Understanding the Enemy [Archive] - Page 2 - House of Politics

jb_1430

01-08-2008, 11:34 AM

Good god there isn't an iota of light in that dark place you call your mind!

Tell me, what does acceptance of, say, mosaic law have to do with, stoning to death as criminal punishment, hmmm?

And I can assure you I would be the first to condemn the mosaic law if we had jews running around stoning to death criminals.

Or acceptance of the pope's infallibility in global politics, eh?

You notice how the West tends to ignore his calls to end all wars?

In that meandering logic of yours, does acceptance translate into literal, verbatim imperative?

Im an atheist einstein. It is for the Islamic fundamentalist who "translate into literal, verbatim imperative", thats what fundamentalist do.

And just for argument's sake, a haddith (which is an extrapolation of the koran) contains a verse that is logically incompatible with with modern life (as is the case in ALL holy texts), does it invalidate the RELIGION IN ITS ENTIRETY????

"Religion in its entirety"????? My criticism are directed at the doctrine.

And while you're at it, why stop at religion? Why not apply your absurd reasoning to natural science, philosophy, epistemology, mathematics, law, virtually every field of human inquiry? Do we rid humanity of these as well?

???? What reasoning would that be? And I am critical of many different philosophies and Epistemologies, fortunately most are limited to theoretical debate without too much impact in the world. Im very critical of many American laws, most wouldnt interpret my criticism as criticism of americans.

It appears you are infatuated with goat-herder logic. Not everyone need follow suit.

??? Again, my view of Islam is irrelevant. It is the views of the Islamic Fundamentalist who wage jihad against the west because they believe Allah requires that they do so.
I think you are just a little too close to the topic to think rationally about it.

jb_1430

01-08-2008, 11:48 AM

And yet, you insist on lumping these rational, intelligent, and for the most part, peaceful people with a handful of goat-herders the world is currently waging war against.

So, do yourself a favor and get a clue.

Dude, he quoted a verse and made a comment about Al qaeda. Who is lumping anyone together.

vyo476

01-08-2008, 03:46 PM

Ignore the ones regarding waging war against the unbelievers to rule as allah has revealed

I want those who would wage war against us to not wage war against us, ignore the "slay the idolators" bits. And until they do, we need to realize that we cant give them what they want, so we will fight against them until they no longer wish to fight for what they want.

Insufficient. If your criticisms are pointed solely at the doctrine, a complete change in prevailing attitude towards that doctrine should not affect your argument. After all, the words aren't going to change - only the various interpretations.

Oh, Ive not argued the Koran caused terrorism. I would argue we wouldnt have this current, worldwide campaing of terrorism in the form of slaughtering as many civilians a you can, without the Islamic doctrine to give such actions legitimacy.

And even if every single Muslim "Ignore(s) the ones regarding waging war against the unbelievers to rule as allah has revealed", as you said you'd have them do, the words of their holy books would not change.

In other words, what you'd like to see happen were the problems you'd like acknowledged accepted as truth would not have much, if any, bearing on the problems themselves.

So try again.

???? Islamic fundamentalist are waging a worldwide campaign of terrorism against civilians. The Nazis are not.

Not anymore, anyway. There aren't enough of them and they're stuck under hostile governments.

And Ive never heard a positve interpretation of
[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.

That is one passage from a book of many, many passages. I could cherrypick things out of Mein Kampf and say, "Hey, this is positive!" For instance, Hitler had a love of landscape artistry - I like landscape artistry too.

There are plenty of people who think the Qur'an as whole is okay.

http://www.cair.com/AmericanMuslims/AntiTerrorism/KoranaBookofPeaceNotWarScholarsSay.aspx

numinus

01-08-2008, 06:38 PM

And I can assure you I would be the first to condemn the mosaic law if we had jews running around stoning to death criminals.

You notice how the West tends to ignore his calls to end all wars?

Im an atheist einstein. It is for the Islamic fundamentalist who "translate into literal, verbatim imperative", thats what fundamentalist do.

You not only repeated an irrelevant answer, you utterly failed to understand the question to begin with.

The answer, btw, is NOTHING. Stoning to death or the pope's infallibility in geopolitics have nothing to do with acceptance of faith nor in modern life simply because they were authored UNDER AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MILLIEU. Same goes for your silly assertions.

"Religion in its entirety"????? My criticism are directed at the doctrine.

I said 'THE religion (islam) in its entirety'. Are you illiterate as well?

And if, by your own admission, the fundamentalists are the one's doing the absurd interpretations, shouldn't you direct your criticism at the fundamentalists RATHER THAN THE DOCTRINE, hmmm?

???? What reasoning would that be? And I am critical of many different philosophies and Epistemologies, fortunately most are limited to theoretical debate without too much impact in the world. Im very critical of many American laws, most wouldnt interpret my criticism as criticism of americans.

'Critical' is hardly the word anyone would use to describe your reasoning.

Do you, for instance reject mathematics entirely in view of godel's incompleteness theorems, hmmm?

Do you deny logic altogether simply because there are paradoxes, hmmm?

I can already see screws in that archaic contraption you call your brain coming loose.

??? Again, my view of Islam is irrelevant. It is the views of the Islamic Fundamentalist who wage jihad against the west because they believe Allah requires that they do so.
I think you are just a little too close to the topic to think rationally about it.

And YET, you insist on criticizing the islamic religion rather than the fundamentalists who wage jihad on the basis of goat-herder logic!

There it is - your idiocy made plain for everyones ridicule.

numinus

01-08-2008, 06:40 PM

Dude, he quoted a verse and made a comment about Al qaeda. Who is lumping anyone together.
LOL

You are.

jb_1430

01-08-2008, 07:01 PM

Insufficient. If your criticisms are pointed solely at the doctrine, a complete change in prevailing attitude towards that doctrine should not affect your argument. After all, the words aren't going to change - only the various interpretations.

Not sure I follow. My arguement would remain. It would simply become academic. Im still critical of Nazi doctrine even though there was a complete change in prevailing attitude towards that doctrine, by those who previously followed it.

And even if every single Muslim "Ignore(s) the ones regarding waging war against the unbelievers to rule as allah has revealed", as you said you'd have them do, the words of their holy books would not change.

Correct. Im still critical of old testament doctrine regarding stoning of criminals, but it is purely academic as we dont have too much of a problem with Jews or Christians stoning people to death.

In other words, what you'd like to see happen were the problems you'd like acknowledged accepted as truth would not have much, if any, bearing on the problems themselves.

Was that a coherent thought? If you are trying to characterize MY position, I doubt you are even close. If all Muslims ignored all the verses in the haddiths and quran regarding war against the unbelievers, the imams couldnt use them to indoctrinate the minions, the Wahhabi scholars couldnt extol the virtues of jihad against the west to reinstate the Islamic Caliphate, and terrorist couldnt rationalize allahs blessings for their deeds.

That is one passage from a book of many, many passages. I could cherrypick things out of Mein Kampf and say, "Hey, this is positive!" For instance, Hitler had a love of landscape artistry - I like landscape artistry too.

There are plenty of people who think the Qur'an as whole is okay.

http://www.cair.com/AmericanMuslims/AntiTerrorism/KoranaBookofPeaceNotWarScholarsSay.aspx

Oooohhh let me freakin guess, I bet CAIR is going to "cherrypick things out of" the Koran and say, "Hey, this is positive!" . Like with Mein Kampf, you can still point to the other bad parts. Lets see what CAIR has to say.

The quest to control base instincts such as greed, lust, and cruelty and to seek spiritual purity is known by Muslims as the "great jihad." Featured widely in the Koran, the "great jihad" is a person's most important internal struggle.

Hmmm? Featured widely in the Koran, the "great jihad". Do quotation marks mean the same thing to Muslims? You can put "jihad" in any koran search and see it is never used.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/koran/simple.html
here you can search 3 different translations
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchquran.html
jihad simply doesnt appear in the Quran

Nyang quotes Chapter 3, verse 172, of the Koran: "Of those who answered the call of Allah and the messenger, even after being wounded, those who do right and refrain from wrong have a great reward."

"Hey, this is positive!", I guess. Why isnt he quoting one of those "Featured widely in the Koran, the "great jihad" " references?... Oh thats right, were going for one of those "Hey, this is positive!" moments. It basically says those who answered the call of Allah and went into battle at Ohud get a great reward.
One might conclude that ALL your arguements are "Insufficient", "So try again".

numinus

01-08-2008, 08:38 PM

jb_1430

01-08-2008, 08:42 PM

You not only repeated an irrelevant answer, you utterly failed to understand the question to begin with.

The answer, btw, is NOTHING.

Your about as perceptive as a rock. Try to follow. You asked

does it invalidate the RELIGION IN ITS ENTIRETY????

and I responded.

"Religion in its entirety"????? My criticism are directed at the doctrine.

If my criticisms are not even directed at the RELIGION IN ITS ENTIRETY, my criticisms certainly wouldnt invalidate the RELIGION IN ITS ENTIRETY. I understood the question just fine. As usual you couldnt even begin to comprehend the answer.

Stoning to death or the pope's infallibility in geopolitics have nothing to do with acceptance of faith.

hey, you guys are the authority on faith. Im an atheist so whatever point you are trying to make regarding "faith", I concede that point.

nor in modern life simply because they were authored UNDER AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MILLIEU.

I believe the term is spelled milieu. And if you are arguing that they should ignore all the nasty bits about "slay the idolaters" and "jihad" against the unbelievers because they are only applicable to that milieu in 7th century Arabia, that is my hope as well.

Same goes for your silly assertions.

You are obviously ignorant of the ongoing debate over the permissibility and scope of ijtihad, among the so called Islamic scholars. Unfortunately among the fundamentalist, there is no debate. Search on "gates of ijtihad", there is a lot written on the debate.

I said 'THE religion (islam) in its entirety'.

Yes you did. I did not.

And if, by your own admission, the fundamentalists are the one's doing the absurd interpretations, shouldn't you direct your criticism at the fundamentalists RATHER THAN THE DOCTRINE, hmmm?

