Religion of Peace At It Again [Archive] - House of Politics

TruthAboveAll

06-30-2007, 08:29 PM

I'm still in awe of how this is "The religion of peace" If you wish to associate all muslims with this **** that the islamic extremists are doing, then I hereby proclaim all christians are a threat since some blew up an abortion clinic. Stop the stereotyping. The ratio of peaceful muslims to extremists in islam is likely on par with the ratio of violent christians to non violent (note that islam has many many more followers than christianity and thus more extremists are to be expected if the ratios are similar) While I'm speaking completely without base, so are you. This is derogatory and inflammatory and as a mod I believe you should try and stay focused on at least being somewhat servile to the Terms of Service.

Hold your horses there, buckaroo!

You said: ...islamic extremists are doing, then I hereby proclaim all christians are a threat since some blew up an abortion clinic...

What a preposterous comparison! We get a couple wacko Christians who take their personal interpretation of Christian principles and get motivated to go blow up an abortion clinic and compare that with a religion that is currently recruiting children as young as elementary school age to strap bombs on their bodies and go to crowded areas and take out as many infidels as possible? From the 1998 clinic bombing incident, to the Christian atrocities in Bosnia, to Hitler (who professed to be acting as a Christian but history has proven otherwise), to the Northern Ireland conflicts, to further back in history to the Crusades, and so on, Christians CONDEMN and for the most part are totally united in that condemnation. And yet you would use that as a comparison to what is going on in radical Muslim sects today?

You said: The ratio of peaceful muslims to extremists in islam is likely on par with the ratio of violent christians to non violent (note that islam has many many more followers than christianity and thus more extremists are to be expected if the ratios are similar)

This is totally erroneous. I have no idea where you get that sort of statistic. If you have any sort of reliable source, please site it here. It does not exist. As of 2005, Christianity made up 33.06% globally of people adhering to a religion. Muslims were 20.28%. This is from TV Canada, which is very much like the BBC or the United States PBS. They are supposed to be accurate in this type of documented information. Those percentages equate to 2.1 billion and 1.3 billion, respectively. You chose to cite an abortion clinic bombing. To give more credit, there were several clinic bombings and shooting incidents, from 1991 to 2003. These were all perpetrated by a group calling themselves the "Army of God." There are 16, yes only 16 confirmed participants in the activities of this group. Yet you would dare claim that there is parity in the ratios between violent Christians and violent Muslims?

You say: While I'm speaking completely without base, so are you. This is derogatory and inflammatory...

After making those incindiary claims you then note that you are speaking without base? USMC is NOT speaking without base. He was not generally condemning Muslims. They do claim the Religion of Peace title. You may wish to check this website, Religion of Peace (http://www.religionofpeace.com/); it's an excellent summation of what the MAJORITY of Muslims generally adhere to, no matter their sect but notably with some variations. I'm speaking in general, just as Christians in general claim the Religion of Salvation title.

And that is exactly where USMC is coming from. Through all the acts of violence and even atrocity against innocents, where has the outcry been from the greater Muslim community? Leaders have been few and far between condemning these acts. His claims were not without base. Yours certainly are, as you yourself admit. Therefore, YOUR statements are the derogatory and inflammatory ones.

To not be able to speak truthfully about events for fear of offending someone is political correctness to the extreme, and civility gone awry.

Afghan

07-01-2007, 12:57 AM

Islam is a religion of vilonce, ignorance, killing, bombs, suicide attacks and destroy every thing. The main victims of it are women who live like slaves under muslim men.
Even Mohammad, the founder, have killed and kidnapped hundreds of peoples.

OPGhostdog

07-01-2007, 06:02 AM

I am aware that not all Muslims are terrorists. Let's not be politically correct to the point of blindness here.
It is Muslims who currently pose the biggest threat to this country right
now.

THIS COUNTRY?? Damn USMC, Why are you so blinded to the fact
that we are not ANGELS neither. The US Gov't (again) is in more
conflicts worldwide then any other country global.
If Muslims is currently posing the biggest threat to this country
right now. Then tell me why is the government steadly allowing
people from Muslim nations to enter the United States? That
statement do not make any senses USMC.

Do you think that IF I knew that a so-called friend or neighbor
was a thief or child rapist, and I would go even farther to say
a killer that I would allow that person to be around my family?
So according to your statement you are making a claim that
my people is a threat, and yet they are coming into America
by the thousands per day.

[quote=USMC the Almighty] I think it is silly for Islam to refer to itself
as the "Religion of Peace" when its followers fly planes into American
buildings and then the so-called moderate Muslims in Israel are dancing
in the streets.

Again USMC, Your thinking is wrong against Sir, Why I am saying
that is because regardless to what you think Islam is a Religion
of Peace. Plus you are classifying ALL Muslims as people who fly
planes into buildings. Why don't you point your finger at the many
mistakes that our so-called US Gov't is making?

NOT ALL MUSLIMS TERRORIST. What's so hard to understand
about that? There is Muslims who is against terrorist. So why
that's not focused on like you are doing to terrorist?

Castle

07-01-2007, 06:27 PM

Again USMC, Your thinking is wrong against Sir, Why I am saying that is because regardless to what you think Islam is a Religion of Peace. Plus you are classifying ALL Muslims as people who fly planes into buildings. Why don't you point your finger at the many mistakes that our so-called US Gov't is making?

NOT ALL MUSLIMS TERRORIST. What's so hard to understand about that? There is Muslims who is against terrorist. So why that's not focused on like you are doing to terrorist?
Just an observation -
Imagine the glee of an Islamic extremist while reading your post. I expect that he or she couldn't thank you enough for redirecting the responsibility for their actions squarely at the feet of the US government. Oh the bliss of having a scapegoat for every malicious act I could commit knowing that you and your ilk could somehow rationalize my behavior.

I am curious. How does criticism of Islamic terrorism and the lack of a united Muslim voice against it take a back seat to the mistakes of the US government? While I concede that the US govt has and will continue to make mistakes, I fail to see how that absolves Islamic terrorists of any responsibility for their actions and precludes us from pointing this out. Please rationalize this for us.

-Castle

OPGhostdog

07-01-2007, 10:09 PM

Just an observation -
Imagine the glee of an Islamic extremist while reading your post. I expect that he or she couldn't thank you enough for redirecting the responsibility for their actions squarely at the feet of the US government. Oh the bliss of having a scapegoat for every malicious act I could commit knowing that you and your ilk could somehow rationalize my behavior.

I am curious. How does criticism of Islamic terrorism and the lack of a united Muslim voice against it take a back seat to the mistakes of the US government? While I concede that the US govt has and will continue to make mistakes, I fail to see how that absolves Islamic terrorists of any responsibility for their actions and precludes us from pointing this out. Please rationalize this for us.

-Castle

What I SHOULD have said was...All Muslims are NOT Terrorist.
That's what I meant to say in my post, due to the fact that
most Americans do believe that all Muslims are alike.
So what you want me to do....lie about how our government
really is? I do not have to be a Extremist to express what I see,
and what I don't like.

Hell Yeah...I am pissed about how people lose their lifes in a
un called for War. Now to reply to your scapegoat statement.
Hell Yeah the government is using innocent people as a
scapegoat, and I did not bite my lips.

OR is the American government being used as a scapegoat
in the middle east? However I doult that very seriously, due
to the fact that we entered into a conflict that really did not
concern us.

I was watching Cleopatra tonight on TBS, and to see the
conflict between the Egyptians & Romans for power gave
me a insight concerning the Holy War. Now we have jumped
in the holy war its now a War to control oil.

In closing...In all due respect who really care about your
behavior. :D I was raised up in a family environment where
the old saying was...if the shoe fits wear it, and I see that
it fit your feet cause your name isn't USMC.

Castle

07-02-2007, 03:18 AM

What I SHOULD have said was...All Muslims are NOT Terrorist. That's what I meant to say in my post, due to the fact that most Americans do believe that all Muslims are alike. So what you want me to do....lie about how our government really is? I do not have to be a Extremist to express what I see, and what I don't like.
"MOST Americans do believe that ALL Muslims are all alike" Why do you exaggerate? I'm sure some Americans believe that but it is, at the very least, dishonest for you to make that claim. Who is asking you to lie? I'm glad that you speak out when you don't like something. You must afford that right to others as well.

Hell Yeah...I am pissed about how people lose their lifes in a un called for War. Now to reply to your scapegoat statement. Hell Yeah the government is using innocent people as a scapegoat, and I did not bite my lips.. Ah yes, much like Islamic Jihad, Hamas and Al Qaeda have used the US and Israel for decades to justify their bloodbaths. Something to remember - These savage groups were slaughtering people long before we were in Afghanistan or Iraq in your so called "uncalled for" war.

OR is the American government being used as a scapegoat in the middle east? However I doult that very seriously, due to the fact that we entered into a conflict that really did not concern us
Exactly which conflict was it that didn't really concern us? I have my doubts about what we are doing there now but I have no questions about our involvement since 1991.

In closing...In all due respect who really care about your behavior. :D I was raised up in a family environment where the old saying was...if the shoe fits wear it, and I see that it fit your feet cause your name isn't USMC.
In the context of how I used "my behavior" if I were an Islamic terrorist, I am not surprised that you do not care. You appear to have another agenda.
Also, you are correct, my name is not USMC. If your rather obscure point is to suggest that I should not respond to a post you made in this forum, my suggestion to you would be to send a private message if you wish no one else to comment.

-Castle

OPGhostdog

07-02-2007, 05:23 AM

[quote=Castle] "MOST Americans do believe that ALL Muslims are all alike" Why do you exaggerate? I'm sure some Americans believe that but it is, at the very least, dishonest for you to make that claim. Who is asking you to lie? I'm glad that you speak out when you don't like something. You must afford that right to others as well.

