Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

in scripture maybe. but you can interpret it in many ways. consider, that in islam one can not harm "innocents" directly. ofcourse that is a fact, but many suicide bombers etc, consider, CIVILIANS to be guilty too, they say that americans{or israelis or whomever u want to take an example of} pay taxes, support their government and openly critisice islam/ridicule the prophet/allah{a crime for which orders are given in islam to kill any1 who does so, and it is the "duty" of the entire muslim population of the world}, in the eyes of many, they are ACTIVE CONTRIBUTORS to the things america does and do not even oppose it{ofcourse that is a generalisation, but many citizens of the mentioned staes infact do}, not only that, but they support the illegal wars in iraq/palestine etc and even fund it{some}.

hence, they can be interpreted as being ACTIVE combatants to a suicide bomber. HOW will you then try to tell them that they are wrong in their interpretation? infact, as far as quran/hadith go, there is no definitive argument against their way of interpreting scriptures.

so you see, it isnt really wrong from the islamic viewpoint, to be a suicide bomber.{to some}

however, i do think you are blamin the muslims too much, most of the reports of "suicide" bombings are gross misrepresentations by the western media. a lot f it is propaganda and inside work. the muslims are no different than any other relegion. all have extremists, all have good and bad people and all have suicide bombers. a few muslims{far less than the media makes it out to be} kill a few civilians by blowing themselves up. while israel and america kill hundreds of thousands of innocents by waging all out illegal wars. there no differnece, infact , we should be more concentrated on christian or jewish terrorism in this day and age."the only reason mulims have to blow themselves up is because they lack the resources to wage an all out war}.

baseline,relegions SUCK. and none of the organised large ones{except buddhism probably}, are better than the others.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
in scripture maybe. but you can interpret it in many ways. consider, that in islam one can not harm "innocents" directly. ofcourse that is a fact, but many suicide bombers etc, consider, CIVILIANS to be guilty too, they say that americans{or israelis or whomever u want to take an example of} pay taxes, support their government and openly critisice islam/ridicule the prophet/allah{a crime for which orders are given in islam to kill any1 who does so, and it is the "duty" of the entire muslim population of the world}, in the eyes of many, they are ACTIVE CONTRIBUTORS to the things america does and do not even oppose it{ofcourse that is a generalisation, but many citizens of the mentioned staes infact do}, not only that, but they support the illegal wars in iraq/palestine etc and even fund it{some}.





What the heck?Islam even forbid to kill war hostages let alone civillains !!I will bring some verses from Quran ..Dont worry , the scholars agreed to interpret it in one way ..especially about killing the innocents ..

Are u really 18 ??I feel you're older ...

war hostages are not active combatants and victory or defeat has been stated after the battle. it is a very different situation than what i described. the suicide bombers can interpret the so called civilians to be ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS IN AN "ONGOING" BATTLE. see what im talking about. bringing in verses does not change that{n ive prolly read them before}. also, there is the fact that the jewish prisoners of war did have their men killed and their women and children sold as slaves when the jewish spokesperson decided that they shud be treated according to jewish law when asked by the prophet. so u do have presidence{reguardless of how confined} to possibly do bad things to prisoners of war.

oh, n im 19 and a half. gonna be 20 in july.

No terrorism in Islam.

Brainwashing. But don't worry there are plenty of those who'll believe you in the West, so creation of 'ummat al-mu'minin' is still at a reach.

What about Jahiliya and the corruption of Islamic leaders?

Did Qutb not say that once a Islamic leader had been corrupted by Jahiliya it was ok to promote violence against them and their nation?

You said earlier on these boards that you thought Qutb was a prominent and respectable Islamic scholar. He calls directly for actions that would be deemed as "Terrorist". (I guess that is me presuming that Jahiliya doesn't exist)

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
No terrorism in Islam.

Brainwashing. But don't worry there are plenty of those who'll believe you in the West, so creation of 'ummat al-mu'minin' is still at a reach. I doubt there are many people in the west that do not believe that there are islamic terrorists.

Fatima:

In Islamic philosophy, if someone suffers from Jahiliyyah, are they innocent any longer?

Is it ok for a devout Muslim to kill someone who spreads Jahiliyyah or who suffers from Jahiliyyah as an act of Jihad?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
No terrorism in Islam.

Brainwashing. But don't worry there are plenty of those who'll believe you in the West, so creation of 'ummat al-mu'minin' is still at a reach.


As long as they dont get their info from a youtube star like Wafa Sultan they will do fine ..

THere are terrorists in Islam. Though, to be fair, terrorism isn't an Islam thing.

Originally posted by inimalist
Fatima:

In Islamic philosophy, if someone suffers from Jahiliyyah, are they innocent any longer?

Is it ok for a devout Muslim to kill someone who spreads Jahiliyyah or who suffers from Jahiliyyah as an act of Jihad?

ok ..wait plz I kinda skip the pray

but fatima. isnt that what i was saying. only act when war is MADE AGAINST YOU. to the people i mentioned, it may well mean that war{intellectual/economic/ideological} is being faught against the muslims{not to mention physical war in israel/iraq/afghanistan}. and as i explained before, you can interpret the apparently innocent citizens of the participating countries to be active agressors as well, so according to that version, the above verse wud make them fair game.

also, people are being threatened and made to leave their homes/protection etc etc all the time in afghanistan/iraq/paletine/kashmir etc.
also, you did not reply to the fact that it is mandatory on every muslim to kill any1 who does blasphemy anywhere in the world against the prophet or allah. wudnt that make it very legible for a muslim to kill people in other countries who quite often ridicule islam/prophet/allah etc? there is also the fact that people percieved to be spreading "mischief"in the land{blasphemy/anti islamic activites/deception against islam etc}



not for one who is taking the above interpretation i think.



erm, i have taken islamiat u know. i know this already. but i havent read anywhere that the INDIVDUALS of banu qraiza had the choice. it only says{tell me if i am mistaken} that one person chose uninimously, their fate. also, im not saying that they did not betray the muslims etc. what IM saying is that reguardless, the muslims/prophet did not have the sense to see that it was a wrong law and went through with it{obviously a muslim parent wudnt say that cutting of hand for stealing is WRONG. because obviously theyr MUSLIMS. doesnt mean you SHUD cut the hands of their children for petty theft even if the parents have no choice but tp agree} anyway. see, the children didnt have enough sense to decide for themselves, and you know very well, the opressed state of women at the time. they wudnt contradict the judgement. also, man of the young men wud oblige only due to fear/faith in their relegion. doesnt mean they deserved to be given that fate does it. they are deluded people beleiving in a fallacious relegion. shudnt the muslims and the prophet know better.

