homosexuals, not all muslims choose to follow the violent passeges.I think some people on this site are severly overstating the case for islamic terror, I would not call myself an islamic apologist,as I do think that there is a serious problem with some Imams promoting extremism.Surley the fact that each suicide bombing makes the news shows that it isnt as widespread as you think-just like not every theft makes the news because so many happen,just as not every murder makes the news because so many happen.If they didnt happen often they would be newsworthy.Im just sick of people tarring every muslim with the same brush.Obviosly there is a problem, no one with any sense would deny this, but the problem is with muslim extremists not the moderate muslims that you would come across in every day life.Any one who has the audacity to claim that Muslims are responsible for the majority of rapes, child trafficing ect is plain wrong-there just arent enough muslims for that to happen.

Religion is but one of many justifications for evil. In a society where religion is the primary governing philosophy, it is the most obvious choice.

Your opinion of me is not the issue. The nature of Islam is the issue. But there's no point having a discussion since you refuse to address the issue. Go back to grad school or wherever you developed your remarkable powers of reasoning.

BTW: props to Ann Coulter ;)

I'm surprised but I actually agree with Mitanni. Mitanni had some good points. But since we have some serious problems with muslims in Sweden it might not be that surprising.

*edit*
Though I have no idea who this Coulter woman is.

Though I have no idea who this Coulter woman is.

And what a lucky man you are...

*edit*
Though I have no idea who this Coulter woman is.

lol, I wouldn't want to mess with that chick.

Thanks for your insights. I would hope that other readers take what you have to say seriously instead of reverting to namecalling and accusations of "bigotry."

Why "quote" "bigotry?" Is that to imply that you're not a bigot? Either you don't know what the word means, or you are now trying to deny that you hate Islam and assume anyone who disagrees with your hatred is a "Euro-wimp" or "apologist" or "leftist."

It's not namecalling to point out that you're a bigot. But I do enjoy it when you whine about it, as if you had no idea that your putrescent expression of ideologies of hatred would earn you the title.

Why "quote" "bigotry?" Is that to imply that you're not a bigot? Either you don't know what the word means, or you are now trying to deny that you hate Islam and assume anyone who disagrees with your hatred is a "Euro-wimp" or "apologist" or "leftist."

It's not namecalling to point out that you're a bigot. But I do enjoy it when you whine about it, as if you had no idea that your putrescent expression of ideologies of hatred would earn you the title.

While he may indeed be a bigot, you have to be careful. It is not necessary to be a bigot, or even hate a group or nation, in order to launch nuclear missiles at it and destroy all life at that location.

---

If you're asking me if I think Islam is in its nature evil, I say no. But the people who claim in the name of Allah to be evil, they give a bad name to those are devout in their faith.

FYI, I am not Muslim, despite the title... I think the idea of "another Muslim terrorist bombing" is misleading, because many clerics [note, I say "many" not "all"] denounce these extremists, calling them unfaithful and a number of other things. Besides that, Christian extremists can be just as bad - notably among those who bombed abortion clinics in the 1990's: not every Christian bombed clinics, and not everyone who bombed clinics were Christians. Just as it was then, not every Muslim bombs whatever the heck they are bombing now, and not everyone who is bombing whatever the heck they are bombing now is Muslim.

It's perhaps a matter of perspective, but sometimes it takes some thought to realize who is doing what, regardless of the self-imposed tags that people might make of themselves.

While he may indeed be a bigot, you have to be careful. It is not necessary to be a bigot, or even hate a group or nation, in order to launch nuclear missiles at it and destroy all life at that location.

I'm not sure why me being careful has anything to do with nuclear missile launches though. That kind of thing is far beyond any actions or words little ole me can take.

I'm not sure why me being careful has anything to do with nuclear missile launches though. That kind of thing is far beyond any actions or words little ole me can take.
Maybe I should rephrase that.

If someone (like me) advocates annihilating a specific group, I am then called a "racist" and a "bigot".

The Mongols, for example, annihilated quite a few people over time, and not out of any sense of bigotry or racial superiority. They did it because they could. It was a power grab, and some people stood in the way.

They probably killed more people than Hitler, but they were not bigots. In fact, many of them adopted cultural and religious practices of the nations they conquered.

Maybe I should rephrase that.

If someone (like me) advocates annihilating a specific group, I am then called a "racist" and a "bigot".


Generally yes, if on racial or religious/ethnic basis.


The Mongols, for example, annihilated quite a few people over time, and not out of any sense of bigotry or racial superiority. They did it because they could. It was a power grab, and some people stood in the way.

True, but there is a difference between just doing something, and advocating something based on a hatred. NM's already admitted to having this hatred and that fits pretty snugly into the category of bigotry, not power grabbing or anything.

Why "quote" "bigotry?" Is that to imply that you're not a bigot? Either you don't know what the word means, or you are now trying to deny that you hate Islam and assume anyone who disagrees with your hatred is a "Euro-wimp" or "apologist" or "leftist."

It's not namecalling to point out that you're a bigot. But I do enjoy it when you whine about it, as if you had no idea that your putrescent expression of ideologies of hatred would earn you the title.

"Hate" and "bigotry" are distinct concepts, although clearly you have trouble making the distinction. For example, you "hate" so-called "Nazis", which seeminly include anyone who disagrees with you on this issue. Does that make you a "bigot" as well? Seemingly so by your logic. Perhaps you really mean to say that there are good "bigots" and bad "bigots", depending on whether the direction of your "bigotry" is politically correct or not.

As for branding anyone who disagrees with me by various names you don't approve of, I won't bother to dignify that with further argument. But with respect to the "Euro-wimp" label, IIRC my exact words were "effete, decadent Euro-wimps who don't have the wit to defend their civilization even if they had the testicular fortitude to try." The recent example of that Norwegian official who advised Norwegian women that they now live in a "multicultural society" and that they had better adapt to it, i.e., by accommodating Muslim demands for headscarves on women, justifies that characterization all by itself. If you are a European who agrees with her opinion, you are indeed an effete, decadent Euro-wimp. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Okay, whoever here thinks New Mittani and Ny Nordland are one and the same, say "Ukulele"!

Ukulele!

I. Just for the record, I have studied under Imams and secular experts on Islam. In addition, I've gotten a degree that contains that field and while I don't claim to be an 'expert' per se, I'm probably as close as it gets on NSG. Yet, you still reject a lot of what I say about Islam. I think you're just playing the Islamic apologist, trying to be PC, and not taking an honest view.

II. The fact is, Islam isn't a bad or evil religion. But, it has wide potential for abuse. And today, a dispreportionate number of Muslims abuse it. The fact that we have Muslim groups against Islamic terror testifies to that. Not a single religious group on earth except Islam currently has organizations to combat its own religious terrorism.

III. And when you do things like compare modern day sex slavery to the slave trade, not only is it an offensive and gross distortion of history that spits on the memory of those involved in the slave trade, it demonstrates that you aren't really interested in an honest analysis of Islam, but that you're just interested in playing the apologist for Islam.
I. Well, since you admit you are not an expert, you will forgive me if I don't take your word as that of an expert. I reject what you say about Islam because of your obvious bias. I already addressed this in your "correlation" thread -- your bias causes you to see things in the data that are not there, even to the point of overcoming your normally strict academic discipline. A strong indicator of this in this thread is the emotional quality of your assertions. In fact, I'll say that a strong indicator of your bias is your attempt to characterize me as a PC apologist for Islam. All you have to do is read my posts honestly to see that I am in no way an apologist for anything. In fact, I'm not even talking about Islam, per se, at all. What I am talking about is the bigotry of Muslim-bashers. I am interested in their behavior, not in the target of their behavior.

II. Your second paragraph summarizes my entire argument nicely, thanks. It also invalidates New Mitanni's so-called arguments, and significant portions of your own arguments, too.

III. And here the glimmer of your usual wonted credibility goes out again. Slavery is slavery. To say that the selling of children into forced sex or servitude is somehow less reprehensible than the old, formerly legal (sort of), slave trade is just silly. The only difference between them is the scale of the crime, not the quality, and if you were not so eager to demonize Islam, you would see that.

Understand what I'm doing here, TS. I am not defending Islam by pointing out that both Muslims and non-Muslims share the same spotty history. What I am doing is attacking bigotry by pointing out that both Muslims and non-Muslims share the same spotty history. To point at Islam and say "Eeek! Evil! Irredeemable! Destroy! Icky!" and use as one's "proofs" crimes, actions, history, and texts that are virtually identical to one's own group, is the argument of a bigot. It is not a valid argument. It would not fly in any court of law or before any ethical committee -- unless the arguer is willing to commit himself for the same punishment as his enemy.

The fact is that I could not care less about the evils or virtues of Islam. But what you and New Mitanni are doing here is nothing more than an exercise in the pot calling the kettle black and, and I'm calling you on it. Why? Because there is far too much of this going on in the world, and it is counter-productive in the fight against terrorism.