I think that its very dis-honest and dis-respectful for Americans
to believe that All Muslims is alike. I can make any claim that I
choose to make if its defending what I believe in. As far as lying
.... I do not have to be a Extremist to express what I see or lie
about anything concerning what I dislike about our government.

What I call lying would be for me to say..Oh no Bush isn't in Iraq
because of oil, and I know damn well what the Middle East war is
all about.

When its comes down to my religion and faith I will speak out to
defend them. Just like most of you Americans defend Bush. I am
a American born citizen, but just because I am a citizen do not
mean that I have to agree with everything, and its my rights to
speak out especially after Viet Nam a senseless war.

USMC the Almighty

07-02-2007, 07:08 AM

What I SHOULD have said was...All Muslims are NOT Terrorist.
That's what I meant to say in my post, due to the fact that
most Americans do believe that all Muslims are alike.
So what you want me to do....lie about how our government
really is? I do not have to be a Extremist to express what I see,
and what I don't like.

We should listen to sensible Muslims like Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, general manager of the al-Arabiya news channel, who wrote in the Arab News two years ago what our own officials struggle to say:

"It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims. ... We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men.''

Furthermore, it doesn't help your case when a large sect of the Muslim population refuses to condemn the Islamic terrorism.

Hell Yeah...I am pissed about how people lose their lifes in a
un called for War. Now to reply to your scapegoat statement.
Hell Yeah the government is using innocent people as a
scapegoat, and I did not bite my lips.

OR is the American government being used as a scapegoat
in the middle east? However I doult that very seriously, due
to the fact that we entered into a conflict that really did not
concern us.

I was watching Cleopatra tonight on TBS, and to see the
conflict between the Egyptians & Romans for power gave
me a insight concerning the Holy War. Now we have jumped
in the holy war its now a War to control oil.

Come on, you can't really believe this.

KingBall

07-02-2007, 09:40 AM

Here's an article for all of you radical Islamic apologist.

In a nut shell it says what intellectually honest people knew all along and what apologist are too cowardly to admit.

I was a fanatic...I know their thinking, says former radical Islamist
By HASSAN BUTT - More by this author »

Last updated at 07:38am on 2nd July 2007

When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network - a series of British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology - I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the Government for our actions, those who pushed this "Blair's bombs" line did our propaganda work for us.

More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

More.....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=465570&in_page_id=1770

USMC the Almighty

07-02-2007, 10:35 AM

And though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice.

...the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a model of the world in which you are either a believer or an infidel.

Thanks for the article Kingball, here's another one:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,220506,00.html

KingBall

07-02-2007, 11:07 AM

Thanks for the article Kingball, here's another one:

He's pretty much saying the same thing.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,220506,00.html

HANNITY: So now you've changed your mindset. You feel like you were indoctrinated into this ideology of hate. We keep using the term Islamic fascist, and people don't like that term, but there is the use of religion to justify killing and hatred. You're saying you were a part of that.

ANANI: Yes, it's true. Because what you have brought up on teachings is exactly what is obstructed from the Koran itself, where it teaches you to hate and kill the others who are not Muslims.

USMC the Almighty

07-02-2007, 11:50 AM

I think that its very dis-honest and dis-respectful for Americans
to believe that All Muslims is alike.

When its comes down to my religion and faith I will speak out to defend them.

Well there's something that needs to be said to the so-called "moderate Muslims".

You people have a serious problem. You have radical elements in your ranks that are dragging you down and destroying your religion. This is your problem and you need to address it, and address it now.

It is not good enough to claim that you do not support terrorist. You must identify those in your own community that are terrorists, or supporters of terrorists and point them out. You must see that they are removed. You must remove Imams that preach hatred and violence in the Mosques. You must admonish those that teach hatred and murder to their children. You may even have to go to war with them and that war might be costly. But, it is your problem.

Either fix it yourself, and fix it now, or others, like the American military, will have to fix it for you. If you fail to clean your own house, then don’t expect those that practice this “religion of peace” to be welcome members of civilized nations and don’t expect someone else to sort out just who is peaceful and who is not.

Condemn radical Islam all you like, but until your actions match your words, I don't care what you say. If you sit idly by and allow it to continue, you are part of the problem.

rmbarron

07-02-2007, 12:24 PM

HANNITY: So now you've changed your mindset. You feel like you were indoctrinated into this ideology of hate. We keep using the term Islamic fascist, and people don't like that term, but there is the use of religion to justify killing and hatred. You're saying you were a part of that.

ANANI: Yes, it's true. Because what you have brought up on teachings is exactly what is obstructed from the Koran itself, where it teaches you to hate and kill the others who are not Muslims.

Didn't really want to get in on this one, but come on?! Siting Sean Hannity?? I may be a little behind here, but the last time I checked, something on the order 0f 75% of people who listened to that windbag (or any Fox News for that matter) thought we had FOUND WMD's in Iraq and PROVEN the Saddam-Al Queada connection. I wouldn't try to prove a liberal point by siting Al Franken. Jeeze.

USMC the Almighty

07-02-2007, 12:50 PM

Didn't really want to get in on this one, but come on?! Siting Sean Hannity?? I may be a little behind here, but the last time I checked, something on the order 0f 75% of people who listened to that windbag (or any Fox News for that matter) thought we had FOUND WMD's in Iraq and PROVEN the Saddam-Al Queada connection. I wouldn't try to prove a liberal point by siting Al Franken. Jeeze.

He wasn't citing Sean Hannity, he was citing the former Islamic terrorist. We can argue about the WMDs/Saddam-AQI connection in another thread. This one is about the Religion of "Peace".

rmbarron

07-02-2007, 12:56 PM

[QUOTE=USMC the Almighty;15843]He wasn't citing Sean Hannity, he was citing the former Islamic terrorist. QUOTE]

One who was on Hannity's show. Even if you don't think the information is untrustworthy, you can't deny that the perception of his bias renders his opinions moot in a discussion such as this.

OPGhostdog

07-02-2007, 01:41 PM

You know what I am seeing USMC in you? I am seeing that you're
a true gung-ho Republician. The time that you served in the USMC
will be enbedded in your mind a lifetime, and you a true sign of
what Uncle Sam meant when he said...There's the Right way, the
Wrong way, but you will always do what I say.

[quote= USMC the Almighty] like the American military, will have
to fix it for you. USMC, The American military do not have to fix
chit for me. I was trained like you to fix things for myself.

Here's another quote from your post USMC......Condemn radical Islam all you like, but until your actions match your words, I don't care what you say. If you sit idly by and allow it to continue, you are part of the problem.

How am I part of the problem, and I am using my rights to protest
against Muslim terrorist as well as American bombing Iraq and Afgh.
Come on USMC, I thought you had retired of the service, and here
you are about to have a heat stroke trying to prove me differently.

In closing. Again Hell Yeah I believe what I posted about the
Egyptians and the Romans. Here is a site that talks about the
matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra_VII_of_Egypt
Again my bottomline was to show that Wars was happening way
before your present Middle East conflicts aka Holy Wars.

USMC the Almighty

07-02-2007, 02:47 PM

You know what I am seeing USMC in you? I am seeing that you're a true gung-ho Republician. The time that you served in the USMC will be enbedded in your mind a lifetime, and you a true sign of
what Uncle Sam meant when he said...There's the Right way, the Wrong way, but you will always do what I say.

What are you talking about? I am merely advocating Sun Tzu's first rule of war -- "know they enemy".

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle." - Sun Tzu, Art of War

How am I part of the problem, and I am using my rights to protest
against Muslim terrorist as well as American bombing Iraq and Afgh.

I just told you. If Islam is truly a religion of "peace" of which has a theology that does not advocate terrorism, then prove it. The so-called "moderate Muslims" have to be willing to stand up against the extremists (which you claim are only a minority) and prevent them from perversing your "peaceful" religion. Islam will never have its name separated the terrorism until this occurs.

And I don't mean sitting behind your computer and posting on the internet. That does not constitute standing up to terrorist wing of your religion.

Castle

07-02-2007, 06:17 PM

One who was on Hannity's show. Even if you don't think the information is untrustworthy, you can't deny that the perception of his bias renders his opinions moot in a discussion such as this.
So.......let me guess - If we move this interview to CNN or BBC it instantly becomes more credible to you? Wow!

-Castle

r0beph

07-02-2007, 10:20 PM

What are you talking about? I am merely advocating Sun Tzu's first rule of war -- "know they enemy".

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle." - Sun Tzu, Art of War

I just told you. If Islam is truly a religion of "peace" of which has a theology that does not advocate terrorism, then prove it. The so-called "moderate Muslims" have to be willing to stand up against the extremists (which you claim are only a minority) and prevent them from perversing your "peaceful" religion. Islam will never have its name separated the terrorism until this occurs.

And I don't mean sitting behind your computer and posting on the internet. That does not constitute standing up to terrorist wing of your religion.

Ask any victims of the IRA bombings their thoughts on the Irish Christian, then sir use this as your failing argument. Media has bent your poor mind, I suggest some time for intellysis of fact from fiction. Your claims are a bit broad reaching and overgeneralized, it really saddens me to see someone having the inability to separate the overzealous reckoning of rating based news outlets who love the conflict from fact.

r0beph

07-02-2007, 10:21 PM

So.......let me guess - If we move this interview to CNN or BBC it instantly becomes more credible to you? Wow!

-Castle

Sure why not, if it supports your argument I'm sure you'd have little to say on it's value as evidence.

USMC the Almighty

07-03-2007, 09:45 AM

Ask any victims of the IRA bombings their thoughts on the Irish Christian, then sir use this as your failing argument. Media has bent your poor mind, I suggest some time for intellysis of fact from fiction.

What does this have to do w/ Islamic terrorism?