Originally posted by inimalist
Fatima:

In Islamic philosophy, if someone suffers from Jahiliyyah, are they innocent any longer?

Is it ok for a devout Muslim to kill someone who spreads Jahiliyyah or who suffers from Jahiliyyah as an act of Jihad?


1-If they have never heard of Islam or prophet Muhammed at that time ..they might not be punished ..

2 - No .. only consider him/her as infidle- kafir-

Originally posted by Fatima
1-If they have never heard of Islam or prophet Muhammed at that time ..they might not be punished ..

2 - No .. only consider him/her as infidle- kafir-

My understanding of the work by Qutb is that he was in favor of killing those who suffer from Jahiliyyah, including Egyptian President Nassr.

Now, in no way am I trying to implicate Islam as a religion of terror or violence, but is it not true that the philosophies that are behind various militant Islamic movements have their basis in the theological interpretations of the Qu'ran?

I'm not a Muslim nor an Islamic scholar, but from what I have learned, it seems that the second point is more of a matter of opinion. I will admit that most Muslims probably believe the same as you, and are absolutly peaceful, but don't those who are dangerous to Westerners (and fellow Muslims) have a theological position that argues against it?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
but fatima. isnt that what i was saying. only act when war is MADE AGAINST YOU. to the people i mentioned, it may well mean that war{intellectual/economic/ideological} is being faught against the muslims{not to mention physical war in israel/iraq/afghanistan}. and as i explained before, you can interpret the apparently innocent citizens of the participating countries to be active agressors as well, so according to that version, the above verse wud make them fair game.

also, people are being threatened and made to leave their homes/protection etc etc all the time in afghanistan/iraq/paletine/kashmir etc.
also, you did not reply to the fact that it is mandatory on every muslim to kill any1 who does blasphemy anywhere in the world against the prophet or allah. wudnt that make it very legible for a muslim to kill people in other countries who quite often ridicule islam/prophet/allah etc? there is also the fact that people percieved to be spreading "mischief"in the land{blasphemy/anti islamic activites/deception against islam etc}



not for one who is taking the above interpretation i think.



erm, i have taken islamiat u know. i know this already. but i havent read anywhere that the INDIVDUALS of banu qraiza had the choice. it only says{tell me if i am mistaken} that one person chose uninimously, their fate. also, im not saying that they did not betray the muslims etc. what IM saying is that reguardless, the muslims/prophet did not have the sense to see that it was a wrong law and went through with it{obviously a muslim parent wudnt say that cutting of hand for stealing is WRONG. because obviously theyr MUSLIMS. doesnt mean you SHUD cut the hands of their children for petty theft even if the parents have no choice but tp agree} anyway. see, the children didnt have enough sense to decide for themselves, and you know very well, the opressed state of women at the time. they wudnt contradict the judgement. also, man of the young men wud oblige only due to fear/faith in their relegion. doesnt mean they deserved to be given that fate does it. they are deluded people beleiving in a fallacious relegion. shudnt the muslims and the prophet know better.

Now I'm busy have dozen of homeworks.. I will replay tommorow or any time sooner inshallah

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
No terrorism in Islam.

Brainwashing.

No terrorism in Christianity.

Brainwashing

No terrorism in Judaism.

Brainwashing

No terrorism in religion.

Brainwashing

Bottom line: All religion is brainwashing.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
But don't worry there are plenty of those who'll believe you in the West, so creation of 'ummat al-mu'minin' is still at a reach.

Regardless to the above, the extremists are doing what most people do with their religion. They pick the texts that they agree with and use them to justify their reasoning. I highly doubt that any of you follow the scripts of your religion 100%. These people look in the Koran and see one of the more violent texts and use that as their justification.
On the subject of actual terrorism, a terrorist is someone that uses scare tactics (in the case violence) to make the public submit to their demands (in this case political). Therefor, the insurgents in Iraq are not all terrorists, however the ones who are blowing themselves up in the name of God are.
Many call the US troops in Iraq terrorists. This is not true. Is this conflict tearing up the country? Yes. Is the use of mercenaries a terrible idea? Very. Are the civilians scared? Shitless. Does this make the US troops terrorists? No. Most of these people are just regular people, many of which do not even WANT to fight in this war. If they blow up a housing complex without reason, they get punished. If an Islamic extremist blows himself up in a preschool, he is exalted as a hero.

Originally posted by Devil King
No terrorism in Christianity.

Brainwashing

No terrorism in Judaism.

Brainwashing

No terrorism in religion.

Brainwashing

Bottom line: All religion is brainwashing.



w00t

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
No terrorism in Islam.

Brainwashing.

Whats wrong with that? You submit to it too.Originally posted by Devil King
No terrorism in Christianity.

Brainwashing

No terrorism in Judaism.

Brainwashing

No terrorism in religion.

Brainwashing

Bottom line: All religion is brainwashing.


Bottom Line: Terror is a legitimate tactic that has been in use for millenia by a wide array of religious and non-religious groups.

Originally posted by Devil King
No terrorism in Christianity.

Brainwashing

No terrorism in Judaism.

Brainwashing

No terrorism in religion.

Brainwashing

Bottom line: All religion is brainwashing.





Whilst literally true, it obscures the issue.

Whilst most certainly not all Muslims are terrorists, it is inescapable that most terrorists are Muslim.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Whilst literally true, it obscures the issue.