"absurd interpretations", Even though you consider the writers of the Buhkari haddiths to be "goat herders" writing "absurd interpretations", doesnt negate the fact that the majority of Muslims regard them as second only to the Koran in religious authority. And I am critical of the fundamentalist. If the doctrine was "turn the other cheek" and "do unto others as you would have them to unto you", I wouldnt be critical of the doctrine. Since it is "slay the idolaters where you find them" that they are interpreting literaly, I am also critical of that doctrine.

'Critical' is hardly the word anyone would use to describe your reasoning.

Do you, for instance reject......

Im an atheist. I reject the Islamic doctrine. Please dont slay me. I do not reject mathmatics.
I think your perception of my posting of verses from the quran and haddiths, and writings from respected Islamic scholars, as an attack on the religion in its entirety, only further demonstrates my point about the content of those verses and writings. YOU percieve my exposing of them to be an attack on the religion because of their content.

jb_1430

01-08-2008, 08:52 PM

Btw, moses and jesus are considered prophets in the islamic faith - hence jews and christians are peoples of the book. Jihad is never extorted on peoples of the book. Apparently, that doesn't stop goat-herders nonsense crying for the blood of israel. Neither does that stop your nonsense criticism of islam.Nonsense!

"Never"?? Always!!!! "UNTIL they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." Which means always because the christians and the jews are not going to pay your damned tax or aknowledge superiority.

[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.

numinus

01-08-2008, 09:08 PM

Your about as perceptive as a rock. Try to follow. You asked

and I responded.

If my criticisms are not even directed at the RELIGION IN ITS ENTIRETY, my criticisms certainly wouldnt invalidate the RELIGION IN ITS ENTIRETY. I understood the question just fine. As usual you couldnt even begin to comprehend the answer.

How in hell can you understand the question if you do not even understand the word, hmmm?

Isn't religion precisely the idea embodied in doctrine, hmmm?

hey, you guys are the authority on faith. Im an atheist so whatever point you are trying to make regarding "faith", I concede that point.

Don't berate yourself too much. Not everyone is capable of comprehending the intricacies of theology. For the unfortunate, there is always atheism.

And since we are talking of the islamic faith as it relates to global politics, then you might as well concede the entire argument.

I believe the term is spelled milieu. And if you are arguing that they should ignore all the nasty bits about "slay the idolaters" and "jihad" against the unbelievers because they are only applicable to that milieu in 7th century Arabia, that is my hope as well.

You're at least good for running spell-check. That much, I can concede.

You are obviously ignorant of the ongoing debate over the permissibility and scope of ijtihad, among the so called Islamic scholars. Unfortunately among the fundamentalist, there is no debate. Search on "gates of ijtihad", there is a lot written on the debate.

Yes you did. I did not.

"absurd interpretations", Even though you consider the writers of the Buhkari haddiths to be "goat herders" writing "absurd interpretations", doesnt negate the fact that the majority of Muslims regard them as second only to the Koran in religious authority. And I am critical of the fundamentalist. If the doctrine was "turn the other cheek" and "do unto others as you would have them to unto you", I wouldnt be critical of the doctrine. Since it is "slay the idolaters where you find them" that they are interpreting literaly, I am also critical of that doctrine.

Jews and christians are hardly 'idolaters' since they are part of the same monotheistic tradition. If you are so taken with literal interpretations, you might as well be completely literal.

Im an atheist. I reject the Islamic doctrine. Please dont slay me. I do not reject mathmatics.

And you have no business, WHATSOEVER, accepting or rejecting islamic doctrine nor mathematics since you don't know the first thing about them.

I think your perception of my posting of verses from the quran and haddiths, and writings from respected Islamic scholars, as an attack on the religion in its entirety, only further demonstrates my point about the content of those verses and writings. YOU percieve my exposing of them to be an attack on the religion because of their content.

You're back-pedalling is lost to no one.

So, what are you criticising - for the record?

The doctrine or the interpretation of goat-herders, hmmm?

numinus

01-08-2008, 09:12 PM

"Never"?? Always!!!! "UNTIL they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." Which means always because the christians and the jews are not going to pay your damned tax or aknowledge superiority.

So, all of a sudden, jihad is about taxes, eh?

I can't wait to see what kind of source you would present in support of that nonsense!

numinus

01-08-2008, 09:59 PM

To those inclined to believe goat-herder logic:

http://www.islamdoor.com/People.htm

Islam is a religion of peace, love and tolerance. Today, however, some circles have been presenting a false image of Islam, as if there were conflict between Islam and the adherents of the two other monotheistic religions. Yet Islam's view of Jews and Christians, who are named "the People of the Book" in the Koran, is very friendly and tolerant....

http://answering-islam.org/Books/Tisdall/thebook.htm

IT is well-known that the Koran abounds in references to "the People of the Book."1 From the context in each case it is clear that the author thereby wished to denote the Jews specially, but also in a less degree that he associated the Christians too with them in the title. After the Moslem conquest of Persia, the Zoroastrians endeavoured in some measure to shelter themselves also under that appellation, for the "People of the Book" had the privilege of choosing between embracing Islam on the one hand, and being compelled to pay "the jizyah-tax out of hand and be brought low" on the other, while all other religious communities had the sword to dread.

http://www.worldwisdom.com/Public/SlideShows/SlideShow.asp?SlideShowID=39&SlideDetailID=360

People of the Book

"Those who believe (in the Koran), and those who follow the Jewish (Torah), and the Christians and the Sabians—any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."

—Koran 2:62
http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/peopleq.htm

A horde of other verses in the koran that mentions jews and christians to many to post here.

jb_1430

01-08-2008, 10:26 PM

How in hell can you understand the question if you do not even understand the word, hmmm?
Isn't religion precisely the idea embodied in doctrine, hmmm?

No.

Jews and christians are hardly 'idolaters' since they are part of the same monotheistic tradition. If you are so taken with literal interpretations, you might as well be completely literal.

Yes thats mighty white to give them the opportunity to live another day if they will only accept their "state of subjection".

[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.

jb_1430

01-08-2008, 10:31 PM

So, all of a sudden, jihad is about taxes, eh?

I can't wait to see what kind of source you would present in support of that nonsense!

[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.

jb_1430

01-08-2008, 10:44 PM

http://www.islamdoor.com/People.htm

Islam is a religion of peace, love and tolerance... Yet Islam's view of Jews and Christians, who are named "the People of the Book" in the Koran, is very friendly and tolerant....

http://answering-islam.org/Books/Tisdall/thebook.htm

... for the "People of the Book" had the privilege of choosing between embracing Islam on the one hand, and being compelled to pay "the jizyah-tax out of hand and be brought low" on the other, while all other religious communities had the sword to dread.

http://www.worldwisdom.com/Public/SlideShows/SlideShow.asp?SlideShowID=39&SlideDetailID=360

Very friendly indeed.

numinus

01-09-2008, 05:52 AM

No.

Nobody need believe you on this. After all, you have no competence in religious matters anyway.

Yes thats mighty white to give them the opportunity to live another day if they will only accept their "state of subjection".

[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.

And where is jihad in that, eh?

bewitched

01-09-2008, 05:58 AM

Nobody need believe you on this. After all, you have no competence in religious matters anyway.

And where is jihad in that, eh?
I believe everything jb says because it's perfectly accurate.
"Jihad, meaning "to strive" or "to struggle", in Arabic, is an Islamic term and considered a duty by some Muslims. It appears frequently in the Qur'an and common usage as the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)".[1][2] A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid, the plural is mujahideen."
wiki.

numinus

01-09-2008, 06:00 AM

Very friendly indeed.

LMAO.

Your crap is finite after all!

numinus

01-09-2008, 06:05 AM

I believe everything jb says because it's perfectly accurate.
"Jihad, meaning "to strive" or "to struggle", in Arabic, is an Islamic term and considered a duty by some Muslims. It appears frequently in the Qur'an and common usage as the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)".[1][2] A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid, the plural is mujahideen."
wiki.

Jihad is not confined to literal war. So how is jb perfectly accurate, again - seeing how he is talking about literal war, hmmm?

jb_1430

01-09-2008, 07:11 AM

LMAO.

Your crap is finite after all!

You couldnt have provided us a better demonstration of peace, love and tolerance among Muslims. Allowing Christians and Jews to live another day if they obey the Muslim rulers is considered tolerance, because for everyone of other faiths its convert or die. And they actually consider this to be "peace, love and tolerance". You actually view it a privilidge for the Muslims to allow Christians and Jews to continue living because they are killing all the idolaters. Freakin amazing. Most of you Muslims dwell in an alternate reality from the west.
And all the left wing whiney moonbats in the west, falling over themselves to defend this ideology????? Freakin amazing. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". It isnt necessary that you guys actually defend the evil.

http://www.islamdoor.com/People.htm

Islam is a religion of peace, love and tolerance... Yet Islam's view of Jews and Christians, who are named "the People of the Book" in the Koran, is very friendly and tolerant....

http://answering-islam.org/Books/Tisdall/thebook.htm

... for the "People of the Book" had the privilege of choosing between embracing Islam on the one hand, and being compelled to pay "the jizyah-tax out of hand and be brought low" on the other, while all other religious communities had the sword to dread.

http://www.worldwisdom.com/Public/Sl...deDetailID=360

jb_1430

01-09-2008, 07:20 AM

Jihad is not confined to literal war. So how is jb perfectly accurate, again - seeing how he is talking about literal war, hmmm?

Noooo, it is the Bukhari haddiths that are talking about literal war.

numinus

01-10-2008, 07:37 AM

You couldnt have provided us a better demonstration of peace, love and tolerance among Muslims. Allowing Christians and Jews to live another day if they obey the Muslim rulers is considered tolerance, because for everyone of other faiths its convert or die. And they actually consider this to be "peace, love and tolerance". You actually view it a privilidge for the Muslims to allow Christians and Jews to continue living because they are killing all the idolaters. Freakin amazing. Most of you Muslims dwell in an alternate reality from the west.
And all the left wing whiney moonbats in the west, falling over themselves to defend this ideology????? Freakin amazing. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". It isnt necessary that you guys actually defend the evil.

You are obviously baffled senseless by now.

That is TOLERANT in the 7th century milieu - as compared to the barbaric hordes of europe and asian conquerors on empire-building sprees. Certainly no different to pax americana of the last couple of centuries. At least they fought their wars to create their empire. America simply bought her colonies.

numinus

01-10-2008, 07:43 AM

Noooo, it is the Bukhari haddiths that are talking about literal war.