Your claims are a bit broad reaching and overgeneralized

How?

marilynj55

07-03-2007, 05:05 PM

So.......let me guess - If we move this interview to CNN or BBC it instantly becomes more credible to you? Wow!

-Castle

Uh, yeah. Are you ****ing kidding me?

Castle

07-03-2007, 07:22 PM

Uh, yeah. Are you ****ing kidding me?

Ahhh, you buy into that sort of thing. I see well.......
http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/4184/mediabk5.th.jpg (http://img518.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mediabk5.jpg)

Watchemoket

07-06-2007, 08:37 AM

OK, aside from the issue of biased news coverage by Fox and others, there were TWO stories posted above - one from Fox and one from the (London?) Daily News. Discounting for a moment the possibly biased way in which either story MAY have been presented, the SOURCES of each of the stories were apparently presenting first-hand information.
I was particularly impressed by the Daily News story by a British Muslim who explained that it is a basic tenet of Muslim theology that the world (and the people in it) is divided between Muslims and infidels (read "US" and "Them"). I had not seen this aspect of the overall conflict before reading this story. I believed (like OPGhostDog apparently believes) that Islam is as peaceful as is Christianity at its core and that it is just a small portion of adherents who are extremist enough to use terrorist tactics in the name of their religion.
The Daily News story makes it clear that, at least in the case of the "British Jihadist" group, this may not be accurate. That group, at least, claims a theological basis for their activities - and the 'moderate' Muslims who won't argue for a different interpretation of their scriptures are enablers when they say nothing in the face of senseless killing of innocent victims just because they are not Muslims.
I am re-thinking my beiefs about this whole issue.

Coyote

07-06-2007, 08:55 AM

Is any religion truely peaceful?

USMC the Almighty

07-06-2007, 09:34 AM

I believed (like OPGhostDog apparently believes) that Islam is as peaceful as is Christianity at its core and that it is just a small portion of adherents who are extremist enough to use terrorist tactics in the name of their religion.

I've never seen anything in the Bible that advocates killing those who do not buy into the Christian religion("infidels" as Mohammed would call them). Secondly, the "small portion" of Islam's irreconcilable wing is somewhere between 39 and 50 million people. This is very disturbing.

USMC the Almighty

07-06-2007, 09:36 AM

Is any religion truely peaceful?

How many religions refer to themself as the "Religion of Peace". At any rate, Islamists today aren't making a very good case for themselves.

DrWho

07-06-2007, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by Coyote View Post
Is any religion truely peaceful?

Christianity is, but it's followers are sometimes not. Guess some of them are not following to closely are they?

Coyote

07-06-2007, 12:45 PM

No, Christianity isn't. Some would like to believe it but both testements contain violent verbage, and history is proof of it's violence.

Coyote

07-06-2007, 12:45 PM

How many religions refer to themself as the "Religion of Peace". At any rate, Islamists today aren't making a very good case for themselves.

Are those Muslims who refer to their faith as "relgion of peace" engaged in terroristic activities?

Coyote

07-06-2007, 12:53 PM

I've never seen anything in the Bible that advocates killing those who do not buy into the Christian religion("infidels" as Mohammed would call them). Secondly, the "small portion" of Islam's irreconcilable wing is somewhere between 39 and 50 million people. This is very disturbing.

In Luke 19:22-27, Jesus orders killed anyone who refuses to be ruled by him.

Deuteronomy also has some nasty stuff about unbelievers.

"And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God..." (Deuteronomy 13: 5)

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;" (Deuteronomy 13: 6)

Now...the Quaran has statements against forcing religion on others, yet Muslim leaders have sometimes threatened to kill unbelievers if they did not accept Islam. But...surprise...so have Christian leaders...

Beginning around the ninth century, though, another important evolution of Christian thinking occurred. Killing unbelievers was actually declared by popes Leo IV and John VIII to be spiritually beneficial for Christian soldiers: Their sins could be erased if they killed in defense of the Church. In the year 1095, Pope Urban II launched the First Crusade, urging European leaders to rescue the Christian holy lands from their non-Christian occupiers. He referred to the Muslims who then controlled Palestine as an "unclean nation" that had polluted Christian holy places. Killing Muslims became itself a form of penance for Christians for remission of their sins. Moral rules governing the conduct of war were abandoned, and unlimited tactics were permitted. No one was immune from attack by Christian crusaders; whole cities were slaughtered. (Halsall)
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/Perry/holywar.html

DrWho

07-06-2007, 01:57 PM

No, Christianity isn't. Some would like to believe it but both testements contain violent verbage, and history is proof of it's violence.

Since the beginning of Christianity (let's just say 1 AD for sake of argument)
the Bible has not advocated violence. The lack of advocation of violence is so obvious that many think it advocates pacifism.

None of the wars or acts of violence since 1 AD (and quite a long time before that) have been endorsed by the Bible. In all honesty there is predicted to be a war near the end times. I do not know enough about it to know if it will be a defensive war, but that would be my expectation.

Nevertheless, between the birth of Christ and the war at the end of the world Christians are suppose to be peace loving. When they are not blame the individual and not the religion.

If the war at the end of the world is a just war then it could hardly be used as proof that Christianity is not peace loving.

DrWho

07-06-2007, 02:32 PM

In Luke 19:22-27, Jesus orders killed anyone who refuses to be ruled by him.

This is a PARABLE (it says it is a parable) indicating that in the afterlife those who do not believe will lose their lives. Since spirits cannot die what it really means is that they will not be permitted to live in heaven with God.

Can you find any Christian group (even some fringe but still Christian group) that thinks this means on earth Christians should kill non-believers? More importantly what have virtually all Christian scholars said about this passage?

It is a dangerous thing to blame others for the interpretations you put onto their ideas.

Deuteronomy also has some nasty stuff about unbelievers.

"And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God..." (Deuteronomy 13: 5)

This passage is not speaking about unbelievers. It says right in the beginning that it is talking about prophets. More in a moment.

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;" (Deuteronomy 13: 6)

The Jewish people belonged to a state with it's own internal laws. The fact that Jews had capital punishment for their own people is not proof that Christianity is a religion that wants to go out and kill unbelievers.

Beginning around the ninth century, though, another important evolution of Christian thinking occurred. Killing unbelievers was actually declared by popes Leo IV and John VIII to be spiritually beneficial for Christian soldiers: Their sins could be erased if they killed in defense of the Church. In the year 1095, Pope Urban II launched the First Crusade, urging European leaders to rescue the Christian holy lands from their non-Christian occupiers. He referred to the Muslims who then controlled Palestine as an "unclean nation" that had polluted Christian holy places. Killing Muslims became itself a form of penance for Christians for remission of their sins. Moral rules governing the conduct of war were abandoned, and unlimited tactics were permitted. No one was immune from attack by Christian crusaders; whole cities were slaughtered. (Halsall)
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/Perry/holywar.html

[/QUOTE]

Pope Urban and the Crusades are problematic but still it is reflective of the Pope and the people around him and not of Christianity. The pope was not without fault but the crusades were not as evil as you might imagine. The crusades were the Pope's response to a plea from the Byzantines for help as they were being attacked. It was a war in defense of a helpless people.

All in all the Bible (the source of Christian doctrine) endorses an extreme form of peace and may or may not permit just wars or pacifism depending on who you ask.

By the way here is the very next sentence after the quote you provided.

"Tragically, some advocates of aggressive religious war can still be found today in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. What they cannot legitimately claim, though, is that their position is the authentic expression of their faith. Every major religious tradition contains ethical principles that are incompatible with total war."

Is it really honest to provide the first quote and not the second? I have seen enough of your posts to assume it was an honest mistake.

Coyote

07-06-2007, 05:04 PM

Since the beginning of Christianity (let's just say 1 AD for sake of argument)
the Bible has not advocated violence. The lack of advocation of violence is so obvious that many think it advocates pacifism.

There is plenty of violence advocated in the OT - and like it or not, it is as much a part of Christianity as the NT. The NT itself is not devoid of violence either. Certain Christian sects and individuals have certainly latched onto it as justification for bloodshed.

None of the wars or acts of violence since 1 AD (and quite a long time before that) have been endorsed by the Bible. In all honesty there is predicted to be a war near the end times. I do not know enough about it to know if it will be a defensive war, but that would be my expectation.

It's all endorsed by the Bible - it just depends on who does the interpreting and how. That's the problem. Any religion can be perverted.

Nevertheless, between the birth of Christ and the war at the end of the world Christians are suppose to be peace loving. When they are not blame the individual and not the religion.

That applies to most religions: blame the individual, not the religion.

If the war at the end of the world is a just war then it could hardly be used as proof that Christianity is not peace loving.

Christianity has been the excuse for horrendous bloodshed. Like Islam it is hardly a "relgion of peace" in practice. As Ghandi said: I like your Christ, it's your Christians I can't stand.

USMC the Almighty

07-06-2007, 05:08 PM

That's the problem. Any religion can be perverted.

These days it seems that there's primarily one religion being perverted and sadly, the so-called "moderate" members of that religion are silent in denouncing what they refer to as the minority irreconcilable wing.

Coyote

07-06-2007, 05:16 PM

This is a PARABLE (it says it is a parable) indicating that in the afterlife those who do not believe will lose their lives. Since spirits cannot die what it really means is that they will not be permitted to live in heaven with God.

Can you find any Christian group (even some fringe but still Christian group) that thinks this means on earth Christians should kill non-believers? More importantly what have virtually all Christian scholars said about this passage?

It is a dangerous thing to blame others for the interpretations you put onto their ideas.
[/quote]

See, this is where I have a problem with Christians...you interpret the Bible in parables. But then you interpret all the Quran literally. Both are steeped in context, the culture of an ancient world, both were translated from other languages - the Bible in particular, many times over. Arabic does not translate literally into english very well - it's a very poetic language.