Whilst most certainly not all Muslims are terrorists, it is inescapable that most terrorists are Muslim.

One man's martyr is another mans suicide bomber.

My issue with the idea that most terrorists are Muslim, rests with the fact that one side of the divide is defining the term Terrorist.

And I would find it highly unreasonable to define it any other way.

Sometimes you are not wrong just because you are the majority. By any useful and meaningful definition of the word, most terrorists are Muslim. I think if you don't agree with that you are getting rather uselessly into pointless semantics.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And I would find it highly unreasonable to define it any other way.

Sometimes you are not wrong just because you are the majority. By any useful and meaningful definition of the word, most terrorisms are Muslim. I think if you don't agree with that you are getting rather uselessly into pointless semantics.

No one is addressing the existence of terrorists. I don't think they're not terrorists, just because the majority of the western world agrees with the governments of the US and England.

I simply think it's a fake argument to broadly dismiss the reasons behind an individuals reason for strapping on a bomb and walking into an airport. Much less the reasons behind our invovlment in their part of teh world.

I don't see where that is at all relevant to what I said. Whatever the motivation it falls under the use of the word 'terrorist'.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I don't see where that is at all relevant to what I said. Whatever the motivation it falls under the use of the word 'terrorist'.

what you said is that most terrorists are muslim. I disagree. I think there are terrorists on all sides of the equation. I take exception to teh fact that their methods are called terrorism because it involves AK-47s and suicide bombers. But Jewish terrorism or American/English imperialism are called politics.

"One man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter"

we already covered that, Rob.

Originally posted by Devil King
we already covered that, Rob.

I couldn't be bothered to read above your post.

Well, I think when just rationally applying the definition of terrorism (though in a way hard to grasp) to certain actions, the actions of Islamic "warriors" would far outweigh those of western countries or those of any other religion.

Now, what I agree with (and think Capt is trying to say) is that terrorism as such is not necessarily defined as evil, many tools that the US and Israel use could easily be considered worse. And though terrorism has a very negative meaning nowadays (in part certainly for good reasons) we should judge in a case to case basis and realize that terrorism might very well be a justifiable tool for the otherwise helpless.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Now, what I agree with (and think Capt is trying to say) is that terrorism as such is not necessarily defined as evil, many tools that the US and Israel use could easily be considered worse. And though terrorism has a very negative meaning nowadays (in part certainly for good reasons) we should judge in a case to case basis and realize that terrorism might very well be a justifiable tool for the otherwise helpless.


yes.

Originally posted by Robtard
"One man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter"

Right.

Therefore 9/11 was a clear reaction to American terrorism in the middle east.

Originally posted by Devil King
yes.

How do you justify others "brain washing" people to commit murder/killing and suicide?

That's one of my main problems with the religious aspect of Islamic terrorism, the religious heads don't practice what they preach... why don't they go kill themselves and others to reach heaven and earn their virgin reward?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Right.

Therefore 9/11 was a clear reaction to American terrorism in the middle east.

In a way probably true.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Right.

Therefore 9/11 was a clear reaction to American terrorism in the middle east.

If so, it backfired on them, America is involved more than ever in the middle east now.

Originally posted by Robtard
How do you justify others "brain washing" people to commit murder/killing and suicide?

That's one of my main problems with the religious aspect of Islamic terrorism, the religious heads don't practice what they preach... why don't they go kill themselves and others to reach heaven and earn their virgin reward?

Because they read the one secret gospel of every religion. The one that Frank Zappa (the greatest prophet of our time) laid open to the public:


"WE'RE ONLY IN IT FOR THE MONEY"

Originally posted by Robtard
If so, it backfired on them, America is involved more than ever in the middle east now.

I don't really think it backfired. Dying for the cause of killing as many Shytans (Americans and their allies) as possible is becoming a marthyr, which is greatest achievement.

I feel America has always been greatly involved in the Middle East.
The difference now is that more American blood is running than ever overthere.

And Ummah is stronger than Christians. They will support each other regardless of how extreme it might get.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I don't really think it backfired. Dying for the cause of killing as many Shytans (Americans and their allies) as possible is becoming a marthyr, which is greatest achievement.

I feel America has always been greatly involved in the Middle East.
The difference now is that more American blood is running than ever overthere.

And Ummah is stronger than Christians. They will support each other regardless of how extreme it might get.

My point(s) stands... it wasn't the leaders who flew the planes into the towers, it was the lackeys, so no marthyar status for them.

If their goal was to scare America out of the middle east, it backfired greatly.

If their goal was just to kill a few (innocent) thousand people, then a win for them, I guess.

Originally posted by Robtard
My point(s) stands... it wasn't the leaders who flew the planes into the towers, it was the lackeys, so no marthyar status for them.

If their goal was to scare America out of the middle east, it backfired greatly.

If their goal was just to kill a few (innocent) thousand people, then a win for them, I guess.

Imam's status, by devoting himself to Allah and Islam is already elevated

But you're right, they don't have the Martyr status.

Marthyrs are those who flew the plane, those who bombed Madrid, who killed Theo van Gogh, who call upon Death to America and their allies, those who bomb embassies and blow themselves up in attempt to kill as many kuffars as possible...

I don't argue it prompted America to go with force to Middle East (which it has), but I do believe that their ideology goes beyond caring for their lives.
Which is what makes it altogether more dangerous.

Originally posted by Robtard
How do you justify others "brain washing" people to commit murder/killing and suicide?

That's one of my main problems with the religious aspect of Islamic terrorism, the religious heads don't practice what they preach... why don't they go kill themselves and others to reach heaven and earn their virgin reward?


I don't justify.

The difference between pushing a button a blowing up a small town in Iraq and strapping on a vest bomb and walking into an Israeli grocery store are huge...except in intent.

Why don't they do it? Likely for teh same REason George W doesn't pick up a gun and helmet. Besides, their followers likely wouldn't want them to.

Originally posted by Devil King
I don't justify.

The difference between pushing a button a blowing up a small town in Iraq and strapping on a vest bomb and walking into an Israeli grocery store are huge...except in intent.