The bottom line is terrorism =/= Islam. It is far broader than any one group. By focusing on blaming Islam for terrorism, all you are doing is allowing the real problem to hide behind a convenient scapegoat. No, that's not all, actually -- you're also feeding right into the terrorists' inflammatory "See? Those infidels really do hate us!" propaganda. In other words, you are playing their game, according to their rules, just the way they want you to. But in your eagerness to spit in the face of your enemy, you seem happy to adopt their rhetoric and maybe even their tactics. Counter-productive is the best that can be said about that.

Yawn.
You bore yourself? :p

Let's try this one more time. <snip>
Let's not and say we did. All you're doing is repeating your original statements as if that is a rebuttal to my rebuttal. Yawn, indeed.

Maybe I should rephrase that.

If someone (like me) advocates annihilating a specific group, I am then called a "racist" and a "bigot".

The Mongols, for example, annihilated quite a few people over time, and not out of any sense of bigotry or racial superiority. They did it because they could. It was a power grab, and some people stood in the way.

They probably killed more people than Hitler, but they were not bigots. In fact, many of them adopted cultural and religious practices of the nations they conquered.
Do you really want to go there in this thread? 'Cause you know I love it when you go there.

"Hate" and "bigotry" are distinct concepts, although clearly you have trouble making the distinction. For example, you "hate" so-called "Nazis", which seeminly include anyone who disagrees with you on this issue.

No, I don't call anyone who disagrees with me on an issue a nazi. I call you a nazi because you're an advocate of eugenics, you admittedly hate people just because of the religion they follow, you refer to them "infesting" nations and other shit that sounds distinctly nazi-esque.

There are people on this site I can, and do, disagree with without calling nazis.

Does that make you a "bigot" as well?

If you want to call me a bigot, go ahead. But the shoe fits on your foot, dollface.

Perhaps you really mean to say that there are good "bigots" and bad "bigots", depending on whether the direction of your "bigotry" is politically correct or not.

Politically? Nah, morally. But, as you're supposedly a lawyer, I suppose morality is something you don't understand either?

As for branding anyone who disagrees with me by various names you don't approve of, I won't bother to dignify that with further argument. But with respect to the "Euro-wimp" label, IIRC my exact words were "effete, decadent Euro-wimps who don't have the wit to defend their civilization even if they had the testicular fortitude to try."

Which no one who was in conversation with you at the time was.

And why is it you always do things like saying "I won't dignify that with further argument," right before making further argument? If you're going to shut up, do feel free to shut up. If you're not, don't pretend like you're so superior you can't even be bothered to come down from Mt Olympus to say anything.

The recent example of that Norwegian official who advised Norwegian women that they now live in a "multicultural society" and that they had better adapt to it, i.e., by accommodating Muslim demands for headscarves on women, justifies that characterization all by itself. If you are a European who agrees with her opinion, you are indeed an effete, decadent Euro-wimp. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Ah, of course. Anyone who agrees with you - regardless of their personality, is "effete" and "decadent." Multiculturalism is "not defending your civilization."

Sorry, the shoe doesn't fit.

I suggest either taking it back to the store or, if you have trouble finding places to put it, I can suggest one or two. ;)

No, I don't call anyone who disagrees with me on an issue a nazi. I call you a nazi because you're an advocate of eugenics, you admittedly hate people just because of the religion they follow, you refer to them "infesting" nations and other shit that sounds distinctly nazi-esque.

There are people on this site I can, and do, disagree with without calling nazis.



If you want to call me a bigot, go ahead. But the shoe fits on your foot, dollface.



Politically? Nah, morally. But, as you're supposedly a lawyer, I suppose morality is something you don't understand either?



Which no one who was in conversation with you at the time was.

And why is it you always do things like saying "I won't dignify that with further argument," right before making further argument? If you're going to shut up, do feel free to shut up. If you're not, don't pretend like you're so superior you can't even be bothered to come down from Mt Olympus to say anything.



Ah, of course. Anyone who agrees with you - regardless of their personality, is "effete" and "decadent." Multiculturalism is "not defending your civilization."

Sorry, the shoe doesn't fit.

I suggest either taking it back to the store or, if you have trouble finding places to put it, I can suggest one or two. ;)

The more I read of your posts, the more certain I am that William Burroughs in fact had a vision of you when he wrote Naked Lunch.

It's too bad that we will never meet in court, but then, armed with your formidible rhetorical skills, you probably wouldn't survive summary judgment. "Bigotbigotbigotbigotbigot" isn't going to get you very far. So sorry.

The more I read of your posts, the more certain I am that William Burroughs in fact had a vision of you when he wrote Naked Lunch.


OMGLOLOLOL. You're so funny. Got any jokes about Jews and pizza?


It's too bad that we will never meet in court, but then, armed with your formidible rhetorical skills, you probably wouldn't survive summary judgment. "Bigotbigotbigotbigotbigot" isn't going to get you very far. So sorry.

Whereas I'm sure "ur all effete decadent Euro-wimps" has won you case after case.

But it is too bad we'll never meet. You could see just how effete I am.

The more I read of your posts, the more certain I am that William Burroughs in fact had a vision of you when he wrote Naked Lunch.
Ooh, cute. You read a book. All by yourself? :rolleyes:

It's too bad that we will never meet in court, but then, armed with your formidible rhetorical skills, you probably wouldn't survive summary judgment. "Bigotbigotbigotbigotbigot" isn't going to get you very far. So sorry.
Neither will "and then they'll be dead, dead, dead! and I'll be among the victors! Bwuahahahaha!"

Unless, by "far," you mean repeating yourself endlessly.

I. Well, since you admit you are not an expert, you will forgive me if I don't take your word as that of an expert. I reject what you say about Islam because of your obvious bias. I already addressed this in your "correlation" thread -- your bias causes you to see things in the data that are not there, even to the point of overcoming your normally strict academic discipline. A strong indicator of this in this thread is the emotional quality of your assertions. In fact, I'll say that a strong indicator of your bias is your attempt to characterize me as a PC apologist for Islam. All you have to do is read my posts honestly to see that I am in no way an apologist for anything. In fact, I'm not even talking about Islam, per se, at all. What I am talking about is the bigotry of Muslim-bashers. I am interested in their behavior, not in the target of their behavior.

Interesting how you would single out the fact that I don't call myself an expert on Islam, but you would ignore the rest. Lets give a fair analysis here. I have the credentials to teach a class on Islam and virtually any Islam-related affair at university level. If you went to school and took a class on Islam, you could get me as a professor (Probably not, since I don't teach now).

Concerning bias and the correlation thread, it all boils down to this - a respected government organization did an extensive study between 2000 and 2005, finding that over half of terror attacks are a result of Islamic extremism. No one on that thread could dispute those findings, nor did they offer any arguments against it. My "bias" is based on statistics and studies like this. Whereas, the arguments against it have had zero evidence as such. So who really has the bias? Let the evidence weigh it out.

II. Your second paragraph summarizes my entire argument nicely, thanks. It also invalidates New Mitanni's so-called arguments, and significant portions of your own arguments, too.

I think you'll be unable to show me anything where my paragraph invalidates my arguments. Just like in the correlation thread, everyone began to attack a strawman argument I didn't make - that Islam "causes" terror. I've been quite consistent with my position, and Islam as a cause does not mean that it is the cause. Again, the fact that it is a cause is proven in the five year study NTCT study, which states that the majority of terror is "caused" by Islamic extremism. The study mentioned above, that no one has actually addressed in a scholarly way.

III. And here the glimmer of your usual wonted credibility goes out again. Slavery is slavery. To say that the selling of children into forced sex or servitude is somehow less reprehensible than the old, formerly legal (sort of), slave trade is just silly. The only difference between them is the scale of the crime, not the quality, and if you were not so eager to demonize Islam, you would see that.

You demonstrate a lack of historical knowledge when you say "slavery is slavery." The fact is, slavery has been far more extreme in some cultures than in others. Slavery is not always morally equivalent, and all it takes is to compare the writings of black slaves in the South to Roman slaves like Zeno to know that much.

But, again, you're making a strawman argument. No one said it was "less reprehensible." I said that the two phenomena were nothing similiar. And they aren't. The slave trade was entirelly different than sex slavery today. You wont find a single source of merit that claims otherwise. And black groups like the NAACP would condemn you harshly for that claim.

Understand what I'm doing here, TS. I am not defending Islam by pointing out that both Muslims and non-Muslims share the same spotty history. What I am doing is attacking bigotry by pointing out that both Muslims and non-Muslims share the same spotty history. To point at Islam and say "Eeek! Evil! Irredeemable! Destroy! Icky!" and use as one's "proofs" crimes, actions, history, and texts that are virtually identical to one's own group, is the argument of a bigot. It is not a valid argument. It would not fly in any court of law or before any ethical committee -- unless the arguer is willing to commit himself for the same punishment as his enemy.

You're playing an Islamic apologist because its trendy to the Left right now. While its true that Islam doesn't equal terror, you fail to recognize a proven correlation between the two, and you fail to even acknowledge the history of Islam and its origins. These are all facts that you will have to deal with if you ever do any serious research about Islam. Certain facts about religious history are not PC, and are taboo in mainstream liberal society today. We can't say that Islam "causes" terror on the news, even though it is exactly what you will be taught if you take a rudimentary class on Islam. Just like you wont hear that Christianity "caused" anti-Semitism during the Middle Ages, but all scholarly work on the subject supports that fact.