Correct.

Meanwhile, you and your goat-herder friends mean to extend 'literal' war on peoples of the book - AGAINST THE VERY DOCTRINE YOU CRITICIZE.

No amount of spin would make your argument any less absurd.

jb_1430

01-10-2008, 08:13 AM

You are obviously baffled senseless by now.

That is TOLERANT in the 7th century milieu -

And you presented this as evidence that "Islam is a religion of peace, love and tolerance" in the 21st "century milieu". What you dont realize is that from a western perspective you just demonstrated why Islam in this milieu is expressed thru violence, hate and intolerance. From your perspective, for Muslims to allow Christians and Jews the opportunity to avoid their swords if they agree to pay the tax and accept their "state of subjection" to their Muslim masters, is a demonstration of Islams tolerance. From our perspective it is a demonstration of the intolerance of Islamic doctrine.

numinus

01-10-2008, 08:52 AM

And you presented this as evidence that "Islam is a religion of peace, love and tolerance" in the 21st "century milieu". What you dont realize is that from a western perspective you just demonstrated why Islam in this milieu is expressed thru violence, hate and intolerance. From your perspective, for Muslims to allow Christians and Jews the opportunity to avoid their swords if they agree to pay the tax and accept their "state of subjection" to their Muslim masters, is a demonstration of Islams tolerance. From our perspective it is a demonstration of the intolerance of Islamic doctrine.

In the 21st century milieu, islam can and do co-exist with other religions in a single polity. Rational moslems view jihad as a personal struggle.

Try looking at malaysia, indonesia, brunei, and other south-east asian nations, instead of merely looking at goat-herders turned demagogues. These nations not only celebrate their ethnic and religious diversity - it is a major factor in their economic prosperity as well.

jb_1430

01-10-2008, 11:46 AM

In the 21st century milieu, islam can and do co-exist with other religions in a single polity. Rational moslems view jihad as a personal struggle.

Try looking at malaysia, indonesia, brunei, and other south-east asian nations, instead of merely looking at goat-herders turned demagogues. These nations not only celebrate their ethnic and religious diversity - it is a major factor in their economic prosperity as well.

Yes I am thrilled that the Muslims of the far east prefer to apply Greek concepts of hermeneutics and the French concepts of Milieu to the arabic doctrine. Because without it, its some pretty violent stuff when read literally. Unfortunately most Sunnis reject these western concept and apply ijtihad to the written doctrine and come to very different interpretations. Over in Egypt they brand Zayd an apostate for daring to suggest that they interpret the verses, requiring Christians and Jews to pay Jizya and the permissability of owning slave girls, in their own Milieu, and therefore not applicable today. Saying that such matters are "not subject to discussion" because these "principle considered "religiously proven without doubt","
They dont use "hermeneutics" and "Milieu" to add western color to their interpretations of the doctrine. They us "IJTIHAD". And the gates of ijtihad were closed over a thousand years ago.

Nasr Abu Zayd
...but Islamic controversies about his academic work led to a court decision of apostasy and the denial of the appointment. A hisba trial started against him by fundamentalist Islamic scholars, he was declared a heretic (Murtadd) by an Egyptian court, was consequently declared divorced from his wife, Cairo University French Literature professor Dr. Ibthal Younis (since, according to Sharia law, it is not permissible for her to be married to a non-Muslim) and, in effect, forced out of his homeland....

"the defendant's proposition that the requirement of Christians and Jews to pay jizya (tax) constitutes a reversal of humanity's efforts to establish a better world is contrary to the divine verses… The verse on jizya, verse 29 of Sura al-Tawba, which the defendant opposes, is not subject to discussion. Further, the judgement stated that the denunciation by Abu Zayd of the permissibility of the ownership of slave girls, principle considered "religiously proven without doubt", is "contrary to all the divine texts which permit such provided that the required conditions are met"
Nasr Abu Zayd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

jb_1430

01-11-2008, 05:45 AM

Correct.

Meanwhile, you and your goat-herder friends mean to extend 'literal' war on peoples of the book - AGAINST THE VERY DOCTRINE YOU CRITICIZE.

????? The koran and haddiths are full of text refering to the 'literal' war on peoples of the book. Other than his own tribe, Muhammed spent most of his time waging jihad against the people of the book. Perhaps you are refering to the distinction that when people of the book surrender to the invading muslim armies, they are allowed to live if "they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." Idolaters must convert to Islam or die.
And unfortunately the fundamentalist dont even believe that the average christian or jew in America qualifies as one of the people of the book. We follow "polytheism", "paganistic beliefs" according to their doctrine.

They distort the Truth with Falsehood, and mix the Light with the Darkness, and the Polytheism of democracy with the Monotheism of Islam. But we, with the help of Allah, replied to all of these fallacies, and showed that democracy is a religion. But it is not Allah’s religion. It is not the religion of monotheism, and its parliamentary councils are just places of polytheism, and safe havens for paganistic beliefs. All of these must be avoided to achieve monotheism, which is Allah’s right upon His servants. We must destroy those who follow
democracy, and we must take their followers as enemies - hate them and wage a great Jihad against them.
http://www.islamicthinkers.com/index/files/books/aqeedah/Democracy%20-%20%20A%20Religion.pdf

numinus

01-11-2008, 08:51 AM

Yes I am thrilled that the Muslims of the far east prefer to apply Greek concepts of hermeneutics and the French concepts of Milieu to the arabic doctrine. Because without it, its some pretty violent stuff when read literally.

No they don't use greek concepts. They simply do not subscribe to your goat-herder logic.

Meeeeeh.

Unfortunately most Sunnis reject these western concept and apply ijtihad to the written doctrine and come to very different interpretations.

I wonder where exactly do you get your demographics? Exactly what percentage of the 1.2 billion moslems of the world subscribe to 'literal' jihad, eh?

I feel sorry for your calcified ignorance.

Over in Egypt they brand Zayd an apostate for daring to suggest that they interpret the verses, requiring Christians and Jews to pay Jizya and the permissability of owning slave girls, in their own Milieu, and therefore not applicable today. Saying that such matters are "not subject to discussion" because these "principle considered "religiously proven without doubt","

And in what absurd twist of logic does 69 million egyptian moslem represent the 1.2 billion moslems in the world, hmmm?

They dont use "hermeneutics" and "Milieu" to add western color to their interpretations of the doctrine. They us "IJTIHAD". And the gates of ijtihad were closed over a thousand years ago.

Milieu is merely a word. There is hardly any concept behind it other than its dictionary meaning.

1.2 billion moslems in the world. Do you understand this number? There is a simple and infallible way to demonstrate that the majority of this number do not subscribe to literal jihad - THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A PHENOMENON ON A GLOBAL SCALE.

My 5 year old has a better grasp of this logic than you. Perhaps you should be talking to her.

Coyote

01-11-2008, 09:02 AM

numinus

01-11-2008, 09:18 AM

????? The koran and haddiths are full of text refering to the 'literal' war on peoples of the book. Other than his own tribe, Muhammed spent most of his time waging jihad against the people of the book. Perhaps you are refering to the distinction that when people of the book surrender to the invading muslim armies, they are allowed to live if "they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." Idolaters must convert to Islam or die.
And unfortunately the fundamentalist dont even believe that the average christian or jew in America qualifies as one of the people of the book. We follow "polytheism", "paganistic beliefs" according to their doctrine.
http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/70people_of_the_book.php

"Unbiased people who study Islamic history and the Muslims' relationship with the Jews and Christians living under Islamic rule will come across the following fact: The People of the Book have always lived in peace and tranquility under Islamic rule.

God reveals that those Christians and Jews who believe in Him and the Day of Judgment and do good deeds will receive the fairest rewards for their virtue:

Those who believe, those who are Jews, Christians, and Sabaeans, all who believe in God and the Last Day and act rightly will have their reward with their Lord. They will feel no fear and will know no sorrow. (Qur'an, 2:62)

Prophet Mohammed's (may God bless him and grant him peace) Exemplary Attitude

Prophet Mohammed (saas), the best role model for Muslims who deal with the People of the Book, was always just and compassionate toward Jews and Christians and tried to create an atmosphere based on reconciliation and love among these three religious communities. Various agreements and guarantees allowed Christians and Jews to live as autonomous religious communities.

Prophet Mohammed (saas) allowed the Jews to become a party to the Constitution of Madinah signed with the Aws and Khazraj clans, which permitted them to continue living as a separate religious community. The basis for this acceptance of the Jews' faith and traditions was laid down in the following article: "The Jews of Banu Awf [non-Muslim minorities] are a community along with the believers. To the Jews their religion, and to the Muslim their religion." 1

Freedom of Belief and Worship

Beginning at the time of Prophet Mohammed (saas), there has always been freedom of religion in Muslim-ruled lands. Articles guaranteeing the protection of monasteries and churches have been important parts of all agreements signed between Muslims and the People of the Book. Historical documents reveal that many Muslims visited monasteries to rest for the night, to enjoy a meal, or even to have a civilized conversation during their travels or campaigns.

The People of the Book often responded warmly toward Muslims. The following expressions were recorded in an agreement signed by Caliph Umar, which was presented to Abu Ubayda by the Syrian Christians:

[We imposed these terms on ourselves:]… not to withhold our churches from Muslims stopping there by night or day; to open their doors to the traveller and wayfarer; …to entertain every Muslim traveller in our customary style and feed him… We will not abuse a Muslim, and he who strikes a Muslim has forfeited his rights. 2

Under Islamic rule, the People of the Book have always celebrated their religious festivities as they pleased. From time to time, the Muslim leadership even attended them. A letter by the Nestorian Patriarch Isho'yab III (650-60) reveals the Muslim leaders' compassion and acceptance toward the People of the Book:

They [Abbasids] have not attacked the Christian religion, but rather they have commended our faith, honored our priests... and conferred benefits on churches and monasteries. 3

These historical facts reveal that, contrary to much of what we read today, Islam is a religion of peace and acceptance. Christians and Jews lived freely under Muslim rule and enjoyed the freedoms of religious belief and thought.