For example, Jihad is an Arabic word that means "striving in the way of God." This striving can take a number of forms, including the daily inner struggle to be a better person. However, jihad is often used to refer to an armed struggle fought in defense of Islam. Muslim scholars (not fundamentalists) will adhere to the former meaning. Fundamentalists - and many Christians insist on the latter.

You say: "It is a dangerous thing to blame others for the interpretations you put onto their ideas." I agree. Why don't you apply that to Islam?

Christians make excuses for the excesses of their religion - but they condemn other religions for those same excesses. Why?

I think that true Christians and true Muslims look for the spirituality and compassion that is inherent in their religions - but any religion is easy to pervert.

USMC the Almighty

07-06-2007, 05:20 PM

Christians make excuses for the excesses of their religion - but they condemn other religions for those same excesses. Why?

You've got this backwards. In the few instances that an abortion clinic was bombed in the name of "Christianity" you had unquestionable condemnation throughout the entire faith -- top to bottom. The condemnation is not followed by the word "but" like the Islamists do today. It is honest and straightforward: "Our religion will not tolerate extremists".

Islam on the other hand, well the silence is deafening.

Coyote

07-06-2007, 05:25 PM

These days it seems that there's primarily one religion being perverted and sadly, the so-called "moderate" members of that religion are silent in denouncing what they refer to as the minority irreconcilable wing.

They are not silent.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132244,00.html
http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/12/stories/2006021205281400.htm
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=052207B

Exploding the myth of Muslim silence
http://midtopia.blogspot.com/2007/05/exploding-myth-of-muslim-silence.html

That's the purpose of an interesting piece by Stephen Schwartz, author of "The Two Faces of Islam."

In it he argues that the media ignores moderate Muslims while covering the radicals in lavish, horrific detail, painting a distorted picture of the faith. The centerpiece of the article is a deconstruction of coverage of the plot to attack Fort Dix. He notes that the plotters weren't, as first assumed, Kosovo Albanian Muslims. They were, instead, ethnic Albanians from Macedonia who came here as children and were radicalized in Arab-dominated Wahhabi mosques. His point is that the media misses distinctions between different kinds of Muslims, lumping peaceful, moderate Albanians in with violent Wahhabis.

He then cites several examples of Muslim commentary on the case -- all of it condemning the plot -- that he says got scant coverage.

I didn't follow the Fort Dix story closely enough to judge whether he's right on that score, but the piece once again points up the intellectual bankruptcy of those who demand that Muslims "speak out" against terror. Continuing to make that argument ignores several relevant facts:

1. They do. All the time. I've cited multiple examples in the past year.

2. Demands that Muslims take the lead assume that moderate Muslims have some sort of connection to (or influence over) the extremists. What are (for example) American Muslims supposed to do: Call up Al-Qaeda and yell at them? They don't have AQ's number any more than you or I do, nor will their words be heeded any more than yours or mine.

3. Few groups spend a lot of time flagellating themselves for the extremists in their midst.

Let's expand on that last point for a moment because it's an important one, tied in with assumptions about group identity that simply are not true.

The underlying logic of the "Muslims must denounce terrorism" goes as follows: The terrorists are Islamic, and therefore Muslims have a particular duty to denounce Islamic terror.

This is reasonable to an extent: disavowing the nutjobs operating under your banner is sometimes necessary.

But where it goes off the rails is when people demand that every Muslim denounce every act of Islamic terror every time one occurs.

This is ridiculous. Every time a Christian commits murder, are Christians obligated to go on television and state the obvious -- that murder is wrong and the offender doesn't represent Christian views?

Of course not. They can simply state once (or occasionally) that murder is wrong and unChristian. Actually, they don't even have to do that; it's considered obvious that murder is wrong, so they aren't required to say anything. Silence is not assent in such cases.

So why are Muslims treated differently? Because groups are always good at pointing out the mote in other groups' eyes, even while giving their own members the benefit of the doubt. Do conservatives regularly call out nutjob conservatives? No. Liberals do that, and conservatives disavow them if necessary. Do liberals regularly call out liberal nutjobs? No; conservatives do that, and then liberals disavow them if necessary.

In this country, who spends time identifying atheist/agnostic misbehavior? Believers. Who are most likely to point out believer wrongdoing? Atheists/agnostics.

Simply put, groups are horrible at policing their own, because doing so requires admitting some kinship between your own beliefs and those of the nutjobs -- admitting that your beliefs can be twisted to bad ends. No one likes doing that.

Beyond that, when you're in the group you know that the extremists are just that -- extremists, a tiny minority that do not represent the group as a whole. They are shunned, dismissed; psychologically, the majority separates themselves from the whackjobs to the point they no longer feel kinship with them -- and thus no particular responsibility to account for their actions. Hence Christians feel no particular need to respond every time a Christian misbehaves, and Muslims feel no particular need to respond every time a member of some fundamentalist sect detonates a car bomb.

This is especially true when the actions cross national and sectarian boundaries. Demanding that a mainstream American Muslim denounce fundamentalist terrorism is like demanding that Lutherans denounce the actions of Baptists -- or, more aptly, Christian Identity adherents. It's actually even sillier than that, because at least in the example above everyone involved is American. In the case of Islamic terror, we're demanding that American Muslims feel responsibility not just for another sect, but for another country and culture. So it's more like demanding that Lutherans apologize for the atrocities committed by the Lord's Resistance Army.

Now, political reality is a different matter, and not always fair; in this day and age, there is more political need for Muslims to speak out than there is for Christians. But that doesn't make demands that they do so any less illogical. Nor does it justify the assumptions made about them when they fail to speak up in any given instance.

USMC the Almighty

07-06-2007, 05:32 PM

Coyote

07-06-2007, 05:33 PM

You've got this backwards. In the few instances that an abortion clinic was bombed in the name of "Christianity" you had unquestionable condemnation throughout the entire faith -- top to bottom. The condemnation is not followed by the word "but" like the Islamists do today. It is honest and straightforward: "Our religion will not tolerate extremists".

Islam on the other hand, well the silence is deafening.

No you didn't.

Coyote

07-06-2007, 05:38 PM

There's a big difference between saying that you do not support terrorism from behind your computer and actually getting out there and ostracizing them from your religion.

There are, as you proved, some stand-up Muslim individual who are willing to denounce the irreconcilable wing but the religion as a whole is still failing to do anything about it (as evidenced by their continued, growing presence) and that's the problem.

There are more then some. And there are many Christian apologists who make excuses for the historical excesses of their own rleligion - ie, they weren't "real Christians". Yet they refuse to apply the same standard to other relgions. Interesting.

Here are more speaking out: http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm.

There was a virtual world wide condemnation from Muslims for the actions of the 9/11 terrorists too - including religious leaders and heads of state. As usual, that is ignored.

USMC the Almighty

07-06-2007, 05:42 PM

There was a virtual world wide condemnation from Muslims for the actions of the 9/11 terrorists too - including religious leaders and heads of state. As usual, that is ignored.

Perhpas because it was being overshadowed by some 2 million Palestinians celebrating in the streets.

USMC the Almighty

07-06-2007, 05:45 PM

There are more then some. And there are many Christian apologists who make excuses for the historical excesses of their own rleligion - ie, they weren't "real Christians". Yet they refuse to apply the same standard to other relgions. Interesting.

Because they weren't. These famous "Christian" terrorists almost never went to Church, knew very little about the Bible, the history of Christianity, or the religion on the whole.

Ever notice how when Christians become more and more religious ("born again"), they almost always end up helping people and doing good deeds. Whereas the more religious Muslims grow, the more likely they are to kill innocent civilians. Interesting.

DrWho

07-06-2007, 05:46 PM

See, this is where I have a problem with Christians...you interpret the Bible in parables.

I interpret it in parables where it says it is a parable. As in your example. In most other instances I interpret it literally except when it needs to be interpreted figuratively. Yes this requires judgement, but what doesn't.

But then you interpret all the Quran literally.

kind of a stereotypical statement from a person who has spent his life being stereotyped by others. There is no statement on this forum where I have interpreted the koran, unless my memory is really going south.

But in all honesty I have seen quotes from the Koran and they have looked pretty damning. For a few days I did judged Islam as a violent religion. I have since seen the light and know that these passages were taken out of context and purposely used to deceive me.

You say: "It is a dangerous thing to blame others for the interpretations you put onto their ideas." I agree. Why don't you apply that to Islam?

I did.

Christians make excuses for the excesses of their religion - but they condemn other religions for those same excesses. Why?

Because they are human. Just as you have condemned Christianity through your humanity.

I think that true Christians and true Muslims look for the spirituality and compassion that is inherent in their religions - but any religion is easy to pervert.

Yep. But it only takes a little tiny bit of honesty to see that the false interpretations are a crock. It is really harder to miss the mark than people make it out to be. It is very easy to mess up an interpretation of a single passage but when one considers the whole context of the bible people almost have to try to get the main points wrong.

Coyote

07-06-2007, 06:01 PM

I interpret it in parables where it says it is a parable. As in your example. In most other instances I interpret it literally except when it needs to be interpreted figuratively. Yes this requires judgement, but what doesn't.

kind of a stereotypical statement from a person who has spent his life being stereotyped by others. There is no statement on this forum where I have interpreted the koran, unless my memory is really going south.

But in all honesty I have seen quotes from the Koran and they have looked pretty damning. For a few days I did judged Islam as a violent religion. I have since seen the light and know that these passages were taken out of context and purposely used to deceive me.

I did.

Because they are human. Just as you have condemned Christianity through your humanity.

Yep. But it only takes a little tiny bit of honesty to see that the false interpretations are a crock. It is really harder to miss the mark than people make it out to be. It is very easy to mess up an interpretation of a single passage but when one considers the whole context of the bible people almost have to try to get the main points wrong.

Actually - I meant "you" in a generic way, not you specifically...I think, if I understand you right...we might be in agreement here...at least somewhat.