Why don't they do it? Likely for teh same REason George W doesn't pick up a gun and helmet. Besides, their followers likely wouldn't want them to.

...and why is that? Because they've convinced their followers that they're somehow of greater importance.

I have a hard time believing G.W. could brainwash people, even stupid people.

Originally posted by Robtard
...and why is that? Because they've convinced their followers that they're somehow of greater importance.

I have a hard time believing G.W. could brainwash people, even stupid people.

Haha. True.

Poor George.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Imam's status, by devoting himself to Allah and Islam is already elevated

But you're right, they don't have the Martyr status.

Marthyrs are those who flew the plane, those who bombed Madrid, who killed Theo van Gogh, who call upon Death to America and their allies, those who bomb embassies and blow themselves up in attempt to kill as many kuffars as possible...

I don't argue it prompted America to go with force to Middle East (which it has), but I do believe that their ideology goes beyond caring for their lives.
Which is what makes it altogether more dangerous.

Someone who commits suicide, obviously doesn't care for their life. I agree, it does make it all that more dangerous; religious fanatics usually are just that.

Originally posted by Robtard
...and why is that? Because they've convinced their followers that they're somehow of greater importance.

I have a hard time believing G.W. could brainwash people, even stupid people.

GW doesn't have to. Nor was that really my point. If someone is brainwashed, how can you expect them to think rationally? Like, say the 20% of Americans that think GW is doing abang up job.

The two are vastly different, but you understand, I think.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
And Ummah is stronger than Christians. They will support each other regardless of how extreme it might get.

That implies that every one fighting them is Christian which is bull. Maybe in their distorted vision.

But what about American Muslims, (there's about six million) are they not members of the Ummah?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That implies that every one fighting them is Christian which is bull. Maybe in their distorted vision.

But what about American Muslims, (there's about six million) are they not members of the Ummah?

I'm not sure it implies that everyone they're fighting is Christian. I think it's a result of thinking it's them against everyone not like them.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That implies that every one fighting them is Christian which is bull. Maybe in their distorted vision.

But what about American Muslims, (there's about six million) are they not members of the Ummah?

It does not imply anything of the sort.

Not to mention that I have nowhere in my post suggested that Muslims are fighting all Christians. (???)
If anything Muslims view Christians in far better light than Jews, Hindus or Buddhists.
America is not looked at as run by Christians, but by Jews, therefore many extreme Muslims do not associate America with Christians, but with Jews.
Another misconception.

What my post indicated is the strength of Islamic community compared to that of Christian.
In the time of need, Muslims will support each other more than Christians will - and moderate will support extreme because such bond is stronger.

i disagree with america paying more attention to the middle east now and the plan backfiring. assuming usama did it{oddly, its still never been proven} , it was just a golden oppurtunity for america to sieze. heck, america has been involved in the kuwait war, twice, involved in the formation of israel, involved in the israeli-egypt/middle east conflict, involved in the afghanistan war against the russians etc etc. n i dont remember THEM requiring any special act of terrorism being the trigger. whoever did the 9-11 attacks is irrelevant, america is just using it as an excuse to attack afghanistan/iraq etc while it sits back and watches israel terrosiring people in its south and the gaza strip and treating them like jailed animals, not to mention the illegal; war against lebonon where the objective was nothing less than massacre and deestruction of infrastucture.

Originally posted by Fatima
What the heck?Islam even forbid to kill war hostages let alone civillains !!I will bring some verses from Quran ..Dont worry , the scholars agreed to interpret it in one way ..especially about killing the innocents ..

Are u really 18 ??I feel you're older ...

If Mohammed had left the arabs alone like they asked him to he wouldnt have had to kill anybody.

Mohammed also allowed women to get raped in battle.

He asked his companions to kill a man who insulted him.

The quran justifies smashing idols and thats what Mohammed did.

Hypocrisy.


Originally posted by Devil King


Bottom line: All religion is brainwashing.



All religion? :

Originally posted by Alfheim

All religion? :

Not if its willfully sought.

All religion, because secular humanism is far superior to anything a religious person might believe.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
All religion, because secular humanism is far superior to anything a religious person might believe.

It all depends on what religion you are talking about. All people have the ability to do great evil, including religious people.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
All religion, because secular humanism is far superior to anything a religious person might believe.

Ah yes. The mind of a Bright is beyond that of a blind follower who's logic is stuck in the Middle Ages. Dawkins said so.

Originally posted by Alfheim
All religion? :

All organized religion.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Ah yes. The mind of a Bright is beyond that of a blind follower who's logic is stuck in the Middle Ages. Dawkins said so.
Funnily enough, logic hasn't changed that much over the years.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Ah yes. The mind of a Bright is beyond that of a blind follower who's logic is stuck in the Middle Ages. Dawkins said so.

Dawkins is stuck in his old midlde ages. Spare us the drama.

Originally posted by Alliance
Dawkins is stuck in his old midlde ages. Spare us the drama.

Hey!

Originally posted by Devil King
All organized religion.

I thought as much. Its not like you to say all religon is brainwashing.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
All religion, because secular humanism is far superior to anything a religious person might believe.

That depends on how religon is interpreted....

Originally posted by Alliance
Dawkins is stuck in his old midlde ages. Spare us the drama.

Hahaha, ironic.

Originally posted by Alfheim
I thought as much. Its not like you to say all religon is brainwashing.

When your religion begins to lend itself to a sense of superiority, it's gone too far.

Originally posted by Devil King
When your religion begins to lend itself to a sense of superiority, it's gone too far.

eventually they all seems to fall into that trap though

Originally posted by anaconda
eventually they all seems to fall into that trap though

Exactly! I was going to say something along the lines of: "But even independant religions, the ones people make up and begin to share with others, eventually want to become those bloated, self-serving religions we see running the world today. It's how Christianity started. That's when the term brainwashing begins to creep into the equation.

Originally posted by anaconda
eventually they all seems to fall into that trap though

That is why people need to keep religions on track. BTW atheism also has the same potential problem.