And its important to remember that no one is claiming that Christianity is the sole cause of anti-Semitism or that Islam is the sole cause of terror. Rather, that these religions are factors, facets, or causes of the beliefs and events. To pretend that they aren't is to pretend that people live in a religious vacuum. It is to make the claim that their religion has influenced them in no way whatsoever toward terror, and that 100% of the blame lies on outside forces. This is something that is easily refuted by the fact that religious terror exists at all.

Okay, whoever here thinks New Mittani and Ny Nordland are one and the same, say "Ukulele"!

Ukulele!
Nah. NM's use of words seems more American than Ny's, and he hasn't used the magic words "you're not qualified."

I'm afraid there really are two of them.

apologist because its trendy to the Left right now.

:rolleyes:

Of course. That's the only reason anyone would bother to rebutt you or oppose blind hatred of Islam. Because it's a trend. Of The Left.



While its true that Islam doesn't equal terror, you fail to recognize a proven correlation between the two

Correlation doesn't mean causation, so what does this prove?

We can't say that Islam "causes" terror on the news, even though it is exactly what you will be taught if you take a rudimentary class on Islam. Just like you wont hear that Christianity "caused" anti-Semitism during the Middle Ages, but all scholarly work on the subject supports that fact.

I like how you attribute "isms" to abstract concepts. No people are involved, no ideologies used to support existing xenophobia, hatred or to emphasize underlying economics - just, Christianity causes anti-Semitism, and Islam causes terrorism. Blah.

Correlation doesn't mean causation, so what does this prove?

The study actually demonstrated that over 50% of terror was caused by Islamic extremism. Again, no one has really commented the findings of the study or been able to refute it. Verily so, since it is peer-reviewed. I doubt it will be refuted by someone on NSG any time soon.

On that note, the reason I used the term correlation was because I didn't want to make the statement "Islam causes terror", which is, due to its ambiguity, inaccurate. Islam is one of many causes and factors of terror. It isn't the only thing, nor does it cause terror all by itself. I did want to point out that there is a link of two, a link that is accepted as concensus in modern academia.

To sum it up, its like what Mark Juergensmeyer (University of California) described when promoting his book (http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/8874002/8874002.intro.html) as a, "Dark alliance between religion and violence."

The study actually demonstrated that over 50% of terror was caused by Islamic extremism. Again, no one has really commented the findings of the study or been able to refute it. Verily so, since it is peer-reviewed. I doubt it will be refuted by someone on NSG any time soon.


What study? I'm not in the mood to refute some hundred page document just tonight, but I'll give it a look-see and save it for later.

And could you do me a big favor and use the word "terrorism?" Because "terror" refers simply to a human emotion and though we have a "War on Terror" and not a "War on Terrorism," everyone knows this is rhetoric. Kind of like Gulf War I when Bush said "Aggression is defeated." I mean it's not like you say "Aggression" instead of "Iraq" is it?

On that note, the reason I used the term correlation was because I didn't want to make the statement "Islam causes terror", which is, due to its ambiguity, inaccurate. Islam is one of many causes and factors of terror. It isn't the only thing, nor does it cause terror all by itself. I did want to point out that there is a link of two, a link that is accepted as concensus in modern academia.

So, your main point is showing that there are terrorists who are Islamic, or claim to be Islamic, from Islamic nations?

What study? I'm not in the mood to refute some hundred page document just tonight, but I'll give it a look-see and save it for later.

And could you do me a big favor and use the word "terrorism?" Because "terror" refers simply to a human emotion and though we have a "War on Terror" and not a "War on Terrorism," everyone knows this is rhetoric. Kind of like Gulf War I when Bush said "Aggression is defeated." I mean it's not like you say "Aggression" instead of "Iraq" is it?

I'll dig it up for you and post it here, other than that its still on the former correlation thread.

And the dictionary defines terror, in addition to an emotional state, thus, " violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>." But I'll use terrorism if you like.

So, your main point is showing that there are terrorists who are Islamic, or claim to be Islamic, from Islamic nations?

No, that would be to pretend that Islam, and thus people's culture and religion, is fully separate from the way they behave. We know that people aren't in a religious vacuum, and to pretend that Islam doesn't influence terror is the far left approach, just like the far right approach is to say "Islam is the sole cause of terror." It isn't either extreme, but rather an area in between. And not the same area for all cases. My main point is that people should acknowledge a reasonable degree to which Islam does influence terror.

We know that people aren't in a religious vacuum, and to pretend that Islam doesn't influence terror is the far left approach, just like the far right approach is to say "Islam is the sole cause of terror." It isn't either extreme, but rather an area in between. And not the same area for all cases. My main point is that people should acknowledge a reasonable degree to which Islam does influence terror.Which "far left" disagrees with that? I'm as far laft as you can possibly get, and I don't disagree at all - as I'd think I've made clear elsewhere in this thread.

Isn't the Koran divided into "Mecca verses", which camer earlier, and "Medina verses", which came later? And doesn't Islam declare that later "revelations" supplant earlier ones? As I seem to recall from my study of the Koran (certainly less extensive than yours, but likely more than most non-specialists), most of the "peaceful" teachings are contained in Mecca verses, while most of the "violent" teachings appear in Medina verses, and thus replace the earlier teachings. Is this correct? If so, aren't Muslims being deceitful when they point to "peaceful" teachings that may or may not have been superseded?

Later revelations don't necessarily supplant previous ones because the view is that it all Allah's word and Allah cannot contradict Himself, can he?;)

But yeah, there is a definite change in tone between the Mecca verses and Medina verses and the reason attributed it because in Mecca, Muhammed was preaching to Jews and Pagans who did not accept his prophethood (but they were not fighting at that time) hence Allah had nice and kind words then.

But after fight broke out and Muhammed moved to Medina with his followers and then frequent fights and raids broke out between his group and the Meccans, Allah's words became "kill the enemy whereever you find them"...

Actually, there are some other verses, which Mohammed later asked not to be put in the Qur'an because he said that those verses were under the influence of Satan (hence the book by Rushdie "Satanic Verses").

end that Islam, and thus people's culture and religion, is fully separate from the way they behave. We know that people aren't in a religious vacuum, and to pretend that Islam doesn't influence terror is the far left approach, just like the far right approach is to say "Islam is the sole cause of terror."

Well. People aren't in a geographic vacuum either, and there seems to be a correlation with terrorism and arid climates... would it be as fair to say that arid climates cause terrorism? I mean, obviously not all terrorism.

Except there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism despite their religion, and there are plenty of arid places that have nothing to do with terrorism despite this connection. I'm not saying either one is a coincidence, nor unrelated... but I think that to connect the two intrinsically when there are so many factors that isolating one is an unfair depiction of reality.

Plus, who knows. Maybe desert environments do influence terrorism. I know heat makes me angry. :)

Well. People aren't in a geographic vacuum either, and there seems to be a correlation with terrorism and arid climates... would it be as fair to say that arid climates cause terrorism? I mean, obviously not all terrorism.

No, you seem to be confusing correlation with causation. Again, people don't just "happen" to be Islamic and "happen" to be terrorists. This is, by definition, Islamic terror. They aren't two separate entities. When "desert terror" exists, you'll have an analogy that isn't fallacious.

Except there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism despite their religion, and there are plenty of arid places that have nothing to do with terrorism despite this connection. I'm not saying either one is a coincidence, nor unrelated... but I think that to connect the two intrinsically when there are so many factors that isolating one is an unfair depiction of reality.

And, there are just as many Muslims who support things like Sharia law (which is religious Apartheid and punishment morally equivalent to terror) and existing terror groups. The argument "oh, but look at all the Muslims that aren't terrorists" is a strawman. It only works if someone is claiming that Islam causes terror 100% in 100% of Muslims. No one has claimed that.

In addition, no one denies the fact that economics influences terror. No one is saying "oh, they just happen to be poor, but there is no proof poverty is a factor." The reason Islam gets singled out is because it is the only factor in terror that people deny as being a factor. People simply do not want to break the PC taboo and admit that religion is a factor in terror just like socioeconomic status and other cultural effects.

The argument "oh, but look at all the Muslims that aren't terrorists" is a strawman. It only works if someone is claiming that Islam causes terror 100% in 100% of Muslims. No one has claimed that.

No one, including me. Just wanted that in the record before T chimes in again with "bigotbigotbigotbigotbigot".

Interesting how you would single out the fact that I don't call myself an expert on Islam, but you would ignore the rest. Lets give a fair analysis here. I have the credentials to teach a class on Islam and virtually any Islam-related affair at university level. If you went to school and took a class on Islam, you could get me as a professor (Probably not, since I don't teach now).
I didn't ignore the rest. I addressed the rest, as evidenced by your responses below. Are you just tired, or are you deliberately making false statements about someone who disagrees with you?