DrWho

07-06-2007, 06:22 PM

There's a big difference between saying that you do not support terrorism from behind your computer and actually getting out there and ostracizing them from your religion.

The Catholics have a long tradition of ex-communicating people who did not conform to the traditional views they held regarding their religion.

Ex-communication seems to have two sides. On the one hand it is a great way to make those who would commit acts of violence in the name of religion wake up or at least be distanced. A clear statement that their behavior was not endorsed. On the other hand People with different ideas that later turned out to be right-on were turned out too.

Maybe we can all be a little more tolerant of ex-communication now that we understand the positive side of it.

DrWho

07-06-2007, 08:01 PM

There is plenty of violence advocated in the OT - and like it or not, it is as much a part of Christianity as the NT. The NT itself is not devoid of violence either. Certain Christian sects and individuals have certainly latched onto it as justification for bloodshed.

Well I went to one of those websites where it finds everything bad about the Bible that can be found. They had 125 items that were allegedly violence in the NT. Really the list was just ridiculous. 'Jesus has a group of pigs that were filled with demons run off a cliff.' Excuse me if I just don't find that to be a problem. Out of the 125 I did not find any of them to be problematic. They were nothing more than someone trying to make mountains out of less than molehills.

RE: the OT. That would just be too complicated for us to go into. I don't have a problem with the violence there, someone else might. For me, in the end it just comes down to God has the right to do whatever he wants and it is just.

It's all endorsed by the Bible - it just depends on who does the interpreting and how. That's the problem. Any religion can be perverted.

When I thing of something being endorsed by the Bible I think it has to be more than just some guys interpretation of it to say that it is endorsed. if any reasonable person who understands the passage would see the passage as advocating violence, mano on mano, then I would say that the NT endorses it. But it does not. Seeing the list of 125 helped me to be confident in that statement. The OT does not say anything that a reasonable Christian would use to advocate violence against others either.

Coyote

07-07-2007, 06:24 AM

Well I went to one of those websites where it finds everything bad about the Bible that can be found. They had 125 items that were allegedly violence in the NT. Really the list was just ridiculous. 'Jesus has a group of pigs that were filled with demons run off a cliff.' Excuse me if I just don't find that to be a problem. Out of the 125 I did not find any of them to be problematic. They were nothing more than someone trying to make mountains out of less than molehills.

And isn't that the same with all those cherry-picked, out-of-context quotes gleaned from the Quran?

The OT does not say anything that a reasonable Christian would use to advocate violence against others either.

A reasonable person - that's just it. Likewise, I doubt that the Quran has anything that a reasonable person would use to advocate violence (as per the statements of many moderate muslim scholars).

The problem is fundamentalism - and whether it is Christian, Muslim, or Jewish it perverts the very religion it claims to stand for because it is usually intolerant, inclusive, and ignorant. It takes it's chosen holybook literally without regard to context, history, translations or the cultures that begat them.

r0beph

07-07-2007, 01:22 PM

how right you are coyote.... Even Buddhist extremists commit violence. Buddhism is a good example of hyperbole extremism. The problem is many believe the teachings to be absolute and sacred, when in fact the teachings of buddha were meant to promote thought and searching for answers. When they are believed as steadfast "fact" over the many times admitted metaphors they are, stuff like this happens http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=194765

The fact remains in this however that the upper buddhist echelon never supported this, and it was carried out by those who were more along the lines of proclaimed christians who never worship/go to church / read the bible etc. Christian by proclimation etc. What makes this a good example is that in all it's core buddhism expressly states this to be THE WRONG WAY TO DO SOMETHING. Anyhow, it's all the same from all religions, mix match the words and they can mean anything to someone who wants to further their own agenda.

DrWho

07-07-2007, 03:06 PM

[QUOTE]And isn't that the same with all those cherry-picked, out-of-context quotes gleaned from the Quran?

Agreed completely.

[QUOTE]
A reasonable person - that's just it. Likewise, I doubt that the Quran has anything that a reasonable person would use to advocate violence (as per the statements of many moderate muslim scholars).

Probably not, but I am not in a position to say as I have not read the book with any degree of understanding.

The problem is fundamentalism - and whether it is Christian, Muslim, or Jewish it perverts the very religion it claims to stand for because it is usually intolerant, inclusive, and ignorant. It takes it's chosen holybook literally without regard to context, history, translations or the cultures that begat them.

I suspect you have misunderstood fundamentalism and confused it with bigotry. In fundamentalism one embraces the fundamentals of an idea. The fundamentals of the Bible would not be a perversion of it.

In bigotry a person hold onto intolerant ideas strongly either in spite of what their religion says or because it is what their religion says. But you can't know if the religion itself is bigoted just by looking at the person. You need to research the core beliefs/book. Here is where most critics go wrong; they criticize a book (koran or bible) based on their own faulty understanding of it.

Coyote

07-07-2007, 04:21 PM

[QUOTE=Coyote;16579]

I suspect you have misunderstood fundamentalism and confused it with bigotry. In fundamentalism one embraces the fundamentals of an idea. The fundamentals of the Bible would not be a perversion of it.

I go by the dictionary's definition of fundamentalism:

Usually a religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

In bigotry a person hold onto intolerant ideas strongly either in spite of what their religion says or because it is what their religion says. But you can't know if the religion itself is bigoted just by looking at the person. You need to research the core beliefs/book. Here is where most critics go wrong; they criticize a book (koran or bible) based on their own faulty understanding of it.

Now that I quite agree with...

OPGhostdog

07-08-2007, 11:50 AM

My personal thoughts concerning this thread about
religion blaming other religion is non-sesnes, and a
waste of time to debate. Its seems to me that the
blame is been layed on Islam and Muslims.

There is suppose to be a peace of mind in all of
today's society's religious groups. Why blame all
Muslims, Jews, Buddist, and other groups for the
action of their offbeat members?

On here everyone is trying to convince the other
to see things their way, and yet the respect has
been losted. I know where I stand with my spiritual
beliefs, and I don't give a hoot how many of you
try to tell me something different.

I will read what anyone have to say, but that's out
of respect, and that does not mean that I have to
accept what you're saying.

So any religion can be peaceful it all depends on the
individual, and how they review the guidekines and rules
of their beliefs.

9sublime

07-14-2007, 01:27 PM

I'm going to wade in here and give my opinion on this as I've been away far too long to hop on the debate as if I know where everyone stands.

For all the Christians here, if someone killed another (innocent) person in the name of God, in a barbaric fashion etc. would you condemn his actions? Would you call him a Christian?

So why is it any different when a Muslim does it, why do you attack Islam as a whole and not the fundamentalist himself or the organization he is from?

Because his texts tell him to? Religions evolve, you cant use that argument. Islamic fundamentalists are not part of the same religion as the peaceful Muslims of the world, the religions are totally different. Peaceful Muslims don't associate themselves with this religion, just as a levelheaded Chrisitan wouldn't follow a literal Christian who began slaying everyone who touched a woman during her period or wore clothes of two different fibres.

So when a Muslim follows his violent texts too literally, and decides to become a suicide bomber, don't blame the civilised version of Islam millions of decent people follow, AS THIS THREAD TITLE DOES, because its not fair.

Instead, attack the fundamentalist groups, because attack all the Muslims in the world for what the bad seeds do, is only going to alienate and make the problem worse.

Castle

07-15-2007, 07:09 PM

For all the Christians here, if someone killed another (innocent) person in the name of God, in a barbaric fashion etc. would you condemn his actions? Would you call him a Christian?

So why is it any different when a Muslim does it, why do you attack Islam as a whole and not the fundamentalist himself or the organization he is from?
Of course I would condemn his/her actions. Lets take it a step further. If he or she was a member of a global Christian organization whose purpose was to kill or convert all non Christians I would call on all true Christians to unite against this cancer before it grew to the point that it could not be stopped. I do not see this happening in present day Christianity. What I do see is a very well organized and funded group of extremist Muslims on a global scale that continues to grow and infiltrate western society with one purpose. To destroy it. So when a few Muslim extremists commit acts of terror one can no longer look upon these acts as isolated incidents as the events of the last decade prove they are not.

The overwhelming majority of moderate Muslims and their governments have done very little to combat these extremists, instead it is left up to the infidels (that would be us) to foot the bill and take the heat for our troubles. How convenient.

This is where the "bad rap" for moderate Muslims comes in. Is it fair? no. However, while responsibility for all the bad things happening in the Muslim world is being handed out, Muslims should be willing to accept their share.

-Castle

9sublime

07-16-2007, 02:27 AM

The overwhelming majority of moderate Muslims and their governments have done very little to combat these extremists, instead it is left up to the infidels (that would be us) to foot the bill and take the heat for our troubles. How convenient.

This is because most Islamic countries are very poor, with corrupt governments with many inside supporters of terrorism. However, these governments, once again, don't represent the every day Muslim who has never committed a terror attack in his life.

This is where the "bad rap" for moderate Muslims comes in. Is it fair? no. However, while responsibility for all the bad things happening in the Muslim world is being handed out, Muslims should be willing to accept their share.

So one minute you complain that your country is the one who has to deal with terrorism and how unfair it is, but then the next minute fairness goes out of the window for Muslims? At least you agree that its not fair at all that ordinary Muslims take the blame.

However, you are still missing my point. Islamic extremism is not the same religion as normal Islam. Just like you do not follow Rev. Phelps and his crew, and I doubt you regard them as true Christians. However, if Phelps and co. started killing people, and gathering huge support while they did it, would you be out on the street, on the TVs all the time, denouncing what he had done?

No, you would probably sit back and decide that every levelheaded person knows what Phelps is doing is wrong and that you dont need to speak out yourself. You would let a few organizations do it for you in the most critical of times, just like the Muslim Council of Britain and various other organizations denounce attacks when they happen. However, you choose to convinenetly close your ears whenever Muslims denounce terror.

