Why Do Americans Still Fear Muslims?
0
apatch3 wrote...
So you've proven ... that a) you know nothing about Islam except for what a few people you've spoken to have told you.b)That you don't understand the meaning of politics - I don't think this is a semantic argument it is the crux of what we're arguing over
c) All religions want to spread - - "there should be no compulsion in religion" ..not going to bother getting into this
d) .... that you can say the word Bullshit over and over
e) that you can call people names
I'm through talking to you - Enjoy the rest of your sad hateful life.
I'm so glad you're done talking to me, as your ignorance on even the most basic concepts of what Islam says, what the facts are, and how the world works are so mind bogglingly awful I have a hard time thinking that you're even serious when you make posts.
You want to debunk my points? Instead of just claiming I'm spewing hatespeech or denouncing my sources as propoganda, how about you actually point to a doctrine in Buddhism that tells its followers to be merciless unto others?
The violence of Islam isn't something we're 'just now figuring out'. This has been observed for centuries. Mohammed himself was a warlord.
“Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step.” Sir Winston Churchill – circa 1899 Sir Winston Churchill…
“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]…. Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur’anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.” - Muslim leader Ayatollah Khomeini
After meeting with a representative of Muslim slave traders, Thomas Jeffersn made note to congress - The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise
I want to be perfectly clear...I don't hate Muslims. I just think Islam is a violent religion, that people ought stop believing, as it does cause problems.
0
Do you know what the word "sacred" means? If we go to the definition of the word it means "Connected to God"* if we look at the etymology it is derived from latin and simply means "Holy"*. So no, I did not equivocate** anything, I simply used the word correctly. I find that your usage of the word needs a bit more clarifying.
This however is not important, let's get back on topic.
I understand however that the word you are looking for are "relevant". The Quran is not really relevant to the everyday life of Islamic followers, and is a more formal texture, so to speak, while the Hadith is something that is used in everyday life and thus might be seen as more important from a non-religious point of view.
I emphasized some of the keywords, to avoid further misunderstandings.
And for the rest of this shit:
If you seriously believe that the 9/11 attacks were non-political and simply religious then you must open up your eyes dude. I guess I can believe that there were religious motives yes, but to say that religion were the main cause? No way brah.
If you had any clue whatsoever about Bin Ladens history with the US, or al-Quaida's for that part, then you would understand that religion is in this case merely used for an excuse to gain support among the extremists.
Edit: I just assumed we're focusing on the 9/11 attacks, I haven't cared to read the whole thread. Correct me if I'm off here.
The Islamic foundation has denounced the attacks, and said that the acts of these extremists are in no way part of what Islam teaches, nor does the ideology include violent attacks.
If you had, as you say you have, read the Quran, the Hadith OR the Sirah, or spoken to anyone that is more involved in Islam than some anti-muslim preacher then you would know that Islam is not a violence-teaching faith.
* Source: Oxford Dictionary
** Stop using words in order to sound smart, it only makes you look stupid when you can't say what you want in clear text. No offense, just a hint.
This however is not important, let's get back on topic.
I understand however that the word you are looking for are "relevant". The Quran is not really relevant to the everyday life of Islamic followers, and is a more formal texture, so to speak, while the Hadith is something that is used in everyday life and thus might be seen as more important from a non-religious point of view.
I emphasized some of the keywords, to avoid further misunderstandings.
And for the rest of this shit:
If you seriously believe that the 9/11 attacks were non-political and simply religious then you must open up your eyes dude. I guess I can believe that there were religious motives yes, but to say that religion were the main cause? No way brah.
If you had any clue whatsoever about Bin Ladens history with the US, or al-Quaida's for that part, then you would understand that religion is in this case merely used for an excuse to gain support among the extremists.
Edit: I just assumed we're focusing on the 9/11 attacks, I haven't cared to read the whole thread. Correct me if I'm off here.
The Islamic foundation has denounced the attacks, and said that the acts of these extremists are in no way part of what Islam teaches, nor does the ideology include violent attacks.
If you had, as you say you have, read the Quran, the Hadith OR the Sirah, or spoken to anyone that is more involved in Islam than some anti-muslim preacher then you would know that Islam is not a violence-teaching faith.
* Source: Oxford Dictionary
** Stop using words in order to sound smart, it only makes you look stupid when you can't say what you want in clear text. No offense, just a hint.
0
I've heard all this inane banter before.
Have you read the case study on the 9/11 hijackers? Deny it all you want, but the fact remains they got the idea to martyr themselves NOT from Al Qaeda, NOT from political leaders telling them to go do it...but from hanging around their local mosque in Hamburg, and hearing too much about how infidel culture deserves death, and martyrs recieve pleasures in Paradise. do a bit of research before you say "9/11 was politically motivated" the fact of the matter is, these were men who said, "I want 72 virgins, and the U.S. are infidels." so they went through with the attack. Has it been used as a political tool SINCE then? Sure. but the fact remains...it's Islam that gave them the idea...not politicians.