Originally posted by Alliance
Dawkins is stuck in his old midlde ages. Spare us the drama.

What drama? And I wasn't making fun of him. I respect Professor Dawkins and most of his work. My only complaint about him is that all religion is the same in his eyes. In his mind there's no difference between a meditating Buddhist monk and a Palestinian nutjob who blows himself up in restaurant.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is why people need to keep religions on track. BTW atheism also has the same potential problem.

Yeah, there's a lot of Atheists who want to make everyone else an Atheist because they believe that would make the world a better place....doesn't sound too different from Islamic extremists.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
What drama? And I wasn't making fun of him. I respect Professor Dawkins and most of his work. My only complaint about him is that all religion is the same in his eyes. In his mind there's no difference between a meditating Buddhist monk and a Palestinian nutjob who blows himself up in restaurant.

That's not quite true. He does state he sees the differences, but to him they are deluding themselves in the same way. That's not the same as being the same, of course.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not quite true. He does state he sees the differences, but to him they are deluding themselves in the same way. That's not the same as being the same, of course.

How is "deluding themselves in the same way" NOT the same??

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
How is "deluding themselves in the same way" NOT the same??

It's like saying people with black hair have the same colour hair. It's true. I doubt you have no objections to that, so I figured you meant he says they are the same in harmful influence for example.

Originally posted by anaconda
eventually they all seems to fall into that trap though

That in itself is fallacious thinking. Tell me, how will Islam and the native Navajo religion take someone down the same path?

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's like saying people with black hair have the same colour hair. It's true. I doubt you have no objections to that, so I figured you meant he says they are the same in harmful influence for example.

Which is incorrect.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
...Yeah, there's a lot of Atheists who want to make everyone else an Atheist because they believe that would make the world a better place....doesn't sound too different from Islamic extremists.

Or fundamentalists.

Originally posted by Devil King
Exactly! I was going to say something along the lines of: "But even independant religions, the ones people make up and begin to share with others, eventually want to become those bloated, self-serving religions we see running the world today. It's how Christianity started. That's when the term brainwashing begins to creep into the equation.

I think thats humans just being basterds I dont think that has anything inherently to do with religon. Take away religon and people would just use something else.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Which is incorrect.

Yes, I can see it now.

Well, I suppose you are right, Dawkins does say that one person that is religious and another that is are the same in the sense that they are both religious.

indeed

a few extrimist cant hold an entire religion hostage for their action, and besides blowing up buildings christians extremist are guilty of the rest of what you listed, are christians terrorists then? christian always the innocent, with their history of extremist acting on behalf of their god I think they should shut the **** up hypocritical morons and dont pass judgement on other way of belief, come to term with your own history and bend over and kiss your own ass and appology to the rest of the cultural world for ruining god knows how many cultures

Where as I know there is no religion in the world who teaches terrorism. The religion Islam is one of them.Terrorist are not religious people.They are just criminals.

Originally posted by KingTech
Where as I know there is no religion in the world who teaches terrorism.

008.012
YUSUFALI: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."
PICKTHAL: When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.
SHAKIR: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve.Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

But all letters for islam are found in terrorism minus the 'a' and the 'L'.
We must therefore invade anyone with darker skin than ours right NOW!!!!!

*This has been a Fox News broadcast*

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
But all letters for islam are found in terrorism minus the 'a' and the 'L'.
We must therefore invade anyone with darker skin than ours right NOW!!!!!

*This has been a Fox News broadcast*


Is this for real ??

Nope. I was facetiously parodying their reporting attitude.
(A bit too well maybe lol)
The fact that that was just real enough to be in question for a sec though,
speaks volumes for the fact-based reporting that one can be accustomed to from the Bush netw- Ah, I mean Fox Network.

I think that religion has been used to guide people like puppets at a deranged show though.

Its like that quote... can't remember the originator, but the words were to the effect of:
"You can get good people to do good things.
You can also get bad people to do good things,
But to get good people to do bad things, you need to involve religion."

If you want an example of benevolent Islam its good to look at the Mali Empire. Eventhough Islam has negative aspects of it I think the Mali Empire is an example of muslims rejecting the bad and keeping the good. For the most part it seems they did not enforce their beliefs on people and even put women in postions in the government.

At the end of the day if you are a good person you will reject the negative but I think its easier to justify negativity with some religons.

but wasnt my post about the DEFINITION of combatant in today's world? many supposed "terrorists" consider the people they kill to be combatants.






errrrrr, thats not what i was asking. irrespective of that, the fact remains that it is mandatory on every muslim to kill sum1 who insults the prophet by the quran/hadith . true or untrue??? so cant a terrorist use that as an excuse to blow up "civilians" who have almost definately commited such a "sin" ?? and they support in wars which drive out muslims from their homes as i said before. also they fulfill the criteria of spreading "mischief" in any land the muslims claim is owned by them. so again u havent replied to it.





did i say it was from the quran? fact remains the prophet and ",muslims" still enforced it. also, a "spokesperson" with authority said that they wudnt violate the judgement of the torah. i already explains how he was probably brainwashed/didnt represent the dissenting women/didnt represent the will of the children who are too young to know of such matters, and on top pf everything, cud easily have been overridden by the prophet who cud SEE that it was the wrong decision. i mean, i dont beleive any shariah court should kill a person because they injured another person slightly. even if the VICTIM themselves wants to be killed for whatever personal beleifs. the victim shud rather be referred to a psychiatrist and NOT given the punishment they WANT. because it is still unjust, and any waise man can see it. im assuming the prophet and muslims were wrong in doing this fatima.

so please, post adequate replies to the points i posted.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
but wasnt my post about the DEFINITION of combatant in today's world? many supposed "terrorists" consider the people they kill to be combatants.

That's why we called them a terrorists !

Originally posted by leonheartmm
errrrrr, That's not what i was asking. irrespective of that, the fact remains that it is mandatory on every muslim to kill sum1 who insults the prophet by the quran/hadith . true or untrue??? so cant a terrorist use that as an excuse to blow up "civilians" who have almost definately commited such a "sin" ?? and they support in wars which drive out muslims from their homes as i said before. also they fulfill the criteria of spreading "mischief" in any land the muslims claim is owned by them. so again u havent replied to it.