Normal Muslims shouldn't have to take the blame for the terrorists, just like you would not take the blame for Phelps killing people in the name of Christianity.

Do you take the blame for every child American forces kill in Afghanistan and Iraq? Well you should do, if normal Muslims have to take the blame for every innocent person killed by terrorists.

Its pure hypocrisy, just because your religion isn't getting tarred by such a huge brush, you feel you have the right to take a stab at Muslims all the time.

jb_1430

07-16-2007, 05:35 AM

This is because most Islamic countries are very poor, with corrupt governments with many inside supporters of terrorism. However, these governments, once again, don't represent the every day Muslim who has never committed a terror attack in his life.

There is poverty and government corruption all around the world, and yet it is Muslims comitting the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks against civilians.

However, you are still missing my point. Islamic extremism is not the same religion as normal Islam. Just like you do not follow Rev. Phelps and his crew, and I doubt you regard them as true Christians.

???? Usually its refered to as Islamic Fundamentalism, because of their strict adherence to the written doctrine. And we could only be so lucky if Islam compelled Muslims to shout from the street corner that Allah hates fags.
The difference you apologist for Islam seem to be missing is that Islam dictates the form of government and law to be applied. The Islamic Caliphate. Christians "render unto ceasar, that which is ceasar's"

Coyote

07-16-2007, 07:02 AM

Christians "render unto ceasar, that which is ceasar's"

No they don't. Look up Christian Dominionists. Look at how Christians are trying to influence politics and law in this country. They are no different. The only thing that protects us from them is that we have a secular constitution and a secular system of law put in place by some very wise people.

jb_1430

07-16-2007, 07:11 AM

No they don't. Look up Christian Dominionists. Look at how Christians are trying to influence politics and law in this country. They are no different. The only thing that protects us from them is that we have a secular constitution and a secular system of law put in place by some very wise people.

If we had any Christian Dominionist commiting terrorist attacks you might have an arguement. We do not and you do not. As well the Dominionist advocate electing Christians into government offices whereas Islam advocates violent jihad to establish the caliphate.

jb_1430

07-16-2007, 07:26 AM

You have the "see no evil" "hear no evil" bit down pretty good.

Ibn Khaldoon in the 14th century defined it as:

A representation, of the one who has the right to adopt the divine rules, aimed at protecting the Deen and ruling the world (Dunia) with it.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~luqman/Belief/Khilafah/one.html

Hassan al-Banna in 1928, it has spawned several offshoot organizations in the Middle East, dedicated to the credo:

"Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."

[2][3] The MB seeks to instill the Qur'an and Sunnah as the "sole reference point for ... ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community ... and state",[4] and ultimately to reestablish a Caliphate or unified Muslim state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood

This religion is really a universal declaration of the freedom of man from servitude to other men and from servitude to his own desires, which is also a form of human servitude; it is a declaration that sovereignty belongs to God alone and that He is the Lord of all the worlds. It means a challenge to all kinds and forms of systems which are based on the concept of the sovereignty of man; in other words, where man has usurped the Divine attribute. Any system in which the final decisions are referred to human beings, and in which the sources of all authority are human, deifies human beings by designating others than God as lords over men. This declaration means that the usurped authority of God be returned to Him and the usurpers be thrown out-those who by themselves devise laws for others to follow, thus elevating themselves to the status of lords and reducing others to the status of slaves. In short, to proclaim the authority and sovereignty of God means to eliminate all human kingship and to announce the rule of the Sustainer of the universe over the entire earth.
http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/milestones/hold/chapter_4.asp

June 22, 2007
"One day my dear Muslims," shouted Anjem Choudary, "Islam will govern Britain!"...
"Brothers and sisters, make no mistake. Make no mistake. The British government, the queen, the MPs in this country, they are enemies to you, enemies to Allah and enemies to the Muslims."...
"Of course," he replied, "we want Islam to be a source of governance for all of mankind. And we also believe that one day America will be ruled by Islam."
Abu Saif is a member of the group Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Party of Liberation, which states its aim is to unify Muslims and establish the rule of Islamic law over the world.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56503

jb_1430

07-16-2007, 07:28 AM

No they don't. Look up Christian Dominionists. Look at how Christians are trying to influence politics and law in this country. They are no different. The only thing that protects us from them is that we have a secular constitution and a secular system of law put in place by some very wise people.

I've read some on Christian dominionist and Ive NEVER seen anything to indicate that they dont believe they are to render to Ceasar, that which is Ceasars.

9sublime

07-16-2007, 08:52 AM

There is poverty and government corruption all around the world, and yet it is Muslims comitting the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks against civilians.

In Africa, it is usually not under the name of Islam, and that is where most of the corrupt governments are. Sure, many of them are Muslims, but they are not holy wars like the insurgents from Iraq and Afghanistan. In south america all the governments are corrupt, and in Eastern Europe, and many countries in the Far East.
Don't spout rubbish.

???? Usually its refered to as Islamic Fundamentalism, because of their strict adherence to the written doctrine. And we could only be so lucky if Islam compelled Muslims to shout from the street corner that Allah hates fags.
The difference you apologist for Islam seem to be missing is that Islam dictates the form of government and law to be applied. The Islamic Caliphate. Christians "render unto ceasar, that which is ceasar's"

I am not an apoloigist for Islam. I hate organized religion, I just hate ignorance more. Can't you see that Islam and 'Islamic Fundamentalism' are two different religions in practice.

I love it how as soon as anyone tries to say that not every Muslim is a terrorist, Castle and Mark come running out of the bushes and call everyone an apologist.

jb_1430

07-16-2007, 12:21 PM

In Africa, it is usually not under the name of Islam, and that is where most of the corrupt governments are. Sure, many of them are Muslims, but they are not holy wars like the insurgents from Iraq and Afghanistan. In south america all the governments are corrupt, and in Eastern Europe, and many countries in the Far East.
Don't spout rubbish.

???? You are making my point for me.

I am not an apoloigist for Islam. I hate organized religion, I just hate ignorance more. Can't you see that Islam and 'Islamic Fundamentalism' are two different religions in practice.

???? Well, two different versions of the same thing. Not sure of your point as I have not said they are the same.

I love it how as soon as anyone tries to say that not every Muslim is a terrorist, Castle and Mark come running out of the bushes and call everyone an apologist.

???? Thats not what you said.

9sublime

07-16-2007, 12:46 PM

Sorry I misread a lot of your post. I agree with your first point, there is no denying that the majority of terrorist attacks are done by Muslims, but that the reason their governments do not speak out against it is because they are corrupt etc.

However, there are two different types of Islam, peaceful and fundamental. This is my point, that the RELIGION OF PEACE IS NOT AT IT AGAIN, but the fundamentalist are.

I dont understand what you mean by 'thats not what you said'. I am a sympathiser with Muslims who have done nothing wrong but get abuse for their terrorist counterparts, but I hate fundamentalists with a passion.

However, I do not apologise for Islam at any point. If you are part of an organized religion this **** is going to happen to you, and while its not fair at all, people like you are going to give them abuse for something they havent done.

jb_1430

07-16-2007, 12:58 PM

The title of the thread was not Muslims at it again. He is criticizing the religion. You seem to interpret that as criticism of all muslims.

Sorry I misread a lot of your post. I agree with your first point, there is no denying that the majority of terrorist attacks are done by Muslims, but that the reason their governments do not speak out against it is because they are corrupt etc.

However, there are two different types of Islam, peaceful and fundamental. This is my point, that the RELIGION OF PEACE IS NOT AT IT AGAIN, but the fundamentalist are.

I dont understand what you mean by 'thats not what you said'. I am a sympathiser with Muslims who have done nothing wrong but get abuse for their terrorist counterparts, but I hate fundamentalists with a passion.

However, I do not apologise for Islam at any point. If you are part of an organized religion this **** is going to happen to you, and while its not fair at all, people like you are going to give them abuse for something they havent done.

9sublime

07-16-2007, 02:19 PM

palerider

07-16-2007, 04:35 PM

NO, my point is that the 'religion of peace' is not at it again. A religion cloaked under the same name is 'at it again', and this religion is Islamic extremism. They are in practice two totally different religions.

One group of muslims is following the orders of their prophet to the letter. The other group is ignoring the orders of their prophet. Which group is more extreme?

Radical islam is islam.

Coyote

07-16-2007, 05:28 PM

One group of muslims is following the orders of their prophet to the letter. The other group is ignoring the orders of their prophet. Which group is more extreme?

Radical islam is islam.

What is true Christianity then?

You have the following extortions from Jesus:

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Peter claims that Dt.18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (ie all non-Christians) must be killed. Acts 3:23

That doesn't even begin to touch upon all the bloody mayhem and extortions throughtout the OT and all the bloody plans God has for you in the NT if you fall short of any number of things.

Both the Quran and the Bible are bloody awful, violent books with a lot in it to satisfy the most rabid radical. They are easily perverted. What's forgotten are the many passages on compassion and charity that are there as well. Each person picks what they want to believe.

Castle

07-16-2007, 07:14 PM

I love it how as soon as anyone tries to say that not every Muslim is a terrorist, Castle and Mark come running out of the bushes and call everyone an apologist.
Pardon me?! I never said that every Muslim is a terrorist nor did I accuse you of being an apologist for them. I was simply attempting to explain why I think Muslims in general get a bad rap as a result of the actions of their extremist counterparts. In my opinion, some of it is well deserved while the rest is not. I'll give you an example. Remember the Denmark cartoons that brought the Muslim world to a violent frenzy? CARTOONS caused riots in the streets and death threats. If the Muslim world brought to bare HALF this venom against the radical organizations that gave them this reputation we would probably be having a very different debate right now.