As far as Islam preaching anti-violence? you need an Islamic leader to teach you a thing or two, cut and pasted from my last post which you didn't bother to read:
“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]…. Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur’anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.” - Muslim leader Ayatollah Khomeini
I'm not getting these ideas that Islam is full of violence from racists and preachers...I'm getting them from the Muslims that practice it.
Have you read the case study on the 9/11 hijackers? Deny it all you want, but the fact remains they got the idea to martyr themselves NOT from Al Qaeda, NOT from political leaders telling them to go do it...but from hanging around their local mosque in Hamburg, and hearing too much about how infidel culture deserves death, and martyrs recieve pleasures in Paradise. do a bit of research before you say "9/11 was politically motivated" the fact of the matter is, these were men who said, "I want 72 virgins, and the U.S. are infidels." so they went through with the attack. Has it been used as a political tool SINCE then? Sure. but the fact remains...it's Islam that gave them the idea...not politicians.
As far as Islam preaching anti-violence? you need an Islamic leader to teach you a thing or two, cut and pasted from my last post which you didn't bother to read:
“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]…. Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur’anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.” - Muslim leader Ayatollah Khomeini
I'm not getting these ideas that Islam is full of violence from racists and preachers...I'm getting them from the Muslims that practice it.
0
I'd like the source on that quote before I make a statement about it, and if you link yet another anti-islamic page then this discussion is over.
I'm ready to believe that the hijackers were some poor anti-american fools that were promised their virigns and a place at Muhammeds side, that however does not change anything. Do you really, honestly think that the mooks that hijacked the planes were in anyway involved in the plan more than told what to do? Probably not. Bin Laden and al-Quaida acted based on their own motives, as I said, religion were probably a part of it, but not a key element.
You judge entire religions by the actions of a total minority, this is equal to judging all Christians based on the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church and their likes. It's in no way a fair thing.
And while we're throwing out quotes from islamic leaders I can just add something from the man that succeeded him.
http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1048&Itemid=11
This is his view on Jihad. While he does not condemn violence, he does urge the people to seek alternative ways.
I'm ready to believe that the hijackers were some poor anti-american fools that were promised their virigns and a place at Muhammeds side, that however does not change anything. Do you really, honestly think that the mooks that hijacked the planes were in anyway involved in the plan more than told what to do? Probably not. Bin Laden and al-Quaida acted based on their own motives, as I said, religion were probably a part of it, but not a key element.
You judge entire religions by the actions of a total minority, this is equal to judging all Christians based on the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church and their likes. It's in no way a fair thing.
And while we're throwing out quotes from islamic leaders I can just add something from the man that succeeded him.
According to the Holy Quran, Muslims should be harsh on infidels. Who are these infidels? Muslims should not be harsh on anyone who does not believe in Islam. They should behave kindly towards those who are not opposed to them, who do not plot against them, and who do not seek to wipe out their nations - even if they follow other faiths.
Muslims should be harsh on those who fight against Islam and their identity, nationality, country, independence, honor, dignity, traditions, culture, and values. But there should be a sense of tolerance among Muslims themselves. This is a culture which should be fostered in our society.
Muslims should be harsh on those who fight against Islam and their identity, nationality, country, independence, honor, dignity, traditions, culture, and values. But there should be a sense of tolerance among Muslims themselves. This is a culture which should be fostered in our society.
http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1048&Itemid=11
This is his view on Jihad. While he does not condemn violence, he does urge the people to seek alternative ways.
0
Chlor wrote...
I'd like the source on that quote before I make a statement about it, and if you link yet another anti-islamic page then this discussion is over.It's a quote attributed to him from a book, Holy Terror: Inside the World of Islamic Terrorism.
If you'd like somme easy ones to look up,
Happy are those who have departed through martyrdom. Unhappy am I that I still survive.… Taking this decision is more deadly than drinking from a poisoned chalice. I submitted myself to Allah's will and took this drink for His satisfaction - Announcement of ceasefire with Iraq (20 July 1988), quoted in The Iran-Iraq War (2002) by Efraim Karsh
If one permits an infidel to continue in his role as a corrupter of the earth, the infidel's moral suffering will be all the worse. If one kills the infidel, and this stops him from perpetrating his misdeeds, his death will be a blessing to him. - Speech on the day of Mohammed's birth (1984)
He's got a lot. Now, regardless of the fact that this was an islamic leader that brought sharia Law to a country, and led a country based on Islamic principals(according to him) this doesn't PROVE that Islam is a religion of violence...I just need to look at the books to see that. In fact, there's a nice quote from Sirah that explains what you talk about last quite perfectly.
I'm ready to believe that the hijackers were some poor anti-american fools that were promised their virigns and a place at Muhammeds side, that however does not change anything. Do you really, honestly think that the mooks that hijacked the planes were in anyway involved in the plan more than told what to do? Probably not. Bin Laden and al-Quaida acted based on their own motives, as I said, religion were probably a part of it, but not a key element.