Though I'm not a scholar , I know for sure that its the government duty to apply the law NOT any muslim go and kill any one who insult the prophet as you claim . Yet , in Quran there's no such clearly order to punish them (unless you've read something about it) and as I know at least from the Quranic teaching to "repel evil with what is better"(Fussilat 41:34)



Originally posted by leonheartmm
did i say it was from the quran? fact remains the prophet and ",muslims" still enforced it. also, a "spokesperson" with authority said that they wudnt violate the judgement of the torah. i already explains how he was probably brainwashed/didnt represent the dissenting women/didnt represent the will of the children who are too young to know of such matters, and on top pf everything, cud easily have been overridden by the prophet who cud SEE that it was the wrong decision. i mean, i dont beleive any shariah court should kill a person because they injured another person slightly. even if the VICTIM themselves wants to be killed for whatever personal beleifs. the victim shud rather be referred to a psychiatrist and NOT given the punishment they WANT. because it is still unjust, and any waise man can see it. im assuming the prophet and muslims were wrong in doing this fatima..


well I dont think so , the prophet forgave them when they breached the agreement in the first time and honestly that was VERY merciful . the Muslim army, which by the highest estimates was only one thousand-strong, was facing a ten thousand-strong army in full arms .They perhaps could be killed by them(jews) and you telling me that this still unjust and this was SLIGHTLY injury .just like any criminal, they were a massive threat to the public security of the society and they deserve to be treated this way .

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Nope. I was facetiously parodying their reporting attitude.
(A bit too well maybe lol)
The fact that that was just real enough to be in question for a sec though,
speaks volumes for the fact-based reporting that one can be accustomed to from the Bush netw- Ah, I mean Fox Network.

I think that religion has been used to guide people like puppets at a deranged show though.

Its like that quote... can't remember the originator, but the words were to the effect of:
"You can get good people to do good things.
You can also get bad people to do good things,
But to get good people to do bad things, you need to involve religion."

lol I see ..Now its the time to vote for Democrats and get rid of those bastards

Originally posted by Fatima



Though I'm not a scholar , I know for sure that its the government duty to apply the law NOT any muslim go and kill any one who insult the prophet as you claim . Yet , in Quran there's no such clearly order to punish them (unless you've read something about it) and as I know at least from the Quranic teaching to "repel evil with what is better"(Fussilat 41:34)

Right its just some other people who are allowed to do it?


Originally posted by Fatima

well I dont think so , the prophet forgave them when they breached the agreement in the first time and honestly that was VERY merciful . the Muslim army, which by the highest estimates was only one thousand-strong, was facing a ten thousand-strong army in full arms .They perhaps could be killed by them(jews) and you telling me that this still unjust and this was SLIGHTLY injury .just like any criminal, they were a massive threat to the public security of the society and they deserve to be treated this way .

If Mohammed had just left everybody alone like they asked none of that would have happened in the first place.

Originally posted by Fatima
lol I see ..Now its the time to vote for Democrats and get rid of those bastards

If we vote Dempocrat the terrorists win.

true. but from my argument, they cud alos be seen as equally good muslims. THAT is what i asked u to address






i cud simply call it a contradiction. but that wud spark an off topic debate. fact remains that it is mandatory on every muslim to slay a person who has knowingly blasphemed against the prophet or allah .




your not adressing the question posted, here ill repost it so you can re read and re reply to it.



n it wasnt very merciful. as i said that a lot of the men, almost all of the women and none of the children had any part in it so its wrong to make them suffer. the women andchildren were neither a threat nor criminals, same goes for the a lot of the men too, they did in NO WAY deserve to be treated the way they were by the muslims in the end. that is a very wrong thing to say. i think we must admit the instances the muslims were in the right AND the instances where muslims and the prophet were in the wrong. and this is one of those instances fatima. there is really no way to justify it.

Originally posted by Fatima
What did the Quran mentioned is never commit aggression , fighting is allowed only for self-defense. Fighting must never be against non-combatants or non-fighting personnel.


How is "Slay the unbelievers where ever you find them" (Sura II: The Cow) promote self-defense? That's an order to search and destroy, regardless if the unbeliever is a combatant or not.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
How is "Slay the unbelievers where ever you find them" (Sura II: The Cow) promote self-defense? That's an order to search and destroy, regardless if the unbeliever is a combatant or not.

in all due fairness though, that verse is directly related to the exact time of war, and i beleive if u continue reading, it is directly followerd by sumthing like "but if they make/declare peace, than dont raise watever-watever against them{basically saying that it is illegal to even cut a person after the proclamation of peace even if just before, your sword was swinging to cut their neck"

There is no Terrorism in Islam, only people who blow up people,cars and buildings and try to force there ideology on others.

Originally posted by TRH
There is no Terrorism in Islam, only people who blow up people,cars and buildings and try to force there ideology on others.

Oh No? Sorry I think not my friend.Must i bring up Farfur(I think that's how it's spelled)Thier Mickey Mouse that teaches To kill those how don't belive in their tin god.

Lets not bring up the second class citienship of Jews, & christains

Originally posted by leonheartmm
in all due fairness though, that verse is directly related to the exact time of war, and i beleive if u continue reading, it is directly followerd by sumthing like "but if they make/declare peace, than dont raise watever-watever against them{basically saying that it is illegal to even cut a person after the proclamation of peace even if just before, your sword was swinging to cut their neck"

Actually, that exact line is repeated several times through out the Koran, it just makes it's first appearance in the second Sura. In fact, the Koran is a book of many repititions; it constantly and periodically reminds you to kill unbelievers, the dietary laws, how to conduct your marriage, manage your business and so on.

And the line I quoted isn't just referring to times of conflict.

Originally posted by Shalimar_fox
Must i bring up Farfur(I think that's how it's spelled)Thier Mickey Mouse that teaches To kill those how don't belive in their tin god.