And sorry, but I'm not impressed by your resume of things you could do but choose not to. There are plenty of sources for information on Islam with which I can compare your statements -- and that's why I disagree with you.

Concerning bias and the correlation thread, it all boils down to this - a respected government organization did an extensive study between 2000 and 2005, finding that over half of terror attacks are a result of Islamic extremism. No one on that thread could dispute those findings, nor did they offer any arguments against it. My "bias" is based on statistics and studies like this. Whereas, the arguments against it have had zero evidence as such. So who really has the bias? Let the evidence weigh it out.
Islamic extremism. Not Islam. Extremism causes terrorism -- not any one group or belief system. And not one of the sources you posted in that thread said otherwise. In fact, they didn't even prove the numerical correlation that you claimed and used as the basis of your argument in that thread. If you want to beat this dead horse, go ahead and post those links again.

The bottom line is that you made a claim that you failed to support, and you're doing so again here.

I think you'll be unable to show me anything where my paragraph invalidates my arguments. Just like in the correlation thread, everyone began to attack a strawman argument I didn't make - that Islam "causes" terror. I've been quite consistent with my position, and Islam as a cause does not mean that it is the cause. Again, the fact that it is a cause is proven in the five year study NTCT study, which states that the majority of terror is "caused" by Islamic extremism. The study mentioned above, that no one has actually addressed in a scholarly way.
I did not set up any strawmen. You claimed that Islam is "a cause" of terrorism, and I pointed out that you failed to establish any evidence for that claim. Not believing you is not a strawman argument.

By the way, I would point out that in your own phrase, "the majority of terror is 'caused' by Islamic extremism," "Islamic" is the adjective modifying the noun which names the actual cause -- extremism. "Islamic" is just the flavor of the moment.

You demonstrate a lack of historical knowledge when you say "slavery is slavery." The fact is, slavery has been far more extreme in some cultures than in others. Slavery is not always morally equivalent, and all it takes is to compare the writings of black slaves in the South to Roman slaves like Zeno to know that much.
I'm sorry, but I'm just going to call bullshit on this statement. Slaves in the ancient world had it so good, there were how many Punic Wars? Please. Do not debase yourself by scrambling for ways to make the crimes of your enemies seem worse than the same crimes committed by your allies. There is no difference, not qualitatively, not morally, not ethically. Find something else to bash Islam with.

But, again, you're making a strawman argument. No one said it was "less reprehensible." I said that the two phenomena were nothing similiar. And they aren't. The slave trade was entirelly different than sex slavery today. You wont find a single source of merit that claims otherwise. And black groups like the NAACP would condemn you harshly for that claim.
And I'm calling bullshit on this statement, too. You claim that any "source of merit" has made such a comparison and declared them to be "entirely different"? Show me those sources. Above all, I would love to see a statement from the NAACP claiming that blacks back then had it worse than child sex slaves today. They must have published such a statement, since you're so certain of their position, right? You're really just blowing smoke at this point.

You're playing an Islamic apologist because its trendy to the Left right now. While its true that Islam doesn't equal terror, you fail to recognize a proven correlation between the two, and you fail to even acknowledge the history of Islam and its origins. These are all facts that you will have to deal with if you ever do any serious research about Islam.
The bolded words and phrases are all assumptions you have made and claims you have asserted without any facts whatsoever. It is part of a litany of "blame-words" (continuing below) against broad, generic groups -- "the Left," liberals, mainstream society -- not dissimilar in style to your accusations against Islam. Your "proven correlation" is proven only in your own imagination. You have no idea what I've studied. You choose simply to slap the (dismissive and accusatory) label of "apologist" on me without actually showing any quote where I have made any excuses for terrorism. All I have said is that not all Muslims are terrorists. Does that make me an "apologist"? Then I guess you must be one too, right?

Certain facts about religious history are not PC, and are taboo in mainstream liberal society today. We can't say that Islam "causes" terror on the news, even though it is exactly what you will be taught if you take a rudimentary class on Islam. Just like you wont hear that Christianity "caused" anti-Semitism during the Middle Ages, but all scholarly work on the subject supports that fact.
No, dear, all scholarly work on the subject does not support that "fact." I defy you to show me three reputable historical papers that say that. The fact is that Christians -- and Christian leaders, rulers, and organizations -- committed anti-Semitism. The religion did not cause it. People chose to do it. By painting Christianity as a cause of anti-Semitism, you are merely perpetuating their bigotry, just as you encourage and perpetuate bin Ladin's bigotry by blaming Islam for his crimes.

You have acknowledged the existence of Muslims who are not terrorists or jihadis. Likewise, in the Middle Ages, there were Christians who did not hate Jews, and indeed, welcomed them into their lands and gave them safe havens from persecution elsewhere. The princes of Poland and Bohemia in the 14th century are just two examples. In Bohemia, in particular, it wasn't just the ruling prince. The nobles and burghers likewise wrote petitions for religious tolerance to the courts in favor of Jewish communities that were being expelled from other countries.*

If so many Christians were able to resist some supposed call to anti-Semitism in their religion, then your argument that Christianity caused anti-Semitism rings hollow. Likewise, if there are Muslims speaking out against terrorism, fighting against terrorism -- as you yourself acknowledge -- then your claim that Islam is a cause of terror also rings hollow. Clearly, something else must be the cause.

And its important to remember that no one is claiming that Christianity is the sole cause of anti-Semitism or that Islam is the sole cause of terror. Rather, that these religions are factors, facets, or causes of the beliefs and events. To pretend that they aren't is to pretend that people live in a religious vacuum. It is to make the claim that their religion has influenced them in no way whatsoever toward terror, and that 100% of the blame lies on outside forces. This is something that is easily refuted by the fact that religious terror exists at all.
And this argument is easily refuted by the fact that religious anti-terror groups exist at all. You yourself have acknowledged that there are Muslim groups fighting against terrorism. I will also point out that there are Muslim groups fighting for women's rights, against sectarian divisions, and so on. And there is change occuring all over the place. Just yesterday, women voted for the first time in a parliamentary election in Kuwait. And all of these people are, without doubt, Muslims. How could this happen if your argument that religion is a cause of terrorism is true.

No, TS. I maintain that the religion has nothing to do with it. The terrorists bring something else into the equation -- their extremism. That extremism latches onto the religion and exploits it -- but it is not caused by the religion. If the religion did not exist, the extremism still would and would find some other thing in society to attach itself to.




*My sources for this include Barbara Tuchman's books, among others, as well as histories of the Czech Republic and of historical trends in religious and political dissent. Don't assume that I haven't read history just because I don't agree with your take on it.

OMGLOLOLOL. You're so funny. Got any jokes about Jews and pizza?

I don't tell jokes about Jews. Do you?

Whereas I'm sure "ur all effete decadent Euro-wimps" has won you case after case.

But it is too bad we'll never meet. You could see just how effete I am.

One can only imagine:

NM: If it please the court, Islam comprises the following evil teachings: (extensive citations from the Koran and Hadith).

T: Bigotbigotbigotbigotbigot!

NM: On balance, the evil teachings of Islam outweigh any good teachings.

T: Bigotbigotbigotbigotbigot!

NM: Islam is essentially unreformable because it characterizes itself as the final immutable revelation from God.

T: You can't say "Islam is unreformable" because . . . Christianity also says it's the final immutable revelation from God!

NM: Muslims who believe in the evil teachings of Islam must themselves be considered evil.

T: You can't call Muslims "evil" because . . . Christianity has evil teachings too!

NM: Muslims can be considered good to the extent that they repudiate the evil teachings of Islam.

T: Bigotbigotbigotbigotbigot! And there's no such thing as "Islamic terrorism" because . . . lots of Muslims aren't terrorists!

Jury: We find for NM.

Judge: Judgment is entered for NM. T to pay costs. Court's adjourned. :D

No, dear, all scholarly work on the subject does not support that "fact." I defy you to show me three reputable historical papers that say that.

Well, I'll show you three peer-reviewed papers very easily that claim exactly what I've stated. Hopefully that will substitute for me responding to the rest of your circular nonsense. Keep in mind, as these are peer-reviewed papers, I may only be able to post the abstract for you on some (can't link to a subscription database). You'll have to find them on your own subscription. I'm sure you have one, since you're abreast in this field.

SN Khalaf, "Settlement of Violence in Bedouin Society" Ethnology 1990, Vol 29.

Abstract
Description des coutumes réglant les crimes de sang chez les Bédouins (données provenant de Syrie et du Koweit). Après un meurtre la vengeance est assurée par un groupe patrilinéaire remontant à cinq générations. Le coupable peut chercher protection dans une maison, l'habitation étant sacrée. Le lignage du coupable peut payer le prix du sang - un chameau, par exemple - et ainsi mettre une fin au conflit. Les négociations sont organisées par les Cheikhs

[In French, translated via Babel Fish looks thus]

Description of the habits regulating the crimes of blood in the Bedouins (given coming from Syria and Kuwait). After a murder revenge is ensured by a patrilineal group going up five generations. The culprit can seek protection in a house, the dwelling being crowned. The chalk-lining of the culprit can pay the price of blood - a camel, for example - and thus end the conflict.