These were not idiots. all were college educated, some had PhD's. It's the sheer fact that they were convinced that this afterlife martyrdom thing was the cas that I am arguing. Islam...is the problem here, the fundamental aspects of Islam. Not MUSLIMS, not just the EXTREMISTS, the fundamentals of Islam.
Again, to quote Voltaire, "If you can get people to believe absurdities, you can get them to commit atrocities" Do you deny this?
You judge entire religions by the actions of a total minority, this is equal to judging all Christians based on the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church and their likes. It's in no way a fair thing.
I've already addressed this. No, I don't. I judge the religion? Based off of the religion. Why do people respond to me without bothering to see if I've already responded to this kind of stuff before? Again, Page 4, second response, right below K-1. I've already addressed this idea.
And while we're throwing out quotes from islamic leaders I can just add something from the man that succeeded him.
http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1048&Itemid=11
This is his view on Jihad. While he does not condemn violence, he does urge the people to seek alternative ways.
According to the Holy Quran, Muslims should be harsh on infidels. Who are these infidels? Muslims should not be harsh on anyone who does not believe in Islam. They should behave kindly towards those who are not opposed to them, who do not plot against them, and who do not seek to wipe out their nations - even if they follow other faiths.
Muslims should be harsh on those who fight against Islam and their identity, nationality, country, independence, honor, dignity, traditions, culture, and values. But there should be a sense of tolerance among Muslims themselves. This is a culture which should be fostered in our society.
Muslims should be harsh on those who fight against Islam and their identity, nationality, country, independence, honor, dignity, traditions, culture, and values. But there should be a sense of tolerance among Muslims themselves. This is a culture which should be fostered in our society.
http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1048&Itemid=11
This is his view on Jihad. While he does not condemn violence, he does urge the people to seek alternative ways.
Yes indeed, I applaud that quote because it is indeed true. Muslims should be harsh on infidels, and the infidels, are the non muslims.
Oh, and according to Mohammed, the other group that should be taken VERY seriously and scorned, and in fact he scorns them many times, are the hypocrites, the 'muslims in name only'. Which...well...would include those who don't hold to the fundamental values of islam...I would suppose.
Muhammed actually makes it pretty clear, 9:29, 3 different translations -
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
See that? Fight the non believers until they pay the tax, and acknowledge the superiority of Islam...yes...sounds extremely peaceful.
For that matter, have you heard of Dhimmis?
It's this nice little label that Jews and Christians recieve whe nthey accept Islamic rule, it means they're guilty, and it's a label of humiliation, it's a label that says, "I accept that Islam is the superior religion to mine."
...Seriously, how can anyone who claims to know about Islam in depth...believe that it's against violence?
For every peaceful verse in whatever book you find...I can find two more violent ones.
0
BigLundi wrote...
I agree, we should take a REAL good look at you.Did you really just pull a "no, u" here? Haha, really?
BigLundi wrote...
Not only do you ask a question that you already know the answer to, but the answer isn't even in your favor, home grown terrorists are a CONSTANT problem in America, and if you don't think so, you're kidding yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homegrown_terrorism#TrainingPlease, apply a little reading comprehension. TAKING TO OUR STREETS. We were talking about mass demonstrations. You twist it around to mean covert terrorists hiding in the population. Yes, there are some. Just like there are some of our agents skulking around in other countries trying to overthrow governments (like, you know, Iran's democratically elected government in 1953).
BigLundi wrote...
Actually, in the case of Islam, they are identical, as Sharia Law, born of Islam, is a direct result of state enforced religion, which, by the by, is the same thing as having the religion of Islam...as your culture. I wouldn't make that error with Christianity and the U.S. because the U.S. Isn't run on christian principals, it's not run with the basis that christianity is superior to all other religions, and that christian law must be adhered to. I can't say the same thing...about Islamic countries.Fucking hell, Saudi Arabia still beheads witches.
And some Christian radicals in the United States bomb abortion clinics. And many Christian radicals would love to tear down the wall between church and state and have America become a theocracy. Does that mean every Christian is unhinged? Hell no. Does it suggest that there are radicals in just about every religion? Yes. Do radicals represent the majority? No.
BigLundi wrote...
You are aware Iran isn't the ONLY PLACE Muslims hold protests right? you ARE aware that this is across the entire middle east right? Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, despite us going over there and making people unhappy, which you purport is the reason they're like that in the first place(which makes little sense, as they've been doing that since before 9/11).Derp, how about because we've been messing around over there since before 9/11?