-Castle

jb_1430

07-16-2007, 07:21 PM

Peter claims that Dt.18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (ie all non-Christians) must be killed. Acts 3:23

And if there were any Christian using this verse to justify killing anybody, I would criticize their religion as well. And I believe most all christians interpret

"23 And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people."

to refer to when Jesus comes back. Revelations, fire and brimstone and all of that. Its not instructing anybody, its a prophecy of what will be.

jb_1430

07-16-2007, 07:31 PM

Pardon me?! I never said that every Muslim is a terrorist nor did I accuse you of being an apologist for them.

Yeah, I never made any claims about every muslim either. He is an apologist though.

Rick

07-16-2007, 07:33 PM

Notice how Hollyweird can never bring itself to portray terrorists as islamofascists? Just saw Bruce Willis in "Live free or die hard" - naturally, it was a white guy chief terrorist. The last movie I saw about terrorists was back in 2002, "The sum of all fears". In their PC religion to avoid portraying islamist killers, the terrorists are neo-nazis!! Yaaaa - we all know how much trouble those guys have been lately! :D

9sublime

07-17-2007, 01:24 AM

Yeah, I never made any claims about every muslim either. He is an apologist though.

I am not an apologist. The point I am trying to make is that non-violent Muslims who live productive lives dont deserve to get slated for terrorist attacks. I am also saying that radical Islam and peaceful Islam are two different religions.

However... in practice if you follow a religion and people do something in the name of your religion that is bad, you are going to have to expect to get abuse for it, even if it is unfair. I WILL NEVER APOLOGISE FOR AN ORGANIZED RELIGION, I just feel sorry for them.

palerider

07-17-2007, 02:07 AM

What is true Christianity then?

Are you complaining because Christians aren't going about killing non Christians?

palerider

07-17-2007, 02:13 AM

However... in practice if you follow a religion and people do something in the name of your religion that is bad, you are going to have to expect to get abuse for it, even if it is unfair.

When a Christian committs a violence in the name of Christianity, Christian leaders immediately come out and publicly denounce the action and state explicitly that Christianity is not a religion of violence. I just don't see muslim leaders coming out to denounce the actions of islam. Perhaps one here or there, but the general silence speaks volumes.

In any court of law 9sublime, SILENCE IMPLIES CONSENT and that being the case, it is not unfair that those who aren't out bombing be stained by the actions of those who are.

jb_1430

07-17-2007, 03:17 AM

I WILL NEVER APOLOGISE FOR AN ORGANIZED RELIGION, I just feel sorry for them.

I have seen you only defend Islam in the face of any criticism and only criticize christianity. Can you point to ANY example where this is not the case?

9sublime

07-17-2007, 03:33 AM

I don't defend Islam, you need to understand this. I defend innocent Muslims on the basis that they have done nothing wrong. Islam is another organized religion.

This one is for you Palerider, it sums it up better than I could:

Exploding the myth of Muslim silence
That's the purpose of an interesting piece by Stephen Schwartz, author of "The Two Faces of Islam."

In it he argues that the media ignores moderate Muslims while covering the radicals in lavish, horrific detail, painting a distorted picture of the faith. The centerpiece of the article is a deconstruction of coverage of the plot to attack Fort Dix. He notes that the plotters weren't, as first assumed, Kosovo Albanian Muslims. They were, instead, ethnic Albanians from Macedonia who came here as children and were radicalized in Arab-dominated Wahhabi mosques. His point is that the media misses distinctions between different kinds of Muslims, lumping peaceful, moderate Albanians in with violent Wahhabis.

He then cites several examples of Muslim commentary on the case -- all of it condemning the plot -- that he says got scant coverage.

I didn't follow the Fort Dix story closely enough to judge whether he's right on that score, but the piece once again points up the intellectual bankruptcy of those who demand that Muslims "speak out" against terror. Continuing to make that argument ignores several relevant facts:

1. They do. All the time. I've cited multiple examples in the past year.

2. Demands that Muslims take the lead assume that moderate Muslims have some sort of connection to (or influence over) the extremists. What are (for example) American Muslims supposed to do: Call up Al-Qaeda and yell at them? They don't have AQ's number any more than you or I do, nor will their words be heeded any more than yours or mine.

3. Few groups spend a lot of time flagellating themselves for the extremists in their midst.

Let's expand on that last point for a moment because it's an important one, tied in with assumptions about group identity that simply are not true.

The underlying logic of the "Muslims must denounce terrorism" goes as follows: The terrorists are Islamic, and therefore Muslims have a particular duty to denounce Islamic terror.

This is reasonable to an extent: disavowing the nutjobs operating under your banner is sometimes necessary.

But where it goes off the rails is when people demand that every Muslim denounce every act of Islamic terror every time one occurs.

This is ridiculous. Every time a Christian commits murder, are Christians obligated to go on television and state the obvious -- that murder is wrong and the offender doesn't represent Christian views?

Of course not. They can simply state once (or occasionally) that murder is wrong and unChristian. Actually, they don't even have to do that; it's considered obvious that murder is wrong, so they aren't required to say anything. Silence is not assent in such cases.

So why are Muslims treated differently? Because groups are always good at pointing out the mote in other groups' eyes, even while giving their own members the benefit of the doubt. Do conservatives regularly call out nutjob conservatives? No. Liberals do that, and conservatives disavow them if necessary. Do liberals regularly call out liberal nutjobs? No; conservatives do that, and then liberals disavow them if necessary.

In this country, who spends time identifying atheist/agnostic misbehavior? Believers. Who are most likely to point out believer wrongdoing? Atheists/agnostics.

Simply put, groups are horrible at policing their own, because doing so requires admitting some kinship between your own beliefs and those of the nutjobs -- admitting that your beliefs can be twisted to bad ends. No one likes doing that.

Beyond that, when you're in the group you know that the extremists are just that -- extremists, a tiny minority that do not represent the group as a whole. They are shunned, dismissed; psychologically, the majority separates themselves from the whackjobs to the point they no longer feel kinship with them -- and thus no particular responsibility to account for their actions. Hence Christians feel no particular need to respond every time a Christian misbehaves, and Muslims feel no particular need to respond every time a member of some fundamentalist sect detonates a car bomb.

This is especially true when the actions cross national and sectarian boundaries. Demanding that a mainstream American Muslim denounce fundamentalist terrorism is like demanding that Lutherans denounce the actions of Baptists -- or, more aptly, Christian Identity adherents. It's actually even sillier than that, because at least in the example above everyone involved is American. In the case of Islamic terror, we're demanding that American Muslims feel responsibility not just for another sect, but for another country and culture. So it's more like demanding that Lutherans apologize for the atrocities committed by the Lord's Resistance Army.

Now, political reality is a different matter, and not always fair; in this day and age, there is more political need for Muslims to speak out than there is for Christians. But that doesn't make demands that they do so any less illogical. Nor does it justify the assumptions made about them when they fail to speak up in any given instance.

jb_1430

07-17-2007, 06:33 AM

I don't defend Islam, you need to understand this. I defend innocent Muslims on the basis that they have done nothing wrong. Islam is another organized religion.
......
Every time a Christian commits murder, are Christians obligated to go on television and state the obvious -- that murder is wrong and the offender doesn't represent Christian views?

Of course not. They can simply state once (or occasionally) that murder is wrong and unChristian. Actually, they don't even have to do that; it's considered obvious that murder is wrong, so they aren't required to say anything. Silence is not assent in such cases.

So why are Muslims treated differently?

uuuhhhh because what you call murder, Islam calls fighting for the cause of allah. This game where we pretend the real Islam is peace and the fundamentalist are a different religion that is not Islam, but instead "a religion cloaked under the same name" only compounds the problem. Instead of confronting the real problem, we instead blame the violence on the fact that they are poor and their governments are corrupt, or some such nonsense.
Christianity says "thou shall not kill". Islam says [4.92] "And it does not behoove a believer to kill a believer".

[4.76] Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Shaitan; surely the strategy of the Shaitan is weak.

2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah;
9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle 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.
[9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

OPGhostdog

07-17-2007, 07:34 AM

jb_1430, The real truth needs to be made known concerning
the Muslim faith, and the state of Islam. I do believe that you
and I debated this same issue before, and I see that you have
returned back to it again.

uuuhhhh because what you call murder,
Islam calls fighting for the cause of allah. This game where
we pretend the real Islam is peace and the
fundamentalist are a different religion that is not Islam

What game? The Muslim world is divided thats a fact. So why
force the entire religion to suffer for what a few believe in?
Here in America some salute the flag (which ends Under GOD).
So what's the difference fighting for something you believe in,
and using GOD's name in vain to do your dirty work?

You do NOT have to pretend nothing when it comes to Islam
being peaceful, and as far as the Fundamentalist or Extremists
is concerned they are Muslims but with a different viewpoint.

Don't take what I am saying wrong, due to the fact that I will
always defend my Muslim/Islam belief, but Islam is no different
then the United States, and until society stop taking sides
Religion will always be a touching subject.

jb_1430

07-17-2007, 08:48 AM

jb_1430, The real truth needs to be made known concerning the Muslim faith, and the state of Islam.

"State of Islam"??? I provided 5 or 6 verses from the koran. They are what they are.

The Muslim world is divided thats a fact. So why
force the entire religion to suffer for what a few believe in?

Does the whole religion suffer when I quote the Koran? Must this remain hidden from the west?

Here in America some salute the flag (which ends Under GOD).
So what's the difference fighting for something you believe in,
and using GOD's name in vain to do your dirty work?

Well, we fight for Freedom and Democracy. A government by and for the people. Muslims are fighting so that "religion should be only for Allah". Some Qutb would be demonstrative.