Dena Hassouneh-Phillips, "Polygamy and wife abuse: a qualitative study of Muslim women in America." Health Care for Women International 2001, Vol 22

Abstract
Improving health outcomes for abused women requires that service providers know how to intervene with women from diverse cultural backgrounds living in a variety of family structures. Because little is known about the growing and diverse American Muslim population, the investigator examined the lived experiences of abused American Muslim women. Using an adaptation of interpretive phenomenology, data were collected from 17 American Muslim women from diverse ethnic backgrounds. Findings highlighted in this article examine the signficance of polygamy in shaping American Muslim women's experiences of abuse and describe the ways that polygamy and abuse can sometimes be interwoven phenomena.

Ruksana Ayyub, "Domestic Violence in the South Asian Muslim Immigrant Population in the United States." Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 2002, Vol 9

Abstract
This paper describes the phenomenon of domestic violence in the South Asian Muslim population living in the United States. Religion, culture, and family play significant and positive roles in the lives of South Asian women. This paper highlights some of the problematic areas in which these institutions are not responding to the needs of women. These findings are based upon the author''s work in a committee for the prevention of domestic violence in the Muslim community and upon personal experience of the South Asian culture.

Hopefully that satisfies. When (if) you go read the papers, you'll note the first one demonstrates the influence of violent Bedouin society on the Koran, subsequently Islam, and Muslims today. The latter two relate Islam as a cause of violence toward women, the former as a result of the Islamic institution of polygamy and the latter as a result of general Islamic discrimination, such as Sharia, towards women.

No, TS. I maintain that the religion has nothing to do with it. The terrorists bring something else into the equation -- their extremism. That extremism latches onto the religion and exploits it -- but it is not caused by the religion. If the religion did not exist, the extremism still would and would find some other thing in society to attach itself to.
Very true. There are violent extremists within almost every cause or ideology (with the exception of ones like the Society of Friends or Buddhism that are against violence). There have been Marxist terrorists, there have been fascist terrorists, there have been plenty of terrorists interested in independence, just plain old nationalistic terrorists, and all sorts of others. If Islam causes terrorism, then so does being Japanese. They had suicide bombers by the thousands. Or what about Germans? You can't expect me to believe that things like Kristallnacht weren't terrorism?

Besides, the real causes of terrorism are quite obvious-- perfectly normal xenophobia, foreign intrusions, and repression.

Islam, for most of its history, was actually a relatively tolerant religion, as things go-- until the Wahhabi or Salafi movement in the 18th century. Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahab) preached fundamentalist Islam to his followers, and eventually allied himself with Muhammad bin Saud, the father of what is today Saudi Arabia. It was Wahhab's teachings, combined with the massive oil wealth of the House of Saud, that spread the extremist viewpoint so far and wide. Bin Laden and the Taliban, as well as the government of Iran, take much of their theology from Wahhab's reforms.

Now, if you want to connect Wahhabi Islam to terrorism, that is fine. But learn a little history before you make generalizations. You may as well claim that Christianity causes people to bomb abortion clinics. In reality, Christianity is opposed to that (Jesus' teachings were actually of nonviolence), but there are some who use Christianity as an excuse for such actions.

*My sources for this include Barbara Tuchman's books, among others, as well as histories of the Czech Republic and of historical trends in religious and political dissent. Don't assume that I haven't read history just because I don't agree with your take on it.

And its strange you would claim Barbara Tuchman, a Jewish author who generally wasn't sympathetic to Islam. Rather, Tuchman wrote in The Proud Tower that terror was a result of Muslims wanting to make the entire world Islamic - "The terrorists want a world war between all of Islam and everybody else, because they believe that in such a war Allah will give them the victory and the entire world will become Muslim (or at least be ruled by Muslims)." Tuchman implctly (and explictly, more than once, such as here) blamed Islam for terror all throughout that book. Perhaps you havn't read that one though.

And its strange you would claim Barbara Tuchman, a Jewish author who generally wasn't sympathetic to Islam. Rather, Tuchman wrote in The Proud Tower that terror was a result of Muslims wanting to make the entire world Islamic - "The terrorists want a world war between all of Islam and everybody else, because they believe that in such a war Allah will give them the victory and the entire world will become Muslim (or at least be ruled by Muslims)." Tuchman implctly (and explictly, more than once, such as here) blamed Islam for terror all throughout that book. Perhaps you havn't read that one though.

Actually, that quote never blamed Islam itself for terrorism. It said that terrorists wanted a conflict, but it said nothing about Muslims in general. Please learn some reading comprehension or find a better quote.

Actually, that quote never blamed Islam itself for terrorism. It said that terrorists wanted a conflict, but it said nothing about Muslims in general. Please learn some reading comprehension or find a better quote.

No, it didn't explictly say "Islam is at fault for terrorism." Nor does it have to. Reading comprehension includes things such as implict messages. The implict message here is that Islam is a factor. If Tuchman did not mean that as an implict message, she wouldn't have written that the goal of Islamic terror is to establish and Islamic state.

Tuchman stated that the motive for this terror was to establish an Islamic state and make everyone a Muslim. Now, a "motive" is a synonym with a "cause" as well. Are you claiming she wrote that they were motivated, by Islam, but that Islam wasn't a cause?

It wont be long before people start claiming that Sharia in Saudi Arabia wasn't caused by Islam either.

No, it didn't explictly say "Islam is at fault for terrorism." Nor does it have to. Reading comprehension includes things such as implict messages. The implict message here is that Islam is a factor. If Tuchman did not mean that as an implict message, she wouldn't have written that the goal of Islamic terror is to establish and Islamic state.

Tuchman stated that the motive for this terror was to establish an Islamic state and make everyone a Muslim. Now, a "motive" is a synonym with a "cause" as well. Are you claiming she wrote that they were motivated, by Islam, but that Islam wasn't a cause?

It wont be long before people start claiming that Sharia in Saudi Arabia wasn't caused by Islam either.
No, it wasn't, it was caused by Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab. If he had never lived, there would absolutely not be Sharia law in Saudi Arabia. Mostly because the founder of Saudi Arabia followed his teaching. So there.

She said that the goal of Islamic terror was to establish an Islamic state. Well, wonderful. But please, learn to draw a distinction between Islam itself and Islamic extremists. She referred specifically to "terrorists", and it is also implied that any Islamic state that those terrorists intended on installing would be of their extremist brand of Islam.

Now, if you want to connect Wahhabi Islam to terrorism, that is fine. But learn a little history before you make generalizations. You may as well claim that Christianity causes people to bomb abortion clinics. In reality, Christianity is opposed to that (Jesus' teachings were actually of nonviolence), but there are some who use Christianity as an excuse for such actions.

I just thought I'd point something else on that. When studying a religion or culture, you have to try and remove subjectivity and predjudice. Your claim that "Christianity is oppossed to that" and "Jesus' teachings were actually of nonviolence" are subjective, religious ones based on your personal interpretation. Your personal interpretation of Christianity is no more the "reality" of Christianity than the personal interpretation of abortion bombing Christians.

The idea that certain groups are not "real Muslims" or "real Christians" or that they don't follow what something "really" teaches is the no true scottsman fallacy. Islamic extremists are just as much "real Muslims" as moderates, and extremist interpretations of Islam are just as much Islam as moderate interpretations.

Religions are no monolithic entities that are defined by themselves. They are defined within the context of adherent's interpretations of them. If you're really interested in studying the religions you'll have to move out of such an ethnocentric, etic approach.

No, it wasn't, it was caused by Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab. If he had never lived, there would absolutely not be Sharia law in Saudi Arabia. Mostly because the founder of Saudi Arabia followed his teaching. So there.

Wahabism is just as much "Islam" as pre-Wahabic Islam. Your entire argument is based on fallacious reasoning - i.e. that one Islamic sect is somehow more valid than the other.

She said that the goal of Islamic terror was to establish an Islamic state. Well, wonderful. But please, learn to draw a distinction between Islam itself and Islamic extremists. She referred specifically to "terrorists", and it is also implied that any Islamic state that those terrorists intended on installing would be of their extremist brand of Islam.

There is no distinction between Islam and Islamic extremism. That is a false dichotomy. Islamic extremists are just as much a part of Islam as Islamic moderates. This extremist interpretation of Islam is just as much a part of Islam as other subjective interpretations. To pretend it isn't is like pretending that Mormons aren't "real Christians" - to other Christians that is true, to the scholarly world it isn't. Try some objectivity here.

Wahabism is just as much "Islam" as pre-Wahabic Islam. Your entire argument is based on fallacious reasoning - i.e. that one Islamic sect is somehow more valid than the other.
See, that's a very poorly supported point. I'm not at all convinced that Wahhabism is just as valid a take on Islam as any other. It is radically different from most any other sect of Islam, and is contrary to the purpose of many of Muhammad's teachings. For example, the treatment of women in the Quran was very progressive for the time, and resulted in a significant advance in the place of women. The intention was to bring more equality between the genders. But Wahhabist Islam backslides on that, trying to repress women as much as possible.