Tranquility under Muslim Rule

During the first few centuries of the Christian era, Jews oppressed Christians; as the latter became more powerful, they began to oppress Jews and even fellow Christians belonging to other sects. The Middle Ages were dominated by the Catholic church's oppression of all Jews and Christians who did not agree with its teachings. Some non-Catholics sought refuge with the Muslims. The oppression and violence directed by Byzantium against the Egyptian Monophysite and the Jacobean Christians, the horrors endured by those Jews and Orthodox Christians who found themselves in the path of the Catholic Crusaders, and the persecution endured by the Jews of Europe, as well as by the Muslims and Jews in Spain after the reconquista, have never occurred on Muslim soil.

Jews escaping Spanish tyranny found the peace and security they sought on Ottoman soil. Driven out of Spain and faced with more hardship in other countries where they sought refuge, many died of hunger and thirst at the gates of towns and cities they were not permitted to enter. Jews who boarded Genoese ships were either exploited or sold to pirates. Sultan Bayazid welcomed the Jews into his empire and demanded that the people show them the respect and acceptance to which they were entitled.

The order proclaimed not to refuse the Jews entry or cause them difficulties, but to receive them cordially. 4 Sultan Bayazid is known to history as a religious man, and his hospitality and acceptance were based on the Qur'an's morality.

Living under the Islamic rule, the People of the Book took part in the bustling cultural life. Muslim leaders extended their cultural patronage to the lands they conquered and imported them to Baghdad, capital of the empire, where they would be studied by Muslim, Christian, and Jewish scientists. Each of them in turn, could teach their works based on these studies alongside their own religious beliefs. At a time when Muslims supported science and freedom of thought, Europe, the center of Christianity, had Inquisition courts that burned people at the stake for their heretical, meaning non-Catholic, thoughts or religious beliefs.

The Muslim leaders' sense of justice led many Christians and Jews to bring their cases to Islamic courts, even though they had their own courts with their own laws. At one time, the Nestorian patriarch Mar Timothee I (780-825) even circulated a decree to counteract the ever-increasing number of Christians taking their cases to Islamic courts. 5

The Non-Muslims' Legal Status

The People of the Book living within the Muslim realm were considered dhimmis, rather than prisoners of war, and therefore were guaranteed certain legal rights. For example, in exchange for paying the jizya tax, their lives and property were guaranteed, and they enjoyed freedom of religious belief and thought, were exempted from military service, and had the right to their own law courts to resolve their disputes. On some occasions, their taxes were refunded.

Our Prophet (saas) said: "I am the adversary of those who wrong the dhimmis or burden them with a load they cannot carry." According to this principle, Muslims considered it their duty to protect those non-Muslims living under their rule. The Muslims' sense of justice dictates that dhimmis come under the state's protection.

The amicable history between Muslims and Jews and Christians is an example for the present. The Islamic code of ethics requires that non-Muslims be accepted, that their values and beliefs be respected, and that an environment in which peaceful coexistence is possible be created. Therefore, the spread of this code, as well as efforts to correct some misguided practices claiming to be Islamic, will play an important role."

You are a liar whose sole intent is to sow goat-herder logic.

numinus

01-11-2008, 10:02 AM

I think that sums up the argument: it comes down to numbers.

From wiki:

"Commonly cited estimates of the Muslim population in 2007 range from 1.1 billion to 1.8 billion. Approximately 85% are Sunni and 15% are Shi'a, with a small minority belonging to other sects. Some 30–40 countries are Muslim-majority, and Arabs account for around 20% of all Muslims worldwide. South Asia and Southeast Asia contain the most populous Muslim countries, with Indonesia, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh having more than 100 million adherents each..."

Imagine that!

Goat herder logic comes from a region that accounts for a mere 20% of the entire moslem population of the world?!

And assuming every moslem in the region subscribe to literal jihad, the above estimate translates to 220 - 360 million angry goat-herders - enough to set the entire region into flames. Instead, what we actually see is a couple of goat-herders making bad rhetorical speeches.

bewitched

01-11-2008, 02:19 PM

Coyote

01-11-2008, 05:18 PM

as long as they pay a jizya.
and a dhimmi is lesser of a human than a muslim.
are you Islamic? or just a sympathizer?

I think you just like throwing around Islamic terminology so you sound like you know what you are talking about.

Carry on:D

jb_1430

01-11-2008, 09:57 PM

http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/70people_of_the_book.php

"Unbiased people who study Islamic history and the Muslims' relationship with the Jews and Christians living under Islamic rule will come across the following fact: The People of the Book have always lived in peace and tranquility under Islamic rule.

The irony of a Turk claiming such things.

The Massacres of the Khilafah
Walter Short

1. The emergence of the Ottomans and the conquest of Constantinople
The Osmanli or Ottoman Turks emerged as a force in the 14th century, replacing the previous Seljuk Turkish Emirate of Konya. [1] They were '...fanatical Moslems... Their clan leaders called themselves Ghazis, warriors for the faith of Islam. Conquest of the infidel was for them a religious duty.' [2] Hence, jihad by the Ottomans was as much offensive in character as defensive, and their belief was that non-Muslims should be subjugated by the sword. In 1354 they occupied Gallipoli, and then spread across the Balkans, defeating the Serbs at the Battle of Kosovo in 1389, and completing the conquest of Bulgaria and Thessaly by 1393. This meant that the capital of the Byzantine Empire (or what little was left of it), Constantinople, was now isolated. 'Close the gates of the city' said the Sultan to Byzantine Emperor Manuel II (1391-1425), 'for I own everything outside.' [3]

By then it was only a matter of time before Constantinople was attacked, and under the energetic and ruthless Sultan Mehmet II, the Ottomans began the siege of the Byzantine capital in April 1453 – this despite the fact that at his accession to the Sultanate in 1451, he had sworn on the Qur'an to the Byzantine embassy that he would respect the latter's territorial integrity. [4] Obviously, an oath to an infidel meant nothing. There is no way that the siege of Constantinople could be classified as 'defensive' jihad: rather, it was an unprovoked act of aggression. Hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned, the city fell on Monday 28 May 1453. It should be noted that on 6 April Mehmet II had sent Emperor Constantine XI a message, the terms of which the latter declined, 'declaring that, as Islamic law prescribed, every citizen would be spared if the city would surrender without resistance.' [5] The implication was clear: if the city resisted, the lives of its residents would be forfeit.

This in fact happened when the city fell on Tuesday 29 May, with Muslim forces slaughtering, plundering, and enslaving multitudes of Christians. [6] This fact, seldom mentioned by those Muslims glorying in the event, demonstrates how intrinsic were massacre and oppression to the Ottoman Khilafah, and naturally gives reason for concern to non-Muslims when they hear of nostalgia for the institution among Muslims. Mehmet II entered the great church of Hagia Sophia, the premier cathedral of eastern Christendom, and rather than respecting its religious integrity, expropriated it for Islam, formally transforming it into a mosque. By the 16th century, the Balkans as a whole had come under Muslim rule.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Christian liberty and dignity under the Ottomans
The picture was not totally dark. The Ottomans allowed the Greek Orthodox a large measure of internal autonomy as to their social and religious concerns – the Millat concept. The Sultan often appointed a Greek as Grand Vizier, and the commander of the Ottoman Navy was frequently a Greek. [7] However, full citizenship was reserved only for those embracing Islam. The Sultan often interfered in the elections for the Orthodox Patriarch, and could even over-rule them. On a number of occasions, Patriarchs were executed. Neither full religious liberty nor equality existed.

One of the most telling practices which questions the view that the Ottoman Khilafah was a Golden Age as far as religious minorities were concerned was the forced recruitment of Janissaries, which started in the 14th century. '... they forcibly took male children of the enslaved Christian families (mainly Greeks. and later also Armenians Bulgarians, Albanians and Serbs), and brought them up in special camps They conditioned them to become fanatic Turks and relentless killers to their own people. These children would grow up to believe that their father was the Sultan and that if they were to die in battle they would go to heaven. Thus, because of this New Army, or Janissaries, (Yeni-ceri in Turkish) the Turks continued to pursue their conquests.' [8]

Ottoman forces would raid Christian villages, and kidnap boys, who were then brought to Constantinople as slave-soldiers, and forcibly converted to Islam. They were banned from intimate relations with women, except when they attacked an enemy town or village, at which point they could pillage and rape for three days. This continued until 1700, after which membership became hereditary, and finally ended with the abolition of the Janissaries, after a rebellion. Other Christian children were kidnapped into slavery as palace officials, eunuchs and concubines. It is practices like these that have left dark memories in Balkan peoples and Armenians about the long years of Muslim rule.

These practices could have become normative in Western Europe as well if the Ottoman siege of Vienna in 1683 had been successful. Again, this cannot be construed as 'defensive' jihad: it was an unprovoked act of aggression. The actions of Ottoman forces as the attack on Austria began demonstrated what Europe could expect if the Khilafah managed to extend its borders over the rest of Europe. Members of the Ottoman forces 'burnt villages, enslaved the women and children, and the men fit to work. The sick and the old they decapitated. They sacked the churches and trampled the crucifixes into the ground.' [9] They engaged in 'burning, raping, killing, enslaving...' [10] It should be remembered that the Muslim army was commanded by the Grand Vizier himself, Kara Mustafa. It is difficult to see how such behaviour could be considered as attracting people to Islam.

Discrimination against Christians continued throughout the centuries of the existence of the Ottoman Khilafah. An example of this is found in the peace treaty ending the Crimean War of 1854-56. The War began as a squabble between Russia and the Ottoman Khilafah. Peace was restored by the Treaty of Paris in March 1856. Usually attention is given to Britain and France's imposed clause that banned Russian warships from the Black Sea. Less attention is focussed on Article 9 of the Treaty, which obliged the Ottoman Khilafah to recognise equality among its subjects 'without distinction as to religion or race'. This demonstrates that the Ottoman Khilafah was indeed engaged in such systematic discrimination. Rather than honouring the treaty, the Khilafah passed a decree the same year requiring non-Muslims to obtain a permit from the Khalifah himself to build or repair their places of worship. Effectively, this meant a continuation of the principles of Islamic law, and a circumvention of the Treaty of Paris.