"The United States became the sole representative of the West after 1972, when Great Britain, poor and humbled, could no longer afford to maintain a full military force in the region. Anxious to protect oil supplies from the Soviet Union, Washington propped up the Shah of Iran and the Saudi Arabian government in the ill-fated "Twin Pillars" strategy. This ended with the Iranian revolution, leaving America with a messy patchwork of military and political detritus. When Iran went to war with Iraq, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein to prevent Iran from winning. Anxious about Soviet incursions into Afghanistan, it propped up the Taliban. These two monstrous forces--Saddam and the Taliban--are very much an American creation." Source
BigLundi wrote...
Your funny little conspiracy theory that the only rteason Tibetans don't protest and swarm the streets is because they're afraid of the chinese government is...exceedingly ignorant. The tibetans live in relative peace, they spend their days farming, trading, and carrying along with their lives. Here's the facts. you can't point to a doctrine in Buddhism that would encourage Buddhists to a violent orgy of hate like in Islam. you simply can't do it. In Islam? I can.To be frank, I'm not familiar with Buddhists texts. But what the texts say has little relevance when compared to what people do with them. For example, there are lots of objectionable verses in the bible: telling slaves that they should obey their masters and not try to seek their freedom, or telling women that they are inherently inferior to men. The difference is, Christians have gradually come to ignore those verses or re-interpret them. This, I would argue, started with the Enlightenment, a secular movement, and has little to do with the bible itself.
Yeah, keep telling yourself that those Tibetans you keep holding up as a sterling example just go on about their lives without ever rioting or protesting. Buddhism may not be a violent religion, but that hasn't stopped its adherents from being violent.
BigLundi wrote...
If you honestly don't think the fundamentals of Islam cause problems...I have to wonder what reality you think you're living in.The "fundamentals" of most religions are problematic. It's not something unique or exclusive to Islam.
BigLundi wrote...
Has it ever occurred to you, sir, that BOTH the religious fundamentalists, AND out of control governments could be dangerous? Of course not. you think the only people that could POSSIBLY dislike the religion of Islam are those stereotypical rednecks in the south, and everyone else is just 'blinded by the propoganda". It's kind of ironic really...in saying that americans don't buy into stereotypes, you invoked a stereotype...Uh, did I ever say that religious fundamentalists couldn't be dangerous?
But let's put things into perspective, here.
About 3,000 people died on 9/11. It was an atrocity. I live about an hour and a half away from New York City, which is within commuting distance, and shortly after the attacks I sat in the home of a widow and watched her cry. Lots of people at my college were from Long Island, and if they didn't lose a loved one themselves, they knew someone who had.
However, we have half of 9/11's death toll in this country EVERY DAY because of cancer (about 4,380,000 since 2003 according to my rough estimate). And yet, half of our national budget is spent on our military and "hostile foreign relations". Let's not even bring up heart disease, strokes, respiratory disease, diabetes...
Why aren't we throwing 53% of our national budget at curing cancer when it's vastly more dangerous than any Muslim radical?
0
I want to be perfectly clear...I don't hate Muslims. I just think Islam is a violent religion, that people ought stop believing, as it does cause problems.
Any credibility or respect i once held for you went down the drain with this.
Wow. Your logic is just incomprehensibly retarded. I have no idea how you justified or rationalized that flaws in a religion should mean the total disregard of an entire religion.
And your belief that politics wasn't the reason behind 9/11; holy shit you're the most conceited person I've ever witnessed.
0
Musuko wrote...
BigLundi wrote...
I agree, we should take a REAL good look at you.Did you really just pull a "no, u" here? Haha, really?
I did. After arguing with several people who annoy me by not representing my arguments accurately, misquoting me and being straight dishonest, and just outright ignore the fact that I've already addressed these claims before...nice BigLundi is not nice no more. Besides, with you throwing out the "It's a chinese conspiracy! The tibetans WOULD be fucking shit up if they weren't under an iron heel!" I lost my patience...you'll have to forgive me. I've little patience for unfalsifiable bare ass assertion arguments.
Please, apply a little reading comprehension. TAKING TO OUR STREETS. We were talking about mass demonstrations. You twist it around to mean covert terrorists hiding in the population. Yes, there are some. Just like there are some of our agents skulking around in other countries trying to overthrow governments (like, you know, Iran's democratically elected government in 1953).
you are aware that these people are easily recruited all over the country through local mosques and youtube videos...right? This isn't just about sleeper agents... Here in america, the giant demonstrations aren't necessary, you can just make a video and get thousands of views of people watching you say "Death to america." personally. the demonstrations are out there, just in a different way.
And some Christian radicals in the United States bomb abortion clinics. And many Christian radicals would love to tear down the wall between church and state and have America become a theocracy. Does that mean every Christian is unhinged? Hell no. Does it suggest that there are radicals in just about every religion? Yes. Do radicals represent the majority? No.
Do radicals represent the fundamentals of their religion? Yes. And besids, talking of reading comprehension, I talked about state enforced religion, and sharia laws enforcing things like beheading witches, and you bring up something that isn't enforced biblically, and is against the law, so your analogy fails on all levels.