There is no distinction between Islam and Islamic extremism. That is a false dichotomy. Islamic extremists are just as much a part of Islam as Islamic moderates. This extremist interpretation of Islam is just as much a part of Islam as other subjective interpretations. To pretend it isn't is like pretending that Mormons aren't "real Christians" - to other Christians that is true, to the scholarly world it isn't. Try some objectivity here.

I'm a Christian, and I think Mormons are Christians. Get a better analogy. Like the Branch Davidians, or something. Or Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptists. They claim to base their views off of Scripture, but in reality what they practice is completely unsupportable, and contradicts many of the most basic ideas of the New Testament. If what they are doing goes against the teachings of Christ, are the teachings of Christ to blame for what they are doing?

If you claim that any distinction between different sects is nothing more than a "subjective interpretation", then you can claim all sorts of things. Just find enough loonies who claim to be part of a religion, and then blame the religion for their behavior.

It is only the extremist interpretation of Islam that has any strong correlation to terrorism. You won't catch moderate Muslims blowing themselves up in marketplaces or hijacking plances. Hence, different interpretations of Islam are connected to different behaviors. You are overgeneralizing, and committing a grievous logical fallacy in doing so.

The fact is that Christians -- and Christian leaders, rulers, and organizations -- committed anti-Semitism. The religion did not cause it.

I thought I'd go ahead and respond to the fact that Christians caused anti-Semitism, as well. I'll give you some more peer-reviewed works, but it might also be important for you to know that the one of the central points of Hyam Maccoby's works was that Christianity was not only the a cause of European anti-Semitism, but the very root of it. The same is echoed in the works of Michael White, Jaroslav Pelikan, and other modern scholars.

Charles Glock and Rodney Stark were some of the earliest modern scholars (aside from Maccoby) to demonstrate that Christianity causes anti-Semitism. They published these as peer-reviewed findings and covered them in the book, "Christian Beliefs and anti-Semitism." Here is a little excerpt from Glock's biography at the Hartford Institute for Religious Research:

Glock's accomplishments and prominence in the sociology of religion have tended to obscure somewhat his important work in the social and cognitive (as opposed to psychopathological) sources of racial and ethnic prejudice . His 1966 Christian Beliefs and Anti-Semitism (with Rodney Stark, Harper), based on a national survey and on a survey of Protestant and Catholic parishioners in northern California, was the first work ever to marshal empirical, quantitative data in support of a theory tying anti-Semitism to selective elements in Christian indoctrination. Later works (e.g., Stark et al. 1971, Glock et al. 1975, Quinley and Glock 1979, Apostle et al. 1983) both verified and expanded the theoretical orientation of the 1966 book. In particular, these later works demonstrated the importance not only of religious beliefs per se but also of more general outlooks or worldviews in giving rise to prejudice of various kinds (not just anti-Semitism).

Aside from Glock's peer-reviewed works (mentioned above in the excerpt), a large portion of scholarly studies on Christianity being a cause of anti-Semitism are based off of his work. We'll see that when we list the peer-reviewed studies that confirm this as well:

Rob Eisinga and Ruben Konig, "Orthodox Religious Beliefs and Anti-Semitism: A Replication of Glock and Stark in the Netherlands." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 1995, Vol 34.

Abstract
The Glock and Stark theoretical framework on Christian beliefs and anti-Semitism implies that orthodox religious beliefs perpetuate secular anti-Semitism via particularism and religious anti-Semitism. Several critics have argued that the major weakness of this study is its failure to examine explanatory variables other than religious beliefs. This paper addresses these issues using data from a 1990-91 national Dutch survey. Although the results tend to support the assumption that nonreligious variables are far more important to the explanation of anti-Semitism and, too, that they attenuate the impact of Christian orthodoxy, the effects of the latter are by no means spurious. The most important conclusion of this paper is therefore that there still is, in Holland at least, a religious factor at work, albeit a modest one, generating anti-Semitic beliefs.

Pat O'Reilly, "The Implications of Christian Anti-Semitism for Educators." Canadian Social Studies 1995, Vol 29.

Abstract
Maintains that the history of anti-Semitism has historical links to Christian theology. Asserts that Christianity provided ample fuel for the secular anti-Semitism preached by Hitler and the Nazi party. Contends that educators can draw important lessons on the value of education and the pedagogy of teaching history.

i think its maybe just the small minded few that give islam a bad name, though i'm not a religous person anyway, as i think it causes way too many wars and conflict, but i think if people just learnt to be happy and not upset anyone in the process, the world would be a much nicer place, but me saying this is like pissing into the wind, or ice skating up hill, pretty stupid and useless, in the end i think islam is stupid, as is all religion, its just a bad idea all in all, peace out ppl, and remember, big dave rules ;)

Ah guess that post 911, 7/7, Madrid, Bali, and similar incidents, lots of us just don't trust 'em no mo...

My take is simple:
Hit the road, Jack, and don't you come back no mo!

See, that's a very poorly supported point. I'm not at all convinced that Wahhabism is just as valid a take on Islam as any other. It is radically different from most any other sect of Islam, and is contrary to the purpose of many of Muhammad's teachings. For example, the treatment of women in the Quran was very progressive for the time, and resulted in a significant advance in the place of women. The intention was to bring more equality between the genders. But Wahhabist Islam backslides on that, trying to repress women as much as possible.

Its not a poorly supported point. Its the method we use in religious studies and anthropology since Franz Boas. Religion must be studied from a point of cultural relativitiy, and this much is the modern concensus, otherwise we're slipping into ethnocentrism.

It doesn't matter how radical they are, because they are members of that religion. As such, they represent a sect or part of that religion. In fact, if they represent a majority or large part of that religion then they are worth studying even more for that fact. At least, this is how we study religion today.

I'm a Christian, and I think Mormons are Christians. Get a better analogy. Like the Branch Davidians, or something. Or Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptists. They claim to base their views off of Scripture, but in reality what they practice is completely unsupportable, and contradicts many of the most basic ideas of the New Testament. If what they are doing goes against the teachings of Christ, are the teachings of Christ to blame for what they are doing?

The analogy is perfect. The fact that YOU are a Christian and YOU believe Mormons are Christians demonstrates that you're still coming from a point of subjectivity, rather than objectivity. Many Christians reject that Mormons are "real Christians." And, again, the "teachings of Christ" is just your interpretation. It doesn't represent objective reality.

If you claim that any distinction between different sects is nothing more than a "subjective interpretation", then you can claim all sorts of things. Just find enough loonies who claim to be part of a religion, and then blame the religion for their behavior.

The distinction is quite real. However, to claim that they are not as valid is total subjectivity. It is a form of ethnocentrism and etic interpretation. It is also a logical fallacy - the 'no true scottsman.' In short, its rejected by virtually every method and field used in this mode of study.

It is only the extremist interpretation of Islam that has any strong correlation to terrorism. You won't catch moderate Muslims blowing themselves up in marketplaces or hijacking plances. Hence, different interpretations of Islam are connected to different behaviors. You are overgeneralizing, and committing a grievous logical fallacy in doing so.

I've never said that you would catch moderate Muslims blowing themselves up. In fact, I've drawn a clear distinction between extremist and moderate Islam from the beginning. I just differ when I acknowledge the fact, as required via Franz Boas' method of cultural relitivity, that they are both equally "Islamic" and that they are both "Islam" in every true sense. In fact, it is their very interpretation that defines what Islam is. Islam does not exist outside of the interpretation of the adherants. And, because there are different and contradictory interpretations, one religion can be an umbrella for multiple contradictory philosophies and interpretations.

Don't confuse this with subjective interpretation from the outside, which is what you're doing. That doesn't effect the religion at all. Rather, I'm referring to the subjective interpretation of the religion by believers. One doesn't cancel the other out.

Maybe I'd think of muslims in a better way if there were ONE SINGLE majority muslim country with good human rights records and in which women arent oppressed.

Maybe I'd think of muslims in a better way if there were ONE SINGLE majority muslim country with good human rights records and in which women arent oppressed.

Oh, don't blame that on Islam. Blame it on every other single social factor except Islam. Sharia law and Islam have nothing to do with it. (sarcasm)

Im so sick of people on this site claiming that Islam is a hateful religion,and that it advoctes 'evil' deeds.
Any religion can be twisted to suit evil people and the evil deeds that they do,but it is wrong to think that the religion its self and the majority of moderates within it are all evil as some on this site have suggested.
For example, there are many christians in jail, that have commited murder and worse(ect)-but does the christian doctrine advocate these crimes-no!(or at least the majority of cghristian moderates would say no)
The problem is with humans in general not their religion,and bigoted,unsuported veiws and all fuel to the fire of hatred.
Is it any wonder that young muslims are turning to radical clerics when so many in the supposedly 'civilised' western world are adamant that all muslims are evil.Of course there are bigots within islam that advocate practices that no one in their right mind approves of-but there are people like this in every religion-not just islam.People on this site are saying that muslim men regard women not wearing the hijab as whores, well havent you ever heard a christian man regard an immodest dresser as a whore-I certainly have.

read some of this and tell me if you can really justify the belief that islam is a religion of hate.