Not only was Christian liberty under the Khilafah limited, Christian dignity was also frequently disregarded. Until the time of the Great War and their ethnic cleansing in 1915, Armenian Christians dressed their young girls as boys to prevent their rape or kidnap (or both) by Ottoman Muslims. In fact, any child was in danger of being kidnapped. A typical example of Ottoman Muslim contempt for Christians is supplied by a consideration of the burial-permit issued by a qadi (Muslim official) in 1855 for a deceased Christian: 'We certify to the priest of the church of Mary, that the impure, putrefied, stinking carcass of Saideh, damned this day, may be concealed underground.' [11] Undoubtedly, Muslims would regard such sentiments made in regard to a Muslim corpse to be bigoted and insensitive; they should not be surprised that Christians would react similarly, and find it difficult to credit that the Khilafah was indeed a Utopian regime. Cont-

see
http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/xstnc-6.html
for references

jb_1430

01-11-2008, 09:59 PM

3. Massacres by the Khilafah
By the 19th century the Ottoman empire was in decline, and moves towards liberty began among the Balkan peoples. This period saw the first stirrings of modern nationalism, and there was a great desire among the Balkan Christians to rid themselves of their Turkish overlords (and in the case of Romanians, of the Phanariot Greeks that the Ottomans used as administrators). However, nationalism alone did not provide the spur to liberate Europe from the Turks. As Christians, the Balkan peoples were at best second-class citizens – conquered subjects, denied religious equality. 'The Christians, indeed, were excluded from political power, made subject to a special tax, [i.e. the Jizyah] and were on more than one occasion exposed to the risk of systematic extermination.' [12]

3.1 The Greek Revolt
The defeats the Ottomans had suffered at the hands of the Poles and Austrians in 1683, by the Russians thereafter on a number of occasions, and Venice's temporary occupation of the Morea in the 1690s until 1718 demonstrated that the Khilafah was not invulnerable. The first attempts at liberation came with the Serbs under Kara George in 1804. The uprising was successful, but Ottoman authority was restored in 1813. Another uprising in 1815 under Milosch Obrenovitch gained the Serbs a measure of self-rule, and himself received the title 'Prince of the Serbians' from the Sultan. [13] The principal event, however, that began the collapse of Ottoman power was the freedom-struggle of Greece in 1821. Ever since the times of classical Greece, Greek communities had resided around the Black Sea, including areas that had come under Russian control in the 18th century. The aide-de-camp to the Tsar in 1821 was a Greek, Prince Hypsilanti, who was also the leader of a Greek nationalist secret society called Hetairia Philike – the 'Association of Friends', which had been established in 1814 in Odessa. It possessed 20,000 members, and operated in Greek-populated areas of the Ottoman Empire. [14]

The campaign began almost farcically, when Hypsilanti and a group of Greeks crossed into Moldavia in March 1821, and urged the Orthodox population to rise against the Ottomans. However, the Romanians, whilst Orthodox, were not Greeks, and resented Greek superiority in the Empire, and conflict between the Greeks and Romanians soon erupted. It is only fair to state that Hypsilanti and his followers behaved as badly as the Ottomans by permitting a massacre of the local Muslim community. [15] In these circumstances, it was unsurprising that in June at Skaleni the rebels were been beaten by the Ottomans.

However, the events in Moldavia encouraged a popular uprising by the Greeks of the Morea at the instigation of the Hetairia Philike. Again, the Greek shamed their cause by a general massacre of virtually the entire 25,000 strong Muslim community within six weeks of the outbreak of the event. The Ottomans retaliated by massacring Greeks in Thessaly, Macedonia and the Aegean islands. On one of the latter, the Aegean Island of Chios, the Ottomans massacred 27,000 Christians, including women and children. [16] Most of the Christians in the Greek quarter of Constantinople were massacred. [17] On Easter Day 1822, the Orthodox Patriarch in Constantinople was hanged by the Ottomans, and his body was later was thrown into the Bosphorus, eventually recovered by a Greek boat and brought to Odessa, where the Patriarch was given a martyr's burial. [18]

The murder of the Patriarch was a disastrous miscalculation by the Khilafah, and caused widespread revulsion in Europe, with Russia threatening intervention. The cause of Greek liberation now became a popular concern among Europeans, horrified at the oppression of their fellow-Christians, the massacres and the sale into slavery of Greek Christian captives in Egypt. [19] The deep religious conviction of King Charles X of France led him to support the Greek Christians. The famous British poet Lord Byron, like many other Europeans, volunteered to fight alongside the Greeks, and lost his life there. Equally, many Muslims heeded call to jihad against the infidel made by the Khalifah in March 1821.

Greek military and especially naval successes caused the Khalifah to appeal to Muhammad Ali, his vassal in Egypt, to intervene with the Egyptian fleet, promising him control of the Morea, Crete and the Levant. Muhammad Ali's son, Ibrahim, landed in Crete, where the population was at that time roughly one third Muslim, and began to massacre the majority Christian community. Similarly, when Ibrahim's forces landed in the Morea, they 'began to wipe out the Greek population.' [20] It should be stated that this was the result of the Khalifah's direction, as urged by the Muslim ulema, that 'the rebels be openly fought and put to the sword, that their property be plundered and their wives and children reduced to slavery' [21]. As we have seen, both the enslavement and genocide actually occurred – 'the whole population of the Greek mainland was in danger of extermination' [22].

It was the level of genocide and the threat of Russian intervention that eventually caused the Great powers, led by Britain, to intervene at the battle of Navarino in 1827, which destroyed the Ottoman and Egyptian fleets, and allowed French forces to invade the Morea, whilst Russian troops advanced into Thrace. It must be stated that prior to this, the Powers had offered the Ottomans a settlement which would have provided for nominal Ottoman suzerainty with full autonomy for Greece, but the Khalifah, committed to the Islamic idea of the subjugation of non-Muslims, declined the offer. This miscalculation led to the Powers forcing recognition of full Greek independence in 1832.

3.2 Khilafah Massacres from 1840-1860
In fact, it was the constant incidence of genocide that obliged Western intervention in Ottoman affairs, leading to the eventual collapse of the State. In 1842, Muslims engaged in the following massacre:

Badr Khan Bey, A Hakkari Kurdish Amir, combined with other Kurdish forces led by Nurallah, attacked the Assyrians, intending to burn, kill, destroy, and, if possible, exterminate the Assyrians race from the mountains. The fierce Kurds destroyed and burned whatever came within their reach. An indiscriminate massacre took place. The women were brought before the Amir and murdered in cold blood. The following incident illustrates the revolting barbarity: the aged mother of Mar Shimun, the Patriarch of the Church of the East, was seized by them, and after having practiced on her the most abominable atrocities, they cut her body into two parts and threw it into the river Zab, exclaiming, "go and carry to your accursed son the intelligence that the same fate awaits him." Nearly ten thousand Assyrians were massacred, and as large a number of woman and children were taken captive, most of whom were sent to Jezirah to be sold as slaves, to be bestowed as presents upon the influential Muslims. (Death of a Nation, pp. 111-112). [23]
Similar events occurred in 1846. [24] In neither case did the Ottoman Government or its security forces intervene to prevent the massacres or punish the wrong-doers, indicating that they were happy with the outcome, and thus making the Khilafah accomplices to the massacres. In 1847, Muslim forces massacred 30,000 members of the Assyrian Christian community. A good example of State complicity by the Khilafah in massacres of Christians begun by individual Muslims occurred in Lebanon and Syria in 1860, and which were only finally ended by the intervention of French forces:

In Lebanon, from April to July, more than sixty villages of Al-Matn and Al-Shuf were burned to ashes by the Druze and Kurdish forces. The big towns then followed. The Ottoman garrison commander again offered the Maronite population asylum, as he had offered to the small villages, asking for the surrender of their arms and then slaughtering them in the local serai. Such was the fate of Dayr al-Qamar, which lost 2600 men; Jazzin and environs, where 1500 were slaughtered; Hasbayya, where 1000 of 6000 were cold bloodedly killed; Rashayya, where 800 perished. The orders for Hasbayya were that no male between seven and seventy years of age should be spared. Malicious eyes feasted on mangled, intermingled bodies of old and young in the courtyard of the Shihabi palace. Zahla, largest among the towns with 12000 inhabitants, held out for a short time and then succumbed under an attack by a host including fighters from Harwan and Bedouins from the desert. The town lay snugly in a deep ravine carved by the Bardawni flowing from the Mount Sannin. Hardly a house escaped the flames. The total loss of life within the span of three months and a space of a few miles was estimated at 12000. From Lebanon the spark of hate flew to Damascus and ignited a reservoir of Muslim ill-feeling generated by the policy of Ibrahim Pasha and the egalitarian provisions of Khatti Humayun. The Assyrian quarter was sent on fire and some 11000 of its inhabitants were put to the sword. [25]

see
http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/xstnc-6.html
for references

jb_1430

01-11-2008, 10:01 PM

3.3 The Balkan Massacres of the 1870s
In Bosnia-Herzegovina, the rural Christian peasantry still lived under a system of serfdom, and faced heavy taxes from the Khilafah that were not endured by the Muslims. The Balkans suffered poor harvests in 1874, threatening starvation, yet the Ottoman State, far from assisting the populace, still demanded the usual taxes – again, influenced by Islamic law. [26] The pressure-cooker finally blew-up in 1875, when the Christians of Bosnia-Herzegovina revolted against the Khilafah. The uprising spread to Serbia and Montenegro, which had been autonomous since 1829 whilst remaining under Ottoman suzerainty. Soon the revolt spread to Bulgaria, which had no rights of self-government under the Khilafah, because of the large Turkish and Muslim communities in the country and its proximity to the imperial capital.

'The new Sultan, Abdul Hamid II (known appropriately in history as the "red Sultan") gave no quarter to the insurgents.' [27] The Khalifah's policy was genocidal: 'whole villages were razed to the ground, and the inhabitants murdered. Bulgarian prisoners were shot after being subjected to the most barbarous tortures.' [28] Between April and August 1876 thousands of Bulgarian Christians were horrifically massacred by Khilafah forces - 12,000 men, women and children were butchered in May alone. [29] The Great Powers responded by sending the Khilafah the Andrassy note, so-named after the Hungarian minister, proposing reforms in Ottoman administration, which the Sultan pretended to accept. The Balkan Christians, however, after their experiences, refused to take seriously Ottoman promises in the absence of firm Western guarantees.