I've read the bible, and if people started making laws based off of what's in there, I'd call bullshit on that too...wouldn't you? I will always call bullshit on religions that teach stupid, violent shit. Like Christianity eaching intolerance(and being used to support slavery) and Islam encouraging martyrdom, and the destruction of infidels(which includes EVERYONE who isn't a muslim).
Derp, how about because we've been messing around over there since before 9/11?
"The United States became the sole representative of the West after 1972, when Great Britain, poor and humbled, could no longer afford to maintain a full military force in the region. Anxious to protect oil supplies from the Soviet Union, Washington propped up the Shah of Iran and the Saudi Arabian government in the ill-fated "Twin Pillars" strategy. This ended with the Iranian revolution, leaving America with a messy patchwork of military and political detritus. When Iran went to war with Iraq, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein to prevent Iran from winning. Anxious about Soviet incursions into Afghanistan, it propped up the Taliban. These two monstrous forces--Saddam and the Taliban--are very much an American creation." Source
"The United States became the sole representative of the West after 1972, when Great Britain, poor and humbled, could no longer afford to maintain a full military force in the region. Anxious to protect oil supplies from the Soviet Union, Washington propped up the Shah of Iran and the Saudi Arabian government in the ill-fated "Twin Pillars" strategy. This ended with the Iranian revolution, leaving America with a messy patchwork of military and political detritus. When Iran went to war with Iraq, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein to prevent Iran from winning. Anxious about Soviet incursions into Afghanistan, it propped up the Taliban. These two monstrous forces--Saddam and the Taliban--are very much an American creation." Source
Nice shifting of the goal posts, if this is true, then CLEARLY it isn't our CURRENt occupation that's causing extremism...now is it? And besides, they've been like this for hundreds of years, or don't you know of Jefferson's presidential run where he had to deal with Muslim slave traders?
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_urbanities-thomas_jefferson.html
To be frank, I'm not familiar with Buddhists texts. But what the texts say has little relevance when compared to what people do with them. For example, there are lots of objectionable verses in the bible: telling slaves that they should obey their masters and not try to seek their freedom, or telling women that they are inherently inferior to men. The difference is, Christians have gradually come to ignore those verses or re-interpret them.
Something fundamentalists of the Islamic variety and all state enforced Islam refuses to do...and that's what I've been saying is the problem in the first place. If Islam allowed for development and letting go of past prejudices, maybe they could join the christians in accepting 21st century morals...as it stands, they're hundreds of years behind, and Islam's principals are to blame.
[quote] This, I would argue, started with the Enlightenment, a secular movement, and has little to do with the bible itself.
The bible? No, the Catholic Church? you'd better believe it. The church is the ONLY reason that Christianity has survived to this day, because they force the vast majority of christians to accept that Christianity must adapt or die. Islam's problem? They don't adopt this idea. They say, "No, we have the quran, and the Hadith, we don't need more philosophy beyond that."
Ugh, and you demonstrate my point for me, without realizing it, just as the last person did. I in no way implied that "No Tibetan anywhere does bad." What I DO, however say, is that in comparison to the Muslims...the comparison isn't even fair. Yes, a few splinter tibetan groups do some bad things, but the fact remain that whatever you comme up with the Tibeta n people may do, that PALES in comparison to the multiple terror attacks committed by fIslamic fundamentalists...every day.
[quote="BigLundi"]If you honestly don't think the fundamentals of Islam cause problems...I have to wonder what reality you think you're living in.
Something fundamentalists of the Islamic variety and all state enforced Islam refuses to do...and that's what I've been saying is the problem in the first place. If Islam allowed for development and letting go of past prejudices, maybe they could join the christians in accepting 21st century morals...as it stands, they're hundreds of years behind, and Islam's principals are to blame.
[quote] This, I would argue, started with the Enlightenment, a secular movement, and has little to do with the bible itself.
The bible? No, the Catholic Church? you'd better believe it. The church is the ONLY reason that Christianity has survived to this day, because they force the vast majority of christians to accept that Christianity must adapt or die. Islam's problem? They don't adopt this idea. They say, "No, we have the quran, and the Hadith, we don't need more philosophy beyond that."
Yeah, keep telling yourself that those Tibetans you keep holding up as a sterling example just go on about their lives without ever rioting or protesting. Buddhism may not be a violent religion, but that hasn't stopped its adherents from being violent.
Ugh, and you demonstrate my point for me, without realizing it, just as the last person did. I in no way implied that "No Tibetan anywhere does bad." What I DO, however say, is that in comparison to the Muslims...the comparison isn't even fair. Yes, a few splinter tibetan groups do some bad things, but the fact remain that whatever you comme up with the Tibeta n people may do, that PALES in comparison to the multiple terror attacks committed by fIslamic fundamentalists...every day.
[quote="BigLundi"]If you honestly don't think the fundamentals of Islam cause problems...I have to wonder what reality you think you're living in.