.....what.....in the hell are you talking about??

Originally posted by Quiero Mota



.....what.....in the hell are you talking about??

He might be talking abut when Umar conquered a land he made the jewes and christians wear different colours to muslims. UMar was guaranteed heaven, but in all fairness not all muslim rulers did this.

but again, muhammad said that as lomng as the first 4 caliphs ruled{or was it first 3}, his nation wud never choose the wroong path or they will never go astray. umar was the second caliph after abu bakr wasnt he. so either his actions shud be taken as right and in the bounds of islam, or it shud be admitted that the prophet muhammad was wrong in making the claim.
fact is, islam is pretty much like most other organised relegions out there, nuthing better or worse.

Originally posted by Shalimar_fox
Oh No? Sorry I think not my friend.Must i bring up Farfur(I think that's how it's spelled)Thier Mickey Mouse that teaches To kill those how don't belive in their tin god.

Lets not bring up the second class citienship of Jews, & christains Sorry,what?

Islam + bad clothing = Me wanting to eat French fries and forget the stupidity.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Islam + bad clothing = Me wanting to eat French fries and forget the stupidity.

Give me some of that... You are having why to much fun.

But you always hog it!

refering to the Al Aqsa TV children show made Mickey Mouse clone, that is aimed at children spewing propaganda against Israel and USA and so on

Originally posted by leonheartmm
fact is, islam is pretty much like most other organised relegions out there, nuthing better or worse.

co-sign!

It depends where in the world Islam is followed. Here in the United States, there are very few Muslims who try to hurt people. Most of them are just trying to live thier own lives, like you and myself.


If you go to specific regions of the "third world", where poverty and violence run amok, you will ofcourse witness the ugly side of Islam.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
It depends where in the world Islam is followed. Here in the United States, there are very few Muslims who try to hurt people. Most of them are just trying to live thier own lives, like you and myself...

That is because they have been corrupted. jk

lolz

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
It depends where in the world Islam is followed. Here in the United States, there are very few Muslims who try to hurt people. Most of them are just trying to live thier own lives, like you and myself.


Because they're heavily outnumbered.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is because they have been corrupted. jk

Technically, yes. According to the Koran.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Because they're heavily outnumbered..


Are you implying that if the Muslims in the USA weren't outnumbered, they would go around hurting people ?

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Are you implying that if the Muslims in the USA weren't outnumbered, they would go around hurting people ?

I'm not implying anything, I just answered your question. American Muslims are less vocal that Muslims in Muslim-majority nations.

Do you think Muslims, in general, are happier here or in the Arab regions ?

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Do you think Muslims, in general, are happier here or in the Arab regions ?

Do you mean "in the Arab nations"?

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Do you think Muslims, in general, are happier here or in the Arab regions ?

I don't know about "happier", but they feel safer because there's more of their brethren.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you mean "in the Arab nations"?

Pick one. Either applies.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I don't know about "happier", but they feel safer because there's more of their brethren.



You truly think they feel safer in the Arab Nations where the Laws are far harsher ?

I mean I don't know either, I could be wrong. I'm sure there are American bigots here in the U.S.A. who harass Muslims left and right, but nothing in our Law permits abuse of these people based on thier religion or lifestyle.

In thier nations, however, they can get thier hands cut off for stealing, and forget about women....they don't even have to try hard to be punished.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
You truly think they feel safer in the Arab Nations where the Laws are far harsher ?

I mean I don't know either, I could be wrong. I'm sure there are American bigots here in the U.S.A. who harass Muslims left and right, but nothing in our Law permits abuse of these people based on thier religion or lifestyle.

In thier nations, however, they can get thier hands cut off for stealing, and forget about women....they don't even have to try hard to be punished.

I wouldn't be surprised to see women prefer to be in American or European cultures. But I suspect that many Muslims feel equally secure in Arab nations, (or at least the ones surrounded by fellow believers of their own religion).

As for theft...I suspect that people who are raised from birth to believe theft deserves the loss of a hand are far less likely to be tempted to steal. Sure there are exceptions. But I doubt that America's relative leeway toward convicts applies to most Muslims.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
You truly think they feel safer in the Arab Nations where the Laws are far harsher ?

I mean I don't know either, I could be wrong. I'm sure there are American bigots here in the U.S.A. who harass Muslims left and right, but nothing in our Law permits abuse of these people based on thier religion or lifestyle.

In thier nations, however, they can get thier hands cut off for stealing, and forget about women....they don't even have to try hard to be punished.

Well the ones who lived there all their lives have nothing else to go by, so that's really all they've ever known.

My son has a few Saudi friends at WUSL, and he says they go to bars a lot, party etc. and damn near all of them sigh and say "Yes" when some one asks them if they're going home for the summer. So apparantly they consider Sharia backwards once they experience life outside it.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Well the ones who lived there all their lives have nothing else to go by, so that's really all they've ever known.

My son has a few Saudi friends at WUSL, and he says they go to bars a lot, party etc. and damn near all of them sigh and say "Yes" when some one asks them if they're going home for the summer. So apparantly they consider Sharia backwards once they experience life outside it.

I think the two problems are:


1) The amount of Fear the Law puts into the minds of young men and women, basically constricting thier personal growth. (Not that they won't grow to be great and progessive people, just that thier chances to learn and open are much smaller when they are forced to be so closed and reserved).


2) The amount of racism and xenophobia they face when they live in some areas of the U.S.A. and Europe (and other nations). Ignorant people from other areas will pressure them to the point where sometimes they won't want to integrate into another society.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
It depends where in the world Islam is followed. Here in the United States, there are very few Muslims who try to hurt people. Most of them are just trying to live thier own lives, like you and myself.


If you go to specific regions of the "third world", where poverty and violence run amok, you will ofcourse witness the ugly side of Islam.

Of course, but all religions can be used to motivate people for violence, especially in desperate situations.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I think the two problems are:


1) The amount of Fear the Law puts into the minds of young men and women, basically constricting thier personal growth. (Not that they won't grow to be great and progessive people, just that thier chances to learn and open are much smaller when they are forced to be so closed and reserved).