The Great Powers, with the crucial exception of Britain, at that point sent the Berlin Memorandum to the Ottoman Empire, threatening to assist the Balkan revolts if the proposed reforms were not implemented within two months. However, in the absence of British involvement, the Ottomans felt confident enough to ignore the advice. Russia began preparations for an assault on the Ottoman Khilafah, but this was prevented by an international conference at Constantinople where Abdul Hamid II submitted to constitutional reforms, proposed by his minister Midhat Pasha, a man of liberal views, which involved better treatment of Christians. However, virtually as soon as the conference finished, Midhat Pasha was removed and killed soon after. The new constitution was also withdrawn, along with the guarantees to the Christians. [30] This demonstrated that the persecution of Christians was bound to continue as long as the Khilafah continued to exist.

Eventually, Ottoman prevarication and treachery led to a Russo-Romanian attack, and ultimately intervention by Britain, leading finally to the Treaty of Berlin in 1878 which recognised the total independence of Serbia, Romania, and Montenegro, whilst the Austria occupied Bosnia and the Sandjak of Novibazar. Bulgaria received home rule, with eastern Rumelia, bordering eastern Thrace, always to have a Christian Governor. [31] The war had cost the Khilafah much of its European territory, a point of rejoicing for the Balkan Christians. It must be confessed, however, that the now-independent Balkan states after 1878 were often as bigoted and cruel to their Muslim communities as had been the Khilafah to the Christians, and consequently, many Muslims, frequently persecuted, migrated to the Ottoman Empire.

A more crucial loss for the Ottoman Khilafah was British support. News of the Bulgarian massacres was greeted with popular outrage. The Prime Minister, Disraeli, afraid of Russian expansionist plans, dismissed tales of the massacres as mere propaganda - 'coffee-house gossip'. His opposite number, Gladstone, leader of the Opposition, wrote a famous pamphlet entitled The Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East, which enjoyed large sales. For a time, the Ottoman Khilafah was held in as great disdain as Nazi Germany today. The situation was not aided by the actions of the Sultan-Khalifah Abdul Hamid breaking his promises of better treatment of the Christians that he made ate the Berlin Congress. [32]

3.4 The Massacres of the 1890s
On the other hand, the Ottomans continued to massacre whole Christian communities, the most notable event being the massacres of 1894-96 when thousands of Armenian and Assyrian Christians - over 300,000 - were brutally murdered at the instigation of the Red Sultan Abdul Hamid II. The German alliance had given him confidence against any European reaction, and he was proved correct. Six thousand Armenian Christians were butchered in Constantinople alone. [33] In Britain, Gladstone came out of retirement to demand action against the Ottomans, and the British Government did indeed approach other Powers on the subject, but there was no interest in taking any measures. [34] Facing nationalist partisans in Macedonia, the last European province still under complete Ottoman control, Turkish forces were lacking in restraint. Faced with an uprising in Crete in 1897, the Turkish authorities not only suppressed the rebellion but went to war with Greece, defeating the old enemy, only to have the Powers intervene and to insist upon a Christian Governor for the island.

3.5 The 1915 Genocide
In April 24 1915 the Ottoman authorities ordered the deportation of practically the entire Armenian and Assyrian Christian populations of eastern Asia Minor to Syria and Iraq, then part of the Ottoman Empire, and to massacre many of them. The genocide continued throughout the year. By the end of 1915, 1,500,000 Armenians and 250,000 Assyrians had been murdered. Many women were raped and children were kidnapped and enslaved to be brought up as Muslims. Many Christians – especially women - were crucified (the photographs are still extant).

About 200,000 Armenians avoided ethnic cleansing/massacre by converting to Islam. Entire villages converted to Islam to avoid massacre. Churches were destroyed or defiled by being turned into barns. A serious attempt was made to destroy every vestige of Christian identity in the region. Ottoman 'justification' for their actions concerns the claim that the Armenians were a fifth column and that there were Armenians in the Russian Army. This ignores that Russian Armenians had little choice in the matter, that Muslim Turkic peoples also served in the Russian army, and that Assyrians were few if any in the Russian forces. In 1914 the Ottoman Armenians had declared their loyalty to the state, despite isolated defections and a small uprising in Cilicia. The Ottomans falsely claimed that there was a rebellion in Van, and that what killing took place was in the context of civil war. This assertion is likewise false, since 250,000 Armenians served in the Ottoman army. Indeed, Armenian soldiers prevented the capture of one of the Ottoman leaders, Enver Pasha, after his defeat in battle by Russian troops. [35]

Most of the massacres were carried out by ordinary police, although a 'Special Organisation' was established, made up of common criminals released on condition that they murdered Armenians. [36] Furthermore, even the Russian Armenians were massacred in the Ottoman assault of 1918 - 15,000 Armenians were massacred in Baku. Armenian refugees were used for bayonet practice. [37] In fairness, it should be noted that many Arab villages in Syria aided the Armenian refugees, and some Muslim religious officials protested about the policy. [38] Turkey still denies the historicity of the genocide. Hitler justified his policies on the ground that the world did nothing when the Ottomans massacred the Armenians, so they would do nothing to stop his plans for those peoples he wished to eliminate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jb_1430

01-11-2008, 10:02 PM

Conclusion
The massacres of Muslims carried out by the Greeks in 1821 and later by other Balkan peoples as they attained their independence were as indefensible as those committed by the Muslims on the Christians. However, there are distinct nuances to those committed respectively by the Greeks and other Balkan peoples in the 19th century and those by the Khilafah. The Greek massacres bring shame on Greek nationalism, rather than Christianity; it was in the name of the former, rather than the latter, that such outrages were committed. Moreover, the Greeks were not a Government, but an insurgent group (obviously, this does not apply to massacres effected when the Balkan provinces had become states). The massacres committed by the Khilafah, however, are of a different character. Not even the Greeks would claim the divine inspiration of Greek nationalism, and few would now justify the massacres. Muslims, however, precisely believe the Khilafah to be divinely ordered, and that jihad is indeed divinely inspired. It was in the name of the Khilafah and jihad that the genocide was committed.

Furthermore, the Khilafah was the legal government of the Greek and other Balkan peoples; it had a duty to defend, rather than exterminate its subjects. This raises two problems for Muslims seeking the revival of the Khilafah: firstly, a Government that believes it is legitimate to commit massacres in the name of religion is scarcely an attractive concept for those who might be its victims; secondly, because the Khilafah is considered as divinely ordered, Muslims are left defending the idea that God ordered the massacre of innocent women and children because of their religion.

The problem is that the Greek massacres simply demonstrate the universal condition of moral depravity – original sin – that Christianity holds is true of all humanity. True Christians would in no way defend such actions. At any rate, Christians do not hold Greek nationalism (or any nationalism) to be divinely inspired. Muslims, on the other hand, cannot state this about the Muslim massacres. They were ordered by the Khalifah in the name of jihad – i.e. Islam. Hence, whilst all genuine Christians would unswervingly condemn the Greek massacres, Muslims would find it difficult to reciprocate.

see
http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/xstnc-6.html
for references

numinus

01-11-2008, 10:22 PM

as long as they pay a jizya.
and a dhimmi is lesser of a human than a muslim.

Since when is taxation a measure of humanity, hmmm?

And how is this situation different from citizenship, particularly in the us, hmmm?

And do you have any idea how many massacres the us has perpetrated in the name of pacification and democracy?

And yet, I don't see you criticisizing western-style democracy in its ENTIRETY, now, do I?

are you Islamic? or just a sympathizer?

Neither.

jb_1430

01-11-2008, 10:23 PM

1.2 billion moslems in the world. Do you understand this number? There is a simple and infallible way to demonstrate that the majority of this number do not subscribe to literal jihad - THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A PHENOMENON ON A GLOBAL SCALE.

My 5 year old has a better grasp of this logic than you. Perhaps you should be talking to her.

Islamic fundamentalist "subscribe to literal" interpretations of the Koran and Haddiths. Thats what fundamentalist do. They are a minority of Muslims, fortunately. The majority of Muslims DO NOT "subscribe to literal" interpretations of the Koran and Haddiths. Thats why my criticism is of the doctrine and those who follow a literal interpretation, not the "1.2 billion moslems in the world".

numinus

01-11-2008, 10:40 PM

jb1430,

You are either a hypocrite or a complete moron if you think the history of western colonialism is ANY DIFFERENT from what you have described. The us, in particular, is at her cruelest in dealing with other people and their culture.

numinus

01-11-2008, 11:01 PM

Islamic fundamentalist "subscribe to literal" interpretations of the Koran and Haddiths. Thats what fundamentalist do. They are a minority of Muslims, fortunately. The majority of Muslims DO NOT "subscribe to literal" interpretations of the Koran and Haddiths. Thats why my criticism is of the doctrine and those who follow a literal interpretation, not the "1.2 billion moslems in the world".

Good god your ignorance is dense.

The SAME doctrine has given rise to divergent interpretations and disparate social orders.

Similarly, democracy has been used by some people to perpetuate the subjugation of entire peoples in different parts of the world.

Criticise fundamentalist and goat-herder logic to your hearts content. Leave the doctrine out of it.

Capice?

jb_1430

01-11-2008, 11:13 PM

Kiss my ass towel head!

9sublime

01-12-2008, 02:49 AM

Kiss my ass towel head!

...kiss my ass towel head.

Well done jb, you have not just lost the argument in spectacular fashion but also shown yourself to be totally inadequate at debating. Why couldn't you just back down and admit you've been defeated rather than make a total fool out of yourself not only showing yourself to really be a racist, but also very ignorant.

Congratulation numinus. You won and bought out this individuals true characteristics. I don't think anyone should take any of your points seriously to be honest jb.

bewitched

01-12-2008, 05:10 AM

Since when is taxation a measure of humanity, hmmm?

And how is this situation different from citizenship, particularly in the us, hmmm?

And do you have any idea how many massacres the us has perpetrated in the name of pacification and democracy?

And yet, I don't see you criticisizing western-style democracy in its ENTIRETY, now, do I?