Islam is not merely a belief, so that it is enough merely to preach it. Islam, which is a way of life, takes practical steps to organize a movement for freeing man. Other societies do not give it any opportunity to organize its followers according to its own method, and hence it is the duty of Islam to annihilate all such systems, as they are obstacles in the way of universal freedom. ...

This religion is really a universal declaration of the freedom of man from servitude to other men and from servitude to his own desires, which is also a form of human servitude; it is a declaration that sovereignty belongs to God alone and that He is the Lord of all the worlds. It means a challenge to all kinds and forms of systems which are based on the concept of the sovereignty of man; in other words, where man has usurped the Divine attribute. Any system in which the final decisions are referred to human beings, and in which the sources of all authority are human, deifies human beings by designating others than God as lords over men. This declaration means that the usurped authority of God be returned to Him and the usurpers be thrown out-those who by themselves devise laws for others to follow, thus elevating themselves to the status of lords and reducing others to the status of slaves. In short, to proclaim the authority and sovereignty of God means to eliminate all human kingship and to announce the rule of the Sustainer of the universe over the entire earth. ...

Indeed, Islam has the right to take the initiative. Islam is not a heritage of any particular race or country; this is God's religion and it is for the whole world. It has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions which limit man's freedom of choice. It does not attack individuals nor does it force them to accept its beliefs; it attacks institutions and traditions to release human beings from their poisonous influences, which distort human nature and which curtail human freedom.

9sublime

07-17-2007, 08:56 AM

"State of Islam"??? I provided 5 or 6 verses from the koran. They are what they are.

Its so easy to find quotes that tell followers of Islam and Christianity to commit violence. IT JUST DEPENDS WETHER OR NOT YOU CHOOSE TO FOLLOW THEM. So many times people just use quotes, it does nothing to support or back up your argument. Its not big and its not clever!

Coyote

07-17-2007, 09:53 AM

When a Christian committs a violence in the name of Christianity, Christian leaders immediately come out and publicly denounce the action and state explicitly that Christianity is not a religion of violence. I just don't see muslim leaders coming out to denounce the actions of islam. Perhaps one here or there, but the general silence speaks volumes.

In any court of law 9sublime, SILENCE IMPLIES CONSENT and that being the case, it is not unfair that those who aren't out bombing be stained by the actions of those who are.

Many Muslim leaders have come out against terrorism and the killing of innocents in the name of Islam - just look at the world reaction to 9/11. A huge number of muslims condemned it as a perversion of their faith.

And you are wrong about Christians. When a Christian commits violence in the name of their religion - some denounce it, some DO NOT.

Coyote

07-17-2007, 09:54 AM

Exploding the myth of Muslim silence
http://midtopia.blogspot.com/2007/05...m-silence.html

That's the purpose of an interesting piece by Stephen Schwartz, author of "The Two Faces of Islam."

In it he argues that the media ignores moderate Muslims while covering the radicals in lavish, horrific detail, painting a distorted picture of the faith. The centerpiece of the article is a deconstruction of coverage of the plot to attack Fort Dix. He notes that the plotters weren't, as first assumed, Kosovo Albanian Muslims. They were, instead, ethnic Albanians from Macedonia who came here as children and were radicalized in Arab-dominated Wahhabi mosques. His point is that the media misses distinctions between different kinds of Muslims, lumping peaceful, moderate Albanians in with violent Wahhabis.

He then cites several examples of Muslim commentary on the case -- all of it condemning the plot -- that he says got scant coverage.

I didn't follow the Fort Dix story closely enough to judge whether he's right on that score, but the piece once again points up the intellectual bankruptcy of those who demand that Muslims "speak out" against terror. Continuing to make that argument ignores several relevant facts:

1. They do. All the time. I've cited multiple examples in the past year.

2. Demands that Muslims take the lead assume that moderate Muslims have some sort of connection to (or influence over) the extremists. What are (for example) American Muslims supposed to do: Call up Al-Qaeda and yell at them? They don't have AQ's number any more than you or I do, nor will their words be heeded any more than yours or mine.

3. Few groups spend a lot of time flagellating themselves for the extremists in their midst.

Let's expand on that last point for a moment because it's an important one, tied in with assumptions about group identity that simply are not true.

The underlying logic of the "Muslims must denounce terrorism" goes as follows: The terrorists are Islamic, and therefore Muslims have a particular duty to denounce Islamic terror.

This is reasonable to an extent: disavowing the nutjobs operating under your banner is sometimes necessary.

But where it goes off the rails is when people demand that every Muslim denounce every act of Islamic terror every time one occurs.

This is ridiculous. Every time a Christian commits murder, are Christians obligated to go on television and state the obvious -- that murder is wrong and the offender doesn't represent Christian views?

Of course not. They can simply state once (or occasionally) that murder is wrong and unChristian. Actually, they don't even have to do that; it's considered obvious that murder is wrong, so they aren't required to say anything. Silence is not assent in such cases.

So why are Muslims treated differently? Because groups are always good at pointing out the mote in other groups' eyes, even while giving their own members the benefit of the doubt. Do conservatives regularly call out nutjob conservatives? No. Liberals do that, and conservatives disavow them if necessary. Do liberals regularly call out liberal nutjobs? No; conservatives do that, and then liberals disavow them if necessary.

In this country, who spends time identifying atheist/agnostic misbehavior? Believers. Who are most likely to point out believer wrongdoing? Atheists/agnostics.

Simply put, groups are horrible at policing their own, because doing so requires admitting some kinship between your own beliefs and those of the nutjobs -- admitting that your beliefs can be twisted to bad ends. No one likes doing that.

Beyond that, when you're in the group you know that the extremists are just that -- extremists, a tiny minority that do not represent the group as a whole. They are shunned, dismissed; psychologically, the majority separates themselves from the whackjobs to the point they no longer feel kinship with them -- and thus no particular responsibility to account for their actions. Hence Christians feel no particular need to respond every time a Christian misbehaves, and Muslims feel no particular need to respond every time a member of some fundamentalist sect detonates a car bomb.

This is especially true when the actions cross national and sectarian boundaries. Demanding that a mainstream American Muslim denounce fundamentalist terrorism is like demanding that Lutherans denounce the actions of Baptists -- or, more aptly, Christian Identity adherents. It's actually even sillier than that, because at least in the example above everyone involved is American. In the case of Islamic terror, we're demanding that American Muslims feel responsibility not just for another sect, but for another country and culture. So it's more like demanding that Lutherans apologize for the atrocities committed by the Lord's Resistance Army.

Now, political reality is a different matter, and not always fair; in this day and age, there is more political need for Muslims to speak out than there is for Christians. But that doesn't make demands that they do so any less illogical. Nor does it justify the assumptions made about them when they fail to speak up in any given instance.

Coyote

07-17-2007, 09:56 AM

Are you complaining because Christians aren't going about killing non Christians?

No. I'm just pointing the hypocrisy in your statement.

jb_1430

07-17-2007, 10:06 AM

Its so easy to find quotes that tell followers of Islam and Christianity to commit violence.

Feel free to do so.

OPGhostdog

07-17-2007, 12:39 PM

Feel free to do so.

What are you telling 9Sub to feel free about?, but what
I do see in 9Sub post is 9Sub is telling you to know what
you are posting for yourself, and stop quoting something
you really know nothing about.

A government by and for the people?

Show me where this Government is working on the behalf of the
American citizens? However that's the way that it was suppose
to be, but believe me its a looooong ways from being that way,
and tell me what do you mean by hidden from the West?

That was a stupid statement if I never seen one. So tell me
what make you think that countries in the Middle East have to
hide something from the United States? What the US Gov't
should do is to learn how to mind its own business, and stop
trying to be the World Police.

This country has always been the ones who tried to regulate
everything global, and that's why we have been involved in a
bunch of Wars.

Coyote

07-17-2007, 12:48 PM

Oops. Apologies to 9sublime. I did not realize you had already posted the article I posted...well...it's a good one isn't it?

jb_1430

07-17-2007, 07:16 PM

What are you telling 9Sub to feel free about?, but what
I do see in 9Sub post is 9Sub is telling you to know what
you are posting for yourself, and stop quoting something
you really know nothing about.

Ive read the Koran and Haddiths. The writings of several Islamic scholars. I usually find I know more about Islamic doctrine than the average muslim I run into on the internet.
Cant help but notice you havent offered as much as a single comment addressing any of the quotes Ive provided. Seems to be typical when discussing Islamic doctrine with a Muslim, they always avoid the doctrine.

Coyote

07-17-2007, 07:18 PM

Ive read the Koran and Haddiths. The writings of several Islamic scholars. I usually find I know more about Islamic doctrine than the average muslim I run into on the internet.
Cant help but notice you havent offered as much as a single comment addressing any of the quotes Ive provided. Seems to be typical when discussing Islamic doctrine with a Muslim, they always avoid the doctrine.

There is a big difference between reading and understanding. Just ask any scholar of any faith.

jb_1430

07-17-2007, 08:16 PM

There is a big difference between reading and understanding. Just ask any scholar of any faith.

Thats why I provide the interpretations of Islamic doctrine from the writings of Muslims. My understanding is irrelevent as Ive provided the understandings of Qutb. Besides, nobody has even addressed my interpretations, Qutb's or the plain and simple meaning of the verses quoted directly from the Koran. Just this general, non specific 'nuh hu, is not' over and over again.

9sublime

07-18-2007, 12:52 AM

Feel free to do so.

It is a great article Coyote. I've already posted it 2 times.

Anyway jb_1430, here are some bible quotes that rival the evil ones in the Koran:

Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Exodus 22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." -Jesus Christ

Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." -Jesus Christ

2 John 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Romans 1 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

On Punishing ‘Immorality’

Leviticus 20:9
If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.
20:10 If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.
Deuteronomy 22:20-1 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house.
Exodus 35:2
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
On Destroying Other People

Deuteronomy 7:1-2 When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations . . . then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.
20:10-17 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in