In his final sermon Muhammad summarised the heart of Islam:
Belief in One God without images or symbols,
Equality of all the Believers without distinction of race or class, the superiority of individuals being based solely on piety;
Sanctity of life, property and honour;
Abolition of interest, and of vendettas and private justice;
Better treatment of women;
Obligatory inheritance and distribution of the property of deceased persons among near relatives of both sexes, and removal of the possibility of the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few."


The Five Pillars of Islam

These are five duties that every Muslim is obliged to perform.

Shahada:

Shahada is the Muslim profession of faith:

"I witness that there is no god but Allah,
and that Muhammad is the prophet of Allah"

Muslims say this when they wake up in the morning, and just before they go to sleep at night.

Salat:

A prayer ritual performed 5 times a day by all Muslims over the age of 10.

Salat is very different from praying on the inspiration of the moment. A precise ritual is followed at 5 separate times of day which are set aside for devotion:
Between first light and sunrise
After the sun has passed the middle of the sky
Between mid-afternoon and sunset
Between sunset and the last light of the day
Between darkness and dawn
While an individual can pray on their own, Muslims prefer to perform Salat with others, as this demonstrates the unity of all Muslims.

Having specific times each day to be close to Allah helps Muslims remain aware of the importance of their faith, and the role it plays in every part of life.

Sawm:

Abstaining each day during Ramadan, the 9th Muslim month.

Sawm is usually described as fasting, but it actually involves abstaining from all bodily pleasures between dawn and sunset. Not only is food forbidden, but also things like smoking, chewing gum, and any sexual activity.

Muslims must also make sure that they do not do or think, anything evil.

Sawm helps Muslims develop self-control, gain a better understanding of God's gifts and greater compassion towards the deprived.

Zakat:

Giving alms to the poor.

This is a compulsory gift of 2.5 % of one's savings each year in addition to any charitable gifts a Muslim makes.

Giving in this way is intended to free Muslims from the love of money. It reminds them that everything they have really belongs to God.

Money given as Zakat can only be used for certain specific things.

Hajj:

The pilgrimage to Mecca that all physically able Muslims should make at least once in their life. Mecca is the most holy place for Muslims


The literal meaning of Islam is peace; surrender of one’s will i.e. losing oneself for the sake of God and surrendering one’s own pleasure for the pleasure of God. The message of Islam was revealed to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings on him) 1, 400 years ago. It was revealed through angel Gabriel (on whom be peace) and was thus preserved in the Holy Quran. The Holy Quran carries a Divine guarantee of safeguard from interpolation and it claims that it combines the best features of the earlier scriptures.

The prime message of Islam is the Unity of God, that the Creator of the world is One and He alone is worthy of worship and that Muhammad (peace and blessings on him) is His Messenger and Servant. The follower of this belief is thus a Muslim - a Muslim’s other beliefs are: God’s angels, previously revealed Books of God, all the prophets, from Adam to Jesus (peace be on them both), the Day of Judgement and indeed the Decree of God. A Muslim has five main duties to perform, namely; bearing witness to the Unity of God and Muhammad (peace and blessings on him) as His Messenger, observing the prescribed prayer, payment of Zakat, keeping the fasts of Ramadhan and performing the pilgrimage to Mecca.

Islam believes that each person is born pure. The Holy Quran tells us that God has given human beings a choice between good and evil and to seek God’s pleasure through faith, prayer and charity. Islam believes that God created mankind in His image and by imbuing the attributes of God on a human level mankind can attain His nearness. Islam’s main message is to worship God and to treat all God’s creation with kindness and compassion. Rights of parents in old age, orphans and the needy are clearly stated. Women’s rights were safeguarded 1,400 years ago when the rest of the world was in total darkness about emancipation. Islamic teachings encompass every imaginable situation and its rules and principles are truly universal and have stood the test of time.

In Islam virtue does not connote forsaking the bounties of nature that are lawful. On the contrary one is encouraged to lead a healthy, active life with the qualities of kindness, chastity, honesty, mercy, courage patience and politeness. In short, Islam has a perfect and complete code for the guidance of individuals and communities alike. As the entire message of Islam is derived from the Holy Quran and indeed the Sunnah and Hadith (the traditions and practices of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings on him) it is immutable in the face of change in time and place. It may appear rigid to the casual eye, in actual fact it is most certainly an adaptable way of life regardless of human changes. You are a very understanding person to understand that Islam is not all about oil and terrorism. I myself praise you for your understanding and im sure most of the muslims here do too. :)

Oh, don't blame that on Islam. Blame it on every other single social factor except Islam. Sharia law and Islam have nothing to do with it. (sarcasm)

That couldn't be put better.

That couldn't be put better.

I'm so crying for the poor repressed Jihadis...

Nah. NM's use of words seems more American than Ny's, and he hasn't used the magic words "you're not qualified."

I'm afraid there really are two of them.

How perceptive of you to figure that out. Yep, I'm a proud American. Not only that, I'm a proud supporter of President Bush, at least when it comes to crushing Islamofascist terrorism.

And Ny's obviously one of that breed, unfortunately rare today: a European who has the wit to defend his own civilization and the testicular fortitude to try. Unlike the effete, decadent Euro-wimps exemplified by that Norwegian academic (mistakenly identified as an "official"--my bad) previously referred to (see this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=489521 )

Its not a poorly supported point. Its the method we use in religious studies and anthropology since Franz Boas. Religion must be studied from a point of cultural relativitiy, and this much is the modern concensus, otherwise we're slipping into ethnocentrism.

It doesn't matter how radical they are, because they are members of that religion. As such, they represent a sect or part of that religion. In fact, if they represent a majority or large part of that religion then they are worth studying even more for that fact. At least, this is how we study religion today.



The analogy is perfect. The fact that YOU are a Christian and YOU believe Mormons are Christians demonstrates that you're still coming from a point of subjectivity, rather than objectivity. Many Christians reject that Mormons are "real Christians." And, again, the "teachings of Christ" is just your interpretation. It doesn't represent objective reality.


The distinction is quite real. However, to claim that they are not as valid is total subjectivity. It is a form of ethnocentrism and etic interpretation. It is also a logical fallacy - the 'no true scottsman.' In short, its rejected by virtually every method and field used in this mode of study.


I've never said that you would catch moderate Muslims blowing themselves up. In fact, I've drawn a clear distinction between extremist and moderate Islam from the beginning. I just differ when I acknowledge the fact, as required via Franz Boas' method of cultural relitivity, that they are both equally "Islamic" and that they are both "Islam" in every true sense. In fact, it is their very interpretation that defines what Islam is. Islam does not exist outside of the interpretation of the adherants. And, because there are different and contradictory interpretations, one religion can be an umbrella for multiple contradictory philosophies and interpretations.

Don't confuse this with subjective interpretation from the outside, which is what you're doing. That doesn't effect the religion at all. Rather, I'm referring to the subjective interpretation of the religion by believers. One doesn't cancel the other out.

TS, do you have any publications yourself? I'd be interested in checking them out.

:mad:

^^^^ LOOK...MY VERISION OF A CARICATURE OF MOHOMMAD!!!!!

(wuddya gonna do...huh huh start up a jihad on me...huh huh???? wuddya gonna do?)

if you people want islam to be respected by the masses of the western world somebody has to give them the memo that the reason we dont like them is because they bombed...new york washington london and madrid. see if they hadn't done that...im going to guess that the world view of muslims would probably be a little better.

How perceptive of you to figure that out. Yep, I'm a proud American. Not only that, I'm a proud supporter of President Bush, at least when it comes to crushing Islamofascist terrorism.

And Ny's obviously one of that breed, unfortunately rare today: a European who has the wit to defend his own civilization and the testicular fortitude to try. Unlike the effete, decadent Euro-wimps exemplified by that Norwegian official previously referred to.

The problem with Ny is that he may view you as a racial mongrel.

The problem with Ny is that he may view you as a racial mongrel.

Er, I think Ny views everyone except norwegians as racial mongrels...

The nature of Islam is not the issue of this thread. The nature of Islam-bashing is. You do nothing to show that there is anything behind it but plain vanilla bigotry. Trostia is right when he says that, with all your Quran quotes, you are using the exact same tactic that "christian-hating euro-wimps" use to bash Christianity, and with just as much depth. And your hysterical rants about the evils of Islam create a strong impression that, for you, terrorism is nothing more than excuse for you to express a hatred you've always carried.

BTW, Ann Coulter is a shrill, camera-hogging bitch who writes like a 1930s pamphleteer. :p



your just mad because you dont like hearing your views get bashed. thats the problem with democrats...they can dish it out but god forbid anybody does anything to put down their views.

Er, I think Ny views everyone except norwegians as racial mongrels...
And I take it that Norwegians only have sex with other Norwegians, and have done so for all of history...

And I take it that Norwegians only have sex with other Norwegians, and have done so for all of history...

If I may be forgiven for making a looong joke en bref:

A worldwide convention of biologists published a series of books on Elephants.