Neither.
so if you are not muslim then what are you basing your posts on?
I have practiced and studied Islam for over 40 years and can tell you that you are incorrect on all your posts.

jizya is not a tax. it's a payment to survive, kinda like blood money in the Italian mafia.

you don't have any idea of the things you post, really. I think you just like to hear yourself talk. further, you seem to hate America and sympathize with Islam which is violent and deadly. if you don't understand 911 and the theology behind it you might want to do some research instead of preaching bulllss****.

bewitched

01-12-2008, 05:12 AM

...kiss my ass towel head.

Well done jb, you have not just lost the argument in spectacular fashion but also shown yourself to be totally inadequate at debating. Why couldn't you just back down and admit you've been defeated rather than make a total fool out of yourself not only showing yourself to really be a racist, but also very ignorant.

Congratulation numinus. You won and bought out this individuals true characteristics. I don't think anyone should take any of your points seriously to be honest jb.

that's a movie quote and not directed at anyone.
numbinus hasn't won ****t.

bewitched

01-12-2008, 05:14 AM

Good god your ignorance is dense.

The SAME doctrine has given rise to divergent interpretations and disparate social orders.

Similarly, democracy has been used by some people to perpetuate the subjugation of entire peoples in different parts of the world.

Criticise fundamentalist and goat-herder logic to your hearts content. Leave the doctrine out of it.

Capice?
ignorance is dense?
goat-herder logic?
there's an argument lost a long time ago.
I've told you that Ossama and his followers hold degrees and are well educated yet you insist that they have goat-herder mentality.
if you don't understand the enemy then you will be killed. sorry. be prepared, 911 was not the "big" attack. it isn't planned for another few years. and with your lack of knowledge you will probably be on the front line of death.

bewitched

01-12-2008, 05:16 AM

Islamic fundamentalist "subscribe to literal" interpretations of the Koran and Haddiths. Thats what fundamentalist do. They are a minority of Muslims, fortunately. The majority of Muslims DO NOT "subscribe to literal" interpretations of the Koran and Haddiths. Thats why my criticism is of the doctrine and those who follow a literal interpretation, not the "1.2 billion moslems in the world".

wrong.
there is not a small minority of fundamentalists or moderates or radicals. Islam is one theology and one brotherhood.
since you are not a muslim you cannot speak for the subscription or anything else that is Islamic.

bewitched

01-12-2008, 05:21 AM

You are a liar whose sole intent is to sow goat-herder logic.
what's with the name calling again and again?

numbinus, you are basing your beliefs on what muslims want non-muslims to believe. it's called taqqiya and kitman. there is an effort by these people you call goat-herders to win your mind and it seems they have succeeded, hardly goat-herder mentality, it's actually very intelligent, unless you are the non-muslim goat.

if you look at reality and the 10000 incidents of grizzly death that has occured since 911 then you can clearly see that Islam is not a religion of peace. further, no one but Islam is responsible for this lack of peace, well except Mohammed himself. theology teaches this religion (people and government) to fight non-muslims. period. fact.

numinus

01-12-2008, 08:58 AM

so if you are not muslim then what are you basing your posts on?

Facts and logic.

I have practiced and studied Islam for over 40 years and can tell you that you are incorrect on all your posts.

And I have lived and worked among them.

Frankly, I can see where you are coming from if it took you 40 years to realize faulty logic.

jizya is not a tax. it's a payment to survive, kinda like blood money in the Italian mafia.

And if you had spent your 40 years studying a variety of subjects, like world history, you would realize that it is no different from the standard practices in COLONIALISM - feudal and capitalist west being notoriously proficient at.

you don't have any idea of the things you post, really. I think you just like to hear yourself talk.

Not hard at all - seeing as no one has given anything close to a rebuttal to my arguments.

further, you seem to hate America

Only when her representatives behave in a manner that is utterly devoid of principles.

and sympathize with Islam which is violent and deadly.

Only when here adherents behave in a manner that complies with principles.

if you don't understand 911 and the theology behind it you might want to do some research instead of preaching bulllss****.

TERRORISM IS A POLITICAL PHENOMENON. THERE IS NO THEOLOGY BEHIND TERRORISM.

numinus

01-12-2008, 09:16 AM

ignorance is dense?

Something wrong with my english? The sentence is grammatically and figuratively correct, as far as I'm concerned.

goat-herder logic?

The amount of logic necessary to keep dumb animals compliant and predictable.

there's an argument lost a long time ago.

I've told you that Ossama and his followers hold degrees and are well educated yet you insist that they have goat-herder mentality.

And educated people do not use simple tricks to keep the dumb ones compliant and predictable, hmmm?

if you don't understand the enemy then you will be killed. sorry. be prepared, 911 was not the "big" attack. it isn't planned for another few years. and with your lack of knowledge you will probably be on the front line of death.

I have already told you - the terrorist attack on us soil was meant to draw out a disproportionately large adversary in a kind of confrontation of the terrorist's own choosing.

The logic is demonstrated plainly in hunting and bringing down a wild pachyderm. It works all the time because the pachyderm is DUMB.

bewitched

01-12-2008, 09:22 AM

sorry, you display neither facts or logic.

bewitched

01-12-2008, 09:23 AM

Fa .

And I have lived and worked among them.

.
and where was this?

numinus

01-12-2008, 09:29 AM

wrong.
there is not a small minority of fundamentalists or moderates or radicals. Islam is one theology and one brotherhood.

There is no social, political or theological order in existence that is capable of binding 1.2 billion souls in a coherent and homogenous whole.

You have absolutely no academic discernment if you subscribe to this absurd rhetoric.

since you are not a muslim you cannot speak for the subscription or anything else that is Islamic.

Is it even necessary to point out the faulty logic in this statement????

numinus

01-12-2008, 09:30 AM

and where was this?

Southeast asia.

numinus

01-12-2008, 09:31 AM

sorry, you display neither facts or logic.

That you fail to see facts and logic is quite telling, indeed.

jb_1430

01-12-2008, 01:03 PM

...kiss my ass towel head.

Well done jb, you have not just lost the argument in spectacular fashion but also shown yourself to be totally inadequate at debating.

Actually, I won the debate. I guess I lost the derogatory comments contest and you have demonstrated your purpose here.

Good god there isn't an iota of light in that dark place you call your mind!

Are you illiterate as well?...
I can already see screws in that archaic contraption you call your brain coming loose....
There it is - your idiocy made plain for everyones ridicule.

You are obviously baffled senseless by now.

I feel sorry for your calcified ignorance....
My 5 year old has a better grasp of this logic than you. Perhaps you should be talking to her.

jb1430,
You are either a hypocrite or a complete moron...

Good god your ignorance is dense.

jb_1430

01-12-2008, 01:39 PM

I have already told you - the terrorist attack on us soil was meant to draw out a disproportionately large adversary in a kind of confrontation of the terrorist's own choosing.

The logic is demonstrated plainly in hunting and bringing down a wild pachyderm. It works all the time because the pachyderm is DUMB.

So you think that when Bin Laden complained in 98 about the US "occupying the lands of Islam", "turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples", "continuing aggression against the Iraqi people", "humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors", "the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres..." and "their eagerness to destroy Iraq, ..." and called upon Muslims "to kill the Americans", what he really meant was "may I have some more please Sir" ?

No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples... The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people..

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres...

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state...The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, ...

On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: The ruling to kill the Americans...
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

Coyote

01-12-2008, 01:40 PM

Actually, I won the debate. I guess I lost the derogatory comments contest and you have demonstrated your purpose here.

I don't think so. You are judging an entire doctrine based on the interpretation of it's fundamentalist extreme. You do not apply the same discernment to any other doctrine.

For derogatory comments, you had your share too from earlier in the thread and here.

Kiss my ass towel head!

But I understand the need to insert ones head into the ground and just yell "NOTHING RELIGIOUS ABOUT IT."

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!! I guess that must be one of those Maxims in military science without "any practical value". I hope all the Islamic terrorists are just as smart as you.

WTF are you babbling about? I present the writings of Muslims and direct quotes from the Koran and haddiths. I dont rely on a western point of view and present only the views of Muslims. Like I say over and over and still it doesnt sink in with those of you in some weird state of denial, my and our views are irrelevant. THEIR views regarding religion control their actions, not ours. And when I do present those views I have these idiots trying to apply western concepts of hermeneutics to Islam. What a freakin joke.

Coyote

01-12-2008, 01:57 PM

So you think that when Bin Laden complained in 98 about the US "occupying the lands of Islam", "turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples", "continuing aggression against the Iraqi people", "humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors", "the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres..." and "their eagerness to destroy Iraq, ..." and called upon Muslims "to kill the Americans", what he really meant was "may I have some more please Sir" ?

No. It was meant to stir up angry, disenfranchised people with a grievance people to support his cause on the one hand, and it was bravado aimed at the U.S. on the other. The more he can get people stirred up, and the more he can con the larger powers into believing he actually is powerful the more powerful he becomes. And if we attack, all points go to him.

And that is one thing that Americans don't get and it's very evident in the failures of our policies in the Arab world. We don't understand (and don't seem to want to) the culture we are dealing with. We don't understand that rhetoric meant for public consumption is different then what goes on face to face behind closed door. We don't understand the place of rhetoric in that culture one little bit.

jb_1430

01-12-2008, 01:57 PM

There is no social, political or theological order in existence that is capable of binding 1.2 billion souls in a coherent and homogenous whole.

True, but there is a "political" and "theological order" in the Koran and Haddiths that has managed to bind 10s of thousands in a coherent whole, who insist that the world can be ruled ONLY, by what "allah has revealed" and are willing to "slay them where you find them" when it comes to anybody who they percieve to be in their way of obtaining those goals.
Im thrilled that it only binds these 10s of thousands, instead of the 1.2 billion, but Im still critical of the doctrine that does bind them. I would be critical of the doctrine if it only binded together the 19 hijackers and no one else. The written doctrine remains the same regardless of how many people adhere to that doctrine.

jb_1430

01-12-2008, 02:04 PM

No. It was meant to stir up angry, disenfranchised people with a grievance people to support his cause on the one hand, and it was bravado aimed at the U.S. on the other. The more he can get people stirred up, and the more he can con the larger powers into believing he actually is powerful the more powerful he becomes. And if we attack, all points go to him.

His support among those people went up after he attacked the US, and began to decline since our invasion of Iraq, and continues thru to today.