The "fundamentals" of most religions are problematic. It's not something unique or exclusive to Islam.
And one of those fundamental problems of Islam, which is enforced by the state, is that it shall not change its Sharia Laws in ccordance to the cultures around it...which is a problem. A problem..directly tied to Islam...state enforced Islam...tImagine if Christianity didn't adapt to changing morals and enlightenments, and you have Islam, except the added principal that Mohammed was kind enough to put in, that whole 'conversion by the sword' thing. Which...is even worse.
Uh, did I ever say that religious fundamentalists couldn't be dangerous?
Your entire argument centers around the idea that fundamentalists only arise due to actions of others, and that we are to blame for terror, which...is complete bs. We could have left them alone for the entirety of history...they would have eventually attacked us, it's part of their religious policy.
But let's put things into perspective, here.
About 3,000 people died on 9/11. It was an atrocity. I live about an hour and a half away from New York City, which is within commuting distance, and shortly after the attacks I sat in the home of a widow and watched her cry. Lots of people at my college were from Long Island, and if they didn't lose a loved one themselves, they knew someone who had.
However, we have half of 9/11's death toll in this country EVERY DAY because of cancer. And yet, half of our national budget is spent on our military and "hostile foreign relations".
Why aren't we throwing 53% of our national budget at curing cancer when it's vastly more dangerous than any Muslim radical?
About 3,000 people died on 9/11. It was an atrocity. I live about an hour and a half away from New York City, which is within commuting distance, and shortly after the attacks I sat in the home of a widow and watched her cry. Lots of people at my college were from Long Island, and if they didn't lose a loved one themselves, they knew someone who had.
However, we have half of 9/11's death toll in this country EVERY DAY because of cancer. And yet, half of our national budget is spent on our military and "hostile foreign relations".
Why aren't we throwing 53% of our national budget at curing cancer when it's vastly more dangerous than any Muslim radical?
Well, put quite simply...religion and policy, mixing together in one big clusterfuck. When we have presidents who say "When america goes to battle it's a mission from God." and when we have ignorant masses who are triggered by the key phrases "Mission from god" combined with ignorant extremists who twitch at the key words "Martyr for Allah"...it becomes, once again...a clusterfuck. If we get rid of these ignorant ideals of religion...what is there left to hide blood battles from? Battles that are meant for money can't be hidden behind the guise of holy wars anymore, they would have to be more elaborate,make more absurd lies that become harder and harder to believe...soon enough people figure out this killing eachother over religious reasons is completely insane(something I've been saying this entire time) and start recognizing the futility of the idea.
Edit: @ Anesthitize, Really? You don't even take the time to think about WHY I might disregard Islam? there's a reason I disregard the bible, and there are reasons I disregard the the Quran and the Hadith...they don't offer anything,or, what they DO offer doesnt outweigh all the bad things they offer.
Once again, my gem of a quote from Voltaire: "If you can get people to believe absurdities, you can get them to commit atrocities"
As soon as you can come up with...good things that Islam offers, that outweigh all the bad...I'll take a second look, but when people centuries ago recognized it as a violent religion that perpetuates violence, I'm wondering why people haven't realized this by now as a whole.
0
I can see why some might disregard Islamic religion, but not with your justifications. I really don't see how you just choose to ignore political intent and treat Islamic radical action solely as a result of what's written in their scriptures.
You know if this happened to me in somewhere where my people lived for thousands of years, i'd be pissed too. Considering Israel are breaking all sorts of international laws and human rights violations doing so. I condemn what Palestine's/Islams have done, but their action isn't without justification.
You know if this happened to me in somewhere where my people lived for thousands of years, i'd be pissed too. Considering Israel are breaking all sorts of international laws and human rights violations doing so. I condemn what Palestine's/Islams have done, but their action isn't without justification.
0
Anesthetize wrote...
I can see why some might disregard Islamic religion, but not with your justifications. I really don't see how you just choose to ignore political intent and treat Islamic radical action solely as a result of what's written in their scriptures.You know if this happened to me in somewhere where my people lived for thousands of years, i'd be pissed too.
Yeah, especally since I conquered all that land and subjugated its people fair and square! My religion says I had the right to do it! Give it back!
Seriously? That's the best you can do? you are aware they were war mongers before their land being split away from them. The extremists you see today...have been around for hundreds...upon hundreds of years, since the very foundation.
To say their religion ISN'T the reason they shout "Allah Akbar!" and gun down travelling doctors and peaceful Buddhists...is fucking naive.
Edit: You really wanna see why I disregard the religion? Becuase it encourages shit like this:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/father-asked-for-help-killing-stubborn-daughter-trial-hears/article2230097/?utm_medium=Feeds%3A%20RSS%2FAtom&utm_source=Home&utm_content=2230097
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2011110814905/world/terrorism/islamist-attack-on-christian-compound-kills-children.html
Excuse me if I get a little emotional when people try to justify this bullshit by saying, "Well, not all Muslims are like that." Especially when people think I don't already know that. The fact that there are good Muslims does NOT excuse the Quranically justified actions of THESE people.