The French had a tasteful little book titled: the lovelife of Elephants.

The Americans had a Big Book titled: The All American Elephant.

The English: Elephants that I have shot in Kenya.

The Germans a HUGE book titled: elephant hair care, part IVA.

The Danes: 101 ways to cook elephants.

And the Norwegians: A pure Norway for pure Norwegians, the way to a better world...

In Saudi Arabian textbooks it preaches that Muslims should never associate themselves with "christian pigs" and that it is the call of Allah to follow Jihad, and if people will not believe in the Islam faith then they should be converted or killed, preferably killed. It also preaches that a Christian or Jewish man's life is worth 1/24 of a Muslim man's life, and a Christian or Jewish woman's life is worth 1/32.

The problem with Ny is that he may view you as a racial mongrel.

I doubt it. And in any event, I'm an American of 100% Italian ancestry. Although I am partial to Oriental girls ;)

No, you seem to be confusing correlation with causation. Again, people don't just "happen" to be Islamic and "happen" to be terrorists. This is, by definition, Islamic terror. They aren't two separate entities. When "desert terror" exists, you'll have an analogy that isn't fallacious.

For an Islamic perspective on terrorism, specifically homicide bombings, consider the following. FYI, al-Azhar University is one of the most influential Islamic institutions.


The following are excerpts from a panel discussion at the counter-terrorism conference of religious scholars at Sharm Al-Sheikh, Egypt. The discussion aired on Iqra TV on August 22, 2005. (To view this clip, visit: http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=822 )

Dr. Muhammad Rafat 'Othman, Egyptian professor of Islamic law: "According to another opinion, a person who blows himself up is committing suicide. This opinion is based on sources that categorically forbid self-killing. The Koran says: 'Do not kill yourself, surely Allah is ever merciful to you.' There are also such sources in the Sunna and in the general consensus of scholars. No text in Islamic religious law permits a person to kill himself. Even in the case of Jihad, which is the pinnacle of religious duties, Islam does not permit a person to kill himself.

"What Islamic religious law does permit is for a person to wage Jihad, facing one of two options – victory or martyrdom. He may risk being killed by someone else, but may not kill himself."

[...]

Sheikh Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi: "Dr. Said Ramadhan [Al-Bouti] stressed the legitimacy of defense, saying it is a legitimate right in Palestine and Iraq. I think that saying it is a legitimate right is not enough, because a right is something that can be relinquished. It is a duty. All scholars say that defending an occupied homeland is an individual duty applying to every Muslim. Reducing this duty to a 'right,' which can be relinquished, is a kind of depreciation.

"We must stress this point, and emphasize that it is the rights of those defending their homeland. It is not only a right, but also their duty. I am amazed by what Dr. Muhammad Rafat 'Othman said.

"This has nothing to do with suicide. This man does not want to commit suicide, but rather to cause great damage to the enemy, and this is the only method he can use to cause such damage. Since this method did not exist in the past, we cannot find rulings about it in the ancient jurisprudence. We may find rulings about plunging into the [ranks of the] enemy and risking one's life, even in cases of certain death – so be it. The truth is that we should refrain from raising this issue, because doubting it is like joining the Zionists and Americans in condemning our brothers in Hamas, the Jihad, the Islamic factions, and the resistance factions in Iraq. It is as if we are joining them.

"We all condemn violence or terrorism, although, to tell the truth, I personally don't like the word 'terrorism.' I always say 'violence.' I have written a book called Islam and Violence. But since this word is so widespread, I use it. We all condemn the [terrorist] operations. We condemned them before we came to this conference. We condemned the bombings in London, Madrid, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Egypt. We condemned them as individuals and as institutions. This is something everyone agrees on. We cannot say we pat these misguided boys on the back, but we do want to listen to them. They have gone astray, so we want to treat them in a way that will set them straight, and bring them closer to us. We don't want to be like prosecutors, demanding their execution. We want to treat them the way clerics treat their students, the way fathers treat their sons."
[...]

Professor 'Abla Kahlawi, Al-Azhar University, Egypt: "We must be united in condemning this behavior, this terrorism or violence – call it what you will. We must declare loud and clear that resisting the aggression, and resisting the enemy is a legitimate right, and that a fighter who risks his life has that right. When he perishes along with his enemy, this is a resounding cry of truth, through which the martyr declares: 'This was mine and it has been plundered – let the whole world see.' This is how a Muslim should act when he defends what is his, and I don't accept anything else."

[...]

Iraqi Cleric Ahmad Al-Qubeisi: "Does any Islamic government have the right to prevent individuals from resisting the occupiers? This is what happens. There are young people who thought it was bad that the Americans were occupying the Arabian Peninsula, Iraq, Afghanistan, and so on. So they started the resistance, which might have been exaggerated, but this was an operational error. In principle, these are people who are trying to drive out the occupier, which is deemed legitimate by all earthly and divine laws. People are in dispute over the methods. Listen to what happens worldwide – things you may have forgotten: The officer who killed 400 children in the Bahr Al-Baqr elementary school in Egypt many years ago – they said he was depressed, and pardoned him.

[...]

"The arch-killer who murdered, at the Al-Aqsa Mosque many years ago in the days of [Israeli prime minister] Yitzhak Rabin, 38 people in the middle of prayer – they said he was depressed, and was pardoned.

[...]

"The pilot who dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and killed 700,000 got a medal. Rustum and the Americans killed 700 prisoners in an Afghan prison – no one demanded they be held accountable. My question is: Why can't you show some mercy and say that these mujahideen are depressed, and pardon them? Thank you."

Sudanese Minister of Religious Endowments 'Issam Ahmad Al-Bashir: "The mujahideen are not depressed. Their faces shine."

Al-Qubeisi: " But you are accusing them of heresy, here. If you had to choose between depression and heresy, which would you choose?"

[...]

Saudi scholar Abd Al-Muhsen Al-'Abikan: "The suicide operations that are called 'martyrdom operations' are forbidden by Islamic law. Those who carry them out, committing suicide, cannot be called martyrs, and their actions cannot be called martyrdom. It was forbidden even in cases of Jihad by a number of prominent Muslim scholars."

[...]

Al-Bashir: "We have agreed that resisting the occupier is a sacred right and an obligatory duty, approved by Islamic religious law and by [international] conventions. It has nothing to do with forbidden terrorism. Moreover, it is legitimate. As proposed by Sheikh Al-Bouti, we emphasize this point in this concluding statement."

Participant: "And one cannot call their deaths suicide."

Al-Bashir: "Yes."

Participant: "It is an obligatory duty."

Al-Bashir: "Yes. I've already said that. It is an obligatory duty and a legitimate right. Someone who carries out this duty cannot be said to have committed suicide."

But I suppose none of these participants are "real Muslims," and they're not talking about "true Islam", right?

How perceptive of you to figure that out. Yep, I'm a proud American. Not only that, I'm a proud supporter of President Bush, at least when it comes to crushing Islamofascist terrorism.

And Ny's obviously one of that breed, unfortunately rare today: a European who has the wit to defend his own civilization and the testicular fortitude to try. Unlike the effete, decadent Euro-wimps exemplified by that Norwegian academic (mistakenly identified as an "official"--my bad) previously referred to (see this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=489521 )

Not rare. Many. For ex, most dutch think islam is uncompatible in Europe. And most young dutch want no more muslim immigration. There are lots of people like me who are concerned about muslims and immigrants. And things are changing, I believe. Look at the Netherlands, Denmark.
I think it'd be a scandal if Netherlands made muslims watch 2 guys kissing in their welcome to the Netherlands video 5 years ago...(Immigration to Holland has halved since 2000 btw)

Er, I think Ny views everyone except norwegians as racial mongrels...

You gossiping like 15 year old school girls?

Not rare. Many. For ex, most dutch think islam is uncompatible in Europe. And most young dutch want no more muslim immigration. There are lots of people like me who are concerned about muslims and immigrants. And things are changing, I believe. Look at the Netherlands, Denmark.

Then that's good news. Hopefully that trend will continue and accelerate.

"Dear, damned, distracting town, farewell,
Thy fools no more I'll tease:
This [week] in peace, ye critics, dwell,
Ye harlots, sleep at ease!
...
Why should I stay? Both parties rage;
My vixen mistress [figurative] squalls;
The wits in envious feuds engage:
And Homer [art] (damn him!) calls."


I'm going to have to wrap up my participation in this charming coffee klatch because I've got work to do for the next week or two, so I won't have time to keep up properly.

So I will try, in another post or two (well, maybe more), to respond to some of the arguments posted in response to my last, present my argument one last time, and yield the podium. I concede nothing, and we shall no doubt have this same argument in other threads. See you all there and then.


"Luxurious lobster-nights, farewell,
For sober, studious days!
And Burlington's delicious meal,
For salads, tarts and pease!"


Excerpts: "A Farewell to London in the year 1715", Alexander Pope. I happened to be reading it when I decided I'd have to give up trying to keep up with this thread.

New Mitanni + Ny Nordland + Muslim Hate = *fap fap fap fap*