Coyote

01-12-2008, 02:07 PM

His support among those people went up after he attacked the US, and began to decline since our invasion of Iraq, and continues thru to today.

Of course. It was the perfect Samson vs. Goliath (Satan) in their eyes. But most Muslims don't support the killing of innocents and Al Queda and OBL have been repeatedly denounced by numerous and respected Islamic clerics and organizations.

bewitched

01-12-2008, 04:16 PM

Of course. It was the perfect Samson vs. Goliath (Satan) in their eyes. But most Muslims don't support the killing of innocents and Al Queda and OBL have been repeatedly denounced by numerous and respected Islamic clerics and organizations.

that's not true.
most muslims do support the killing of non-muslims because that's sharia law. so take the entire population of Saudi, because it's illegal to be Christian in that country, the penalty is death.

can you name the respected clerics and organizations that denounce AQ and Ossama?

bewitched

01-12-2008, 04:18 PM

There is no social, political or theological order in existence that is capable of binding 1.2 billion souls in a coherent and homogenous whole.

You have absolutely no academic discernment if you subscribe to this absurd rhetoric.

Is it even necessary to point out the faulty logic in this statement????

yes there is a definate theology that binds these souls.
and yes I happen to teach at the university level.

bewitched

01-12-2008, 04:19 PM

Southeast asia.

in an Islamic country? Indonesia maybe?
and how long were you there?

bewitched

01-12-2008, 04:20 PM

so in one sentence (or two) can you name the enemy of the West?
the one that threatens the Homeland Security of the US?

AlicornsPrayer

01-12-2008, 04:28 PM

so in one sentence (or two) can you name the enemy of the West?
the one that threatens the Homeland Security of the US?

That's easy...In fact, I can answer that with one word...

Ourselves.

By the way...bet you didn't know it, but there's this nifty little feature for posting to multiple posts at once...

It's called 'multi-quote' option...

If you press that little button next to the 'quote' button on every post you want to respond to? It'll put up each individual post you're wanting to address into one neat package. Then all you have to do is post your response after each little individual quote you're responding to...Creating one neat response.

I realize that it doesn't up your 'number of posts' information doing such...But it does cut down the multiple short response posts that just look like flooding...

Coyote

01-12-2008, 04:39 PM

that's not true.
most muslims do support the killing of non-muslims because that's sharia law. so take the entire population of Saudi, because it's illegal to be Christian in that country, the penalty is death.

There are 1.2 billion muslims, the vast majority of which are peaceful and law abiding and do not support the killing of innocent people. All you offer is select portions of religious doctrine - that, like selected portions of any religious doctrine - can be used to justify murder. You totally overlook the many different levels of which this doctrine can be read and understood and instead select a fundamentalist interpretation.

If you have evidence - aside from a fundamentalist view of doctrine to support your allegation - that most muslims support the killing of non-muslims - then put up or shut up Steve.

By the way, Saudi Arabia has a population of 24,735,000. It is not even among the ten most populous muslim countries.

1 Indonesia 182,570,000
2 Pakistan 134,480,000
3 India 121,000,000
4 Bangladesh 114,080,000
5 Turkey 65,510,000
6 Iran 62,430,000
7 Egypt 58,630,000
8 Nigeria 53,000,000
9 Algeria 30,530,000
10 Morocco 28,780,000

can you name the respected clerics and organizations that denounce AQ and Ossama?

I've done this before and am not going to repeat myself. Do your own homework:D

Coyote

01-12-2008, 04:41 PM

so in one sentence (or two) can you name the enemy of the West?
the one that threatens the Homeland Security of the US?

http://www.mat.upm.es/~jcm/Pogo.jpg

Castle

01-12-2008, 06:35 PM

understanding the enemy - http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

jb_1430

01-12-2008, 08:11 PM

understanding the enemy - http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Islamic doctrine in action. Its not just a religion, its a political platform.
http://eakenya.org/newsevents/article.htm?id=8

bewitched

01-13-2008, 06:42 AM

That's easy...In fact, I can answer that with one word...

Ourselves.

By the way...bet you didn't know it, but there's this nifty little feature for posting to multiple posts at once...

It's called 'multi-quote' option...

If you press that little button next to the 'quote' button on every post you want to respond to? It'll put up each individual post you're wanting to address into one neat package. Then all you have to do is post your response after each little individual quote you're responding to...Creating one neat response.

I realize that it doesn't up your 'number of posts' information doing such...But it does cut down the multiple short response posts that just look like flooding...

thanks for the tip. I might try that but I prefer addressing one point in one post.
as for ourselves being the enemy, can you elaborate how you are a danger to me? or how my next door neighbor is a terrorism risk?

bewitched

01-13-2008, 06:44 AM

There are 1.2 billion muslims, the vast majority of which are peaceful and law abiding and do not support the killing of innocent people. All you offer is select portions of religious doctrine - that, like selected portions of any religious doctrine - can be used to justify murder. You totally overlook the many different levels of which this doctrine can be read and understood and instead select a fundamentalist interpretation.

If you have evidence - aside from a fundamentalist view of doctrine to support your allegation - that most muslims support the killing of non-muslims - then put up or shut up Steve.

By the way, Saudi Arabia has a population of 24,735,000. It is not even among the ten most populous muslim countries.

1 Indonesia 182,570,000
2 Pakistan 134,480,000
3 India 121,000,000
4 Bangladesh 114,080,000
5 Turkey 65,510,000
6 Iran 62,430,000
7 Egypt 58,630,000
8 Nigeria 53,000,000
9 Algeria 30,530,000
10 Morocco 28,780,000

I've done this before and am not going to repeat myself. Do your own homework:D
when the war begins between 2010 and 2013, what side do you think all those millions will be on? think they will be your peaceful friends?

bewitched

01-13-2008, 06:45 AM

Islamic doctrine in action. Its not just a religion, its a political platform.
http://eakenya.org/newsevents/article.htm?id=8

this is the most difficult thing for many Americans to understand. since we live in freedom and democracy some can't even imagine that there are those who don't.
Islam is 24/7 the way freedom is 24/7 for us.
(well except for OJ)

numinus

01-13-2008, 07:40 AM

numinus

01-13-2008, 07:51 AM

True, but there is a "political" and "theological order" in the Koran and Haddiths that has managed to bind 10s of thousands in a coherent whole, who insist that the world can be ruled ONLY, by what "allah has revealed" and are willing to "slay them where you find them" when it comes to anybody who they percieve to be in their way of obtaining those goals.

So does western-style democracy,as I have pointed out. But apparently, the point flew past by you.

Im thrilled that it only binds these 10s of thousands, instead of the 1.2 billion, but Im still critical of the doctrine that does bind them. I would be critical of the doctrine if it only binded together the 19 hijackers and no one else. The written doctrine remains the same regardless of how many people adhere to that doctrine.

As well as the fact can be demonstrated - you are incapable of critical thought.

If your criticism of various ideologies were at all principled, you would criticize islam and western democracy with equal measure. But you don't, do you?

Its called 'arbitrary'. It demonstrate the utter lack of INTELLECTUAL RIGOR in your argument.

numinus

01-13-2008, 08:04 AM

yes there is a definate theology that binds these souls.

No.

A theology is dependent on interpretation. We have already agreed there is no single school of thought nor interpretation that binds the 1.2 billion moslems in the world. For the most part, people tend to synthesize doctrine to their cultural circumstance - hence creating a distinct world view.

Roman catholicism for instance, is practiced differently in asia and the vatican, fyi.

and yes I happen to teach at the university level.

Teach what? Certainly not political science nor philosophy.

Let me guess - creative writing?

numinus

01-13-2008, 08:06 AM

so in one sentence (or two) can you name the enemy of the West?
the one that threatens the Homeland Security of the US?

LOL.

Is this a pop quiz?

numinus

01-13-2008, 08:09 AM

Ourselves.

There is bewitched's answer, in A WORD.

Fear is the darkroom where only negatives are formed.

numinus

01-13-2008, 08:13 AM

when the war begins between 2010 and 2013, what side do you think all those millions will be on? think they will be your peaceful friends?

LMAO.

Scaring people with 'doom and gloom' predictions doesn't quite measure up to rational thought, does it?

numinus

01-13-2008, 08:23 AM

Islamic doctrine in action. Its not just a religion, its a political platform.

Religion and politics has ALWAYS been intertwined since the beginning of human civilization. It has been first theorized in political philosophy by augustine, bishop of hippo in 'civitas dei'.

ANY IDEA, not only religion, and certainly not only islam, can serve as a platform for political action. Try posting something we don't already know.

AlicornsPrayer

01-13-2008, 08:24 AM

thanks for the tip. I might try that but I prefer addressing one point in one post.
as for ourselves being the enemy, can you elaborate how you are a danger to me? or how my next door neighbor is a terrorism risk?

Sure...That's your story, and you're sticking to it, right?

Are you really that dense? Do you really need me to list all 844 hate groups that are here in the US, that are home-grown?

Or do you need the list of abortion bombings, attempted abortion bombings, and other terrorist actions from these groups listed?

Buildings destroyed by arson and hate messages spray painted on properties targeted by hate groups...

Heck, and let's not forget the shootings, murders, and assults all done in the name of hate and racism...And everyone is a target depending on which hate group you run into...

Although the faction of extremist Muslim terrorists are a concern, they're a 'across the pond' fear...Yes, they managed to hit us at home...But every day in the US, approximately every 40 seconds, a US citizen is the victim of homegrown terrorism at the hands of hate groups that are perfectly legal to exsist here...US radicals and extremists driven by race, religion, and sexual orientation predjudices and bigotry...The immediate threat being our own people targeting those in our communities out of hate.

So the more important terrorist to address is the one's we already got here. We do very well at tearing our own selves up from the inside out. Every day we do the job for them by allowing our own terrorists to divide our nation. And although I hate to say this...the majority of those hate groups that resort to terrorist acts right here in the US, are Christian based in religious preferences...

So play dumb all you wish, try to pretend that the greater threat is Islam...But the reality and truth of the matter is hate is a way of life here in the US and is mainly perpetrated by Christian hate groups. And these groups are very well skilled in using fear mongering to help their numbers grow bigger....By painting any group they don't like, with the broad brush of 'they are the enemy and will harm us, destroy our way of life, getting special privelages'...

We are our own worst enemies.