0
um what? Do you even know history?
I'm not denying religion isn't a reason. I just don't see how you can be so conceited to see that political intent isn't a massive contributing factor in forcing people to become radicals.
I'm not denying religion isn't a reason. I just don't see how you can be so conceited to see that political intent isn't a massive contributing factor in forcing people to become radicals.
0
BigLundi wrote...
[quote="Anesthetize"]To say their religion ISN'T the reason they shout "Allah Akbar!" and gun down travelling doctors and peaceful Buddhists...is fucking naive.
Isn't allahu akbar a common expression for Arabs though? Like how we use "Oh my god"?
0
Forcing people to become radicals?
Firstly, I'd like to point out that forcing people to fight for Islam IS a religious doctrine of Islam, by proxy of deconversion. Forcefully subjugate people, and if they deconvert, they must then fight for you. This is the circle of Islam.
Secondly...that IS history. Islam grows, subjugates people, and takes land. Eventually they start getting beaten back, and the land gets retaken by people who feel they're more worthy of it. that's how Islam got to gain all that land in the first place...Mohammed was a warlord.
Firstly, I'd like to point out that forcing people to fight for Islam IS a religious doctrine of Islam, by proxy of deconversion. Forcefully subjugate people, and if they deconvert, they must then fight for you. This is the circle of Islam.
Secondly...that IS history. Islam grows, subjugates people, and takes land. Eventually they start getting beaten back, and the land gets retaken by people who feel they're more worthy of it. that's how Islam got to gain all that land in the first place...Mohammed was a warlord.
0
Right. Well you obviously don't have an idea on history. Just disregard the two most important events of modern Israel and akin claiming land from then to now. Lol.
I really don't know why i bother.
I really don't know why i bother.
0
I don't either...I mean if you're going to remain completely ignorant on the history of Islam, their teachings, their doctinres, and why fundamentalists exist in the first place, why argue complete nonsequitors?
To be honest anesthetize, I'm tired of this argument. I've had people agree with me, and people who don't, and I just don't care anymore to continue this forum conversation. You're convinced of what you're convinced of, and I haven't seen anything I haven't already seen 1000 times before. "You're just blaming Islam for extremists! You don't know anyting about Islam! It's our fault they hate us!" and on and on and on...
I think this will be my last post in this topic...anyone who's not convinced by now that Islam is to blame for...Islamic terror...won't be.
To be honest anesthetize, I'm tired of this argument. I've had people agree with me, and people who don't, and I just don't care anymore to continue this forum conversation. You're convinced of what you're convinced of, and I haven't seen anything I haven't already seen 1000 times before. "You're just blaming Islam for extremists! You don't know anyting about Islam! It's our fault they hate us!" and on and on and on...
I think this will be my last post in this topic...anyone who's not convinced by now that Islam is to blame for...Islamic terror...won't be.
0
You say all of this yet you haven't provided a shred of evidence to back up your vast amounts of claims, outside of a few less than credible sources and your own bloated arrogance. You put words in peoples mouth far too often and have totally avoided the political spectrum of this argument and their points.
0
Anesthetize wrote...
You say all of this yet you haven't provided a shred of evidence to back up your vast amounts of claims, outside of a few less than credible sources and your own bloated arrogance. You put words in peoples mouth far too often and have totally avoided the political spectrum of this argument and their points....Really? You couldn't just leave it alone? You're THAT petty?
Facts: I've provided innumerable quotes from the Quran, and sirah to support that Islam is violent, as well as sources that Islamic leaders fully support the theological idea that martyrdom is Quranically justified, I've provided news stories of Islamic religiously motivated crimes against children and churchgoers...and the only source people wouldn't accept, wasn't in any way debunked, people just didn't like the website's look, despite its resources and citations and links.
I've never put words in people's mouths, and in no way avoided the political spectrum...in fact I addressed it directly.
All in all...I've provided a LOT of evidence for my claims, your decision to disregard them completely is YOUR decision. But your decision to ignore them doesn't make them go away.
...Ever thought maybe you're wrong, that maybe...just MAYBE I might have a fucking point? No...you couldn't possibly concede that, could you?
0
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14491112 -
Hindus - use violence against Muslims
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/3229253/India-asked-to-investigate-Hindu-massacre-of-Christians.html -
Hindus use violence against Christians
Shall we turn this into an anti-Hindu-ism discussion now? - I think not -_-
Hindus - use violence against Muslims
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/3229253/India-asked-to-investigate-Hindu-massacre-of-Christians.html -
Hindus use violence against Christians
Shall we turn this into an anti-Hindu-ism discussion now? - I think not -_-
0
BigLundi wrote...