2) The amount of racism and xenophobia they face when they live in some areas of the U.S.A. and Europe (and other nations). Ignorant people from other areas will pressure them to the point where sometimes they won't want to integrate into another society.

You sure about that?

In America, the Muslim minority has integrated into society even more than Mexican, or in many ways, black minority groups.

Europe, maybe, but in America, middle eastern immigrants do try to fit into society.

Originally posted by inimalist
In America, the Muslim minority has integrated into society even more than Mexican, or in many ways, black minority groups.

Europe, maybe, but in America, middle eastern immigrants do try to fit into society.

Thing is though a middle eastern immigrants isnt always the same as a "muslim", yeah they're religon islam but that doesnt mean they practice it.

wusl is what exactly?

Originally posted by Alfheim
Thing is though a middle eastern immigrants isnt always the same as a "muslim", yeah they're religon islam but that doesnt mean they practice it.

indeed

that could also read "middle eastern muslim" immigrants

true, but things like guantanamo bay and the patriot act make many reconsider whether the less sever arab countries arent a good option. ofcourse, there, we recently had a women who was gang raped, ordered to be lashed 200 times and spend 3 or was it 6, years in jail for being with non mehram men alone. while the rapists got nuthing.

kinda hard to choose. {greater majority of "practicing" muslims are unhappy as are the greater number of "practicing" christians/jews/hindus} we must realise that a vast percentage{probably a majority} isnt "practicing" or "adhering" . most dont even know fully about their own scriptures etc, relying more on culture and custom.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
true, but things like guantanamo bay and the patriot act make many reconsider whether the less sever arab countries arent a good option. ofcourse, there, we recently had a women who was gang raped, ordered to be lashed 200 times and spend 3 or was it 6, years in jail for being with non mehram men alone. while the rapists got nuthing.

kinda hard to choose. {greater majority of "practicing" muslims are unhappy as are the greater number of "practicing" christians/jews/hindus} we must realise that a vast percentage{probably a majority} isnt "practicing" or "adhering" . most dont even know fully about their own scriptures etc, relying more on culture and custom.

I'd hardly call Saudi Arabia (where the woman was charged with not being accompanied by a male) a less severe arab nation.

Things like quantanamo and the patriot act should make all people, arab or not, skeptical of America and integrating into THAT lifestyle (most americans as individuals do not support much of the actions of the administration).

What I mean by integration are things like home ownership, isolated communities, gangs, unemployment or political involvement. By and large, muslim immigrants from the middle east are (maybe only behind the asians) one of the most well integrated immigrant groups in america.

I see no reason to tell someone who claims on a census that they are a muslim that they are not a muslim. I'll let Qutb make those kind of accusations.

Originally posted by anaconda
wusl is what exactly?

Washington University at St. Louis.

oh.......thought they wrote it WUSTL, but cant be right all the time

That's another way of writing it. Or simply WashU.

ohoh 3 ways to write it, must be great for those prinitng the Uni sweaters then

MSU is much much better!!!

RAH RAH RAH......

Originally posted by debbiejo
MSU is much much better!!!

RAH RAH RAH......

Mississippi, Maine, Montana, Michigan or Missouri?

Michigan...........GO BLUE!!

Wolverines > Spartans

Well, I'm more of a Red Wings fan anyway.......wrong season, I know..

Razorbacks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ali Baba

Originally posted by anaconda
Razorbacks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You go to Arkie?

used to live there

Originally posted by anaconda
Razorbacks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Isn't that another name for hog tying?

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
If you kill mass people, blow up buildings, or spread fear of any kind, than you are a terrorist


Please stop trying to redefine a universal concept.

so i suppose that includes britain and america?

Originally posted by muslimscholar
so i suppose that includes britain and america?

It's a good thing America does everything it can to not kill innocent people.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It's a good thing America does everything it can to not kill innocent people. Sometimes.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It's a good thing America does everything it can to not kill innocent people.

Ahaha...

No wait, you were serious.

Ahahahahahaha!

imho, the big "difference" between America and "terrorists" is the deliberate targeting of civilian centers, or the use of mass murder as a tactic.

While America does kill many, many, MANY innocent people needlessly, they do so as "collateral damage". Whereas in Islamic terror, it is the specific point.

This isn't a moral distinction in my books, just one of classification.

How do you call bombing schools, hospitals or an aspirin factory?

Not saying they're the same, im just pointing out that their means of getting what they want are not that different.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
How do you call bombing schools, hospitals or an aspiring factory?

Not saying they're the same, im just pointing out that their means of getting what they want are not that different.


Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Ahaha...

No wait, you were serious.

Ahahahahahaha!

lil bitchiness has a point shaky

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It's a good thing America does everything it can to not kill innocent people.

.......... .......c'mon man.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
lil bitchiness has a point shaky

But she does not understand my point. America is not going after civilians because if they were, there would be no question about it.

Remember, Dresden, Tokyo, Nagasaki and Hiroshima. There was a time when America did attack civilians. The numbers of dead civilians today do not compare to the almost 1 million dead in the four cities above.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
How do you call bombing schools, hospitals or an aspirin factory?

Not saying they're the same, I'm just pointing out that their means of getting what they want are not that different.

my assumption in most of those cases is that there was at least some military reason for bombing those targets.

In the case of the aspirin factory, the Americans thought, mistakenly, that it was a chemical plant. The intent was not to cripple the Sudanese (Sudanese right?) pharmaceutical industry, even though that was the outcome.

I don't think warfare is by any means more moral of an option than terrorism, nor do I think warfare is any more discriminate in its killing of civilians. Maybe there is something to be said for the motivation, but killing is killing...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Remember, Dresden, Tokyo, Nagasaki and Hiroshima. There was a time when America did attack civilians. The numbers of dead civilians today do not compare to the almost 1 million dead in the four cities above.

QFT

Originally posted by inimalist
QFT

Quantum field theory?