He's got a lot. Now, regardless of the fact that this was an islamic leader that brought sharia Law to a country, and led a country based on Islamic principals(according to him) this doesn't PROVE that Islam is a religion of violence...I just need to look at the books to see that. In fact, there's a nice quote from Sirah that explains what you talk about last quite perfectly.Now that's an important part, according to him. Now there are numerous of islamic leaders all over the place, and most of these men are preaching peace and tolerance towards another. You however get stuck on one of these fundamentalists preaching violence, again, you generalize based solely on a small part of the picture.
BigLundi wrote...
These were not idiots. all were college educated, some had PhD's. It's the sheer fact that they were convinced that this afterlife martyrdom thing was the cas that I am arguing. Islam...is the problem here, the fundamental aspects of Islam. Not MUSLIMS, not just the EXTREMISTS, the fundamentals of Islam.If you believe that a PhD in anything makes you less of a fool, then you must be worse off than I thought you were. I would however, yet again, claim that the problem lies with the extremists. But w/e, I know you won't listen on that ear.
BigLundi wrote...
Again, to quote Voltaire, "If you can get people to believe absurdities, you can get them to commit atrocities" Do you deny this?No, not at all, this is all true and well. However, this is first and foremost not narrowed down to just Islam, and this is basically what I was saying from the start.
BigLundi wrote...
I've already addressed this. No, I don't. I judge the religion? Based off of the religion. Why do people respond to me without bothering to see if I've already responded to this kind of stuff before? Again, Page 4, second response, right below K-1. I've already addressed this idea.People respond to this because you spurt a lot of bullshit around you. You judge the entire islamic faith based on the actions of 19 terrorists. You don't have to be a genius to figure out that is fucking stupid. If you are to judge an entire religion, do it by the actions of the everyday believer, not a group of extremists and fundamentalists.
BigLundi wrote...
Yes indeed, I applaud that quote because it is indeed true. Muslims should be harsh on infidels, and the infidels, are the non muslims.According to the Holy Quran, Muslims should be harsh on infidels. Who are these infidels? Muslims should not be harsh on anyone who does not believe in Islam.
Did I tell you that I like it when you can't see past your own nose?
See that? Fight the non believers until they pay the tax, and acknowledge the superiority of Islam...yes...sounds extremely peaceful.
Sounds a lot like the part of Matthew where Jesus says he is indeed not here to bring peace, but a sword. Very much like my earlier quote, which you obviously didn't read though, the word fight is used rather loosely. For the "until they pay the tax" part, I'll just toss you this wiki page.* I trust you are quite capable of looking up the sources by yourself.
BigLundi wrote...
For that matter, have you heard of Dhimmis?It's this nice little label that Jews and Christians recieve whe nthey accept Islamic rule, it means they're guilty, and it's a label of humiliation, it's a label that says, "I accept that Islam is the superior religion to mine."
Uhm, not quite, again you are terrifyingly knowledgeable of what you talk about. The Dhimma is an idea based on the Islamic doctrine about giving limited rights and responsibilities to, initially, Jews and Christians. What the Dhimma does in practice is to give non-muslims the same rights as muslim under state-law. As the Quran/Hadith states that non-muslims should have no rights until they convert to Islam. I will not in any way discredit that the dhimma is in no way fair, as muslims have more rights, and carry a much greater deal of legal weight, according to the dhimma. But in this modern society the rights of someone protected by the dhimma are more or less the same as for muslims.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-Tawba_29
Now however, I will withdraw from this pointless argument that I should not have gotten into from the start, not to mention we're way of topic already. Live well and prosper, and stop preaching your uncredtied, islamophobic and just pure retarded notion of how the world works.
0
The Tax - aka the Jazzia means as long as members of other religions paid this tax they were treated as ordinary citizens with the same rights as everybody else - You may argue that Muslims did not have to pay any tax - when in fact they did:
Zakat was and is compulsory for every Muslim to give and is essentially one of the first progressive tax systems ever established. I think you'll find in any society tax evasion is a punishable offence.
Note: Most of the violence suggested is towards enemy armies not any old member of any religion. On another note Christians and Jews are seen by Muslims as "people of the Book" - meaning they are okay to marry (for men) and that they too are following God's word the only contention is that since their texts are much older they have not survived in their original form. Islam also believes that prophets have been sent over time to every civilization by God - so notably the founders of other major religions could simply be those prophets even though they are not specifically mentioned as Abrahamic Prophets.
Zakat was and is compulsory for every Muslim to give and is essentially one of the first progressive tax systems ever established. I think you'll find in any society tax evasion is a punishable offence.
Note: Most of the violence suggested is towards enemy armies not any old member of any religion. On another note Christians and Jews are seen by Muslims as "people of the Book" - meaning they are okay to marry (for men) and that they too are following God's word the only contention is that since their texts are much older they have not survived in their original form. Islam also believes that prophets have been sent over time to every civilization by God - so notably the founders of other major religions could simply be those prophets even though they are not specifically mentioned as Abrahamic Prophets.