the problem of Muslims

[palerider]

If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; ... Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
-- Deuteronomy, Chapter 17:2-3,5


Seems all a bit similair to Islam really now doesn't it.

Now produce some news stories of Christians acting upon those words. I can quote passages from the qur'an calling on muslims to kill the infidel and then provide multiple stories from the news on a daily basis where they are carrying out the very verses.

 

[vyo476]

Now produce some news stories of Christians acting upon those words. I can quote passages from the qur'an calling on muslims to kill the infidel and then provide multiple stories from the news on a daily basis where they are carrying out the very verses.

So why is it that so few of the 1.4 billion Muslims in the world today aren't running around gunning down every infidel they see?

This passage of the Qur'an might be insightful:

Muster against them all the men and cavalry at your disposal so that you can strike terror into the enemies of Allah and of the believers and others beside them who may be unknown to you, though Allah knows them. And remember whatever you spend for the cause of Allah shall be repaid to you. You shall not be wronged. (8:60)

This is one of several important passages defining jihad. The operative phrase here is "enemies of Allah" and it is in the construction of this phrase that the principle difference between extremists who blow up markets and peaceful Muslims who just want to live their lives without being bothered lies. Some radical Muslims, our friend Bin Laden amongst them, would take this to mean "anyone who does not directly espouse the principals of Islam." More moderate Muslims would take this to mean, "anyone who directly threatens our livelihood." Some of the most liberal Muslims would tell you that the only way to tell an enemy of Allah is if such an enemy had already made an attack against Muslims - meaning that their vision of jihad is as self-defense. Remember, the word "jihad" itself means "struggle," not "crusade" as so many people in the US these days seem to think.

 

[palerider]

So why is it that so few of the 1.4 billion Muslims in the world today aren't running around gunning down every infidel they see?

The silence of the theoretical majority of peacefull muslims implies their concent of the actions of the jihadists.

This is one of several important passages defining jihad. The operative phrase here is "enemies of Allah" and it is in the construction of this phrase that the principle difference between extremists who blow up markets and peaceful Muslims who just want to live their lives without being bothered lies. Some radical Muslims, our friend Bin Laden amongst them, would take this to mean "anyone who does not directly espouse the principals of Islam." More moderate Muslims would take this to mean, "anyone who directly threatens our livelihood." Some of the most liberal Muslims would tell you that the only way to tell an enemy of Allah is if such an enemy had already made an attack against Muslims - meaning that their vision of jihad is as self-defense. Remember, the word "jihad" itself means "struggle," not "crusade" as so many people in the US these days seem to think.

But the theoretical majority of peaceful muslim "moderates" don't dare speak out publicly on like this because according to islam, if they do, they become infidels themselves. The simple fact is that allah, through mohammed commanded muslims to fight until no one is worshipped but allah. Anyone who does not worship allah is an enemy of islam.

And the struggle is over when no one is worshipped but allah.

 

[vyo476]

The silence of the theoretical majority of peacefull muslims implies their concent of the actions of the jihadists.




But the theoretical majority of peaceful muslim "moderates" don't dare speak out publicly on like this because according to islam, if they do, they become infidels themselves. The simple fact is that allah, through mohammed commanded muslims to fight until no one is worshipped but allah. Anyone who does not worship allah is an enemy of islam.

And the struggle is over when no one is worshipped but allah.

Le gasp! The alarmist speaks!

The majority of Muslims don't speak out on that because it has nothing to do with them. They're not killing anyone and they don't believe they have to. There are plenty of Muslims out there who publicly condemn the actions of extremists, and a lot of them get blown up for it. If Allah is commanding them to fight why the hell aren't they?

"Anyone who does not worship Allah is an enemy of Islam." That is what Osama Bin Laden believes. Religion is interpretive. There are many Mulisms that believe in peaceful coexistence because that is how they interpret the Qur'an. There are others who believe in the violence perpetrated by likes of Bin Laden. A religion isn't based on strict adherence to one set of guidelines and if it was then I think you'd see a very different Catholic Church today (as in, either they would still be "crusading" or there never would have been crusades at all).

All world religions share one principle: you take what you can out of them. Just as there are many splinters of Islam out there, there are many splinters of Christianity. I invite you to look up the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas and compare it with the Community of Christ in any number of states (Maine being the one where I encountered it). They are so radically different from each other that while several of the terms are the same (Jesus, God, etc.) everything else is completely different.

 

[9sublime]

Now produce some news stories of Christians acting upon those words. I can quote passages from the qur'an calling on muslims to kill the infidel and then provide multiple stories from the news on a daily basis where they are carrying out the very verses.

Well, lets not forget the crusades now. That was a march of everyday Christians, priests, government members and soldiers (wearing uniform, therefore not making them terrorists?) on a very similair mission.

 

[palerider]

Well, lets not forget the crusades now. That was a march of everyday Christians, priests, government members and soldiers (wearing uniform, therefore not making them terrorists?) on a very similair mission.

Read some history. The crusades were a response to muslim aggression. By the time the crusades began, islam had already conquered the christian holy lands, nearly all of spain, and a large part of italy.

 

[palerider]

Le gasp! The alarmist speaks!

The majority of Muslims don't speak out on that because it has nothing to do with them. They're not killing anyone and they don't believe they have to. There are plenty of Muslims out there who publicly condemn the actions of extremists, and a lot of them get blown up for it. If Allah is commanding them to fight why the hell aren't they?

So if biggoted white KKK members begin to actively kill blacks, you wouldn't bother speaking out against them. You would be content to remain silent and allow blacks to believe that either you approved of what they were doing or might be under one of those hoods yourself?

Are you aware that the kkk can't march or protest without first gaining a permit far in advance? This isn't because they are disliked, this is because the local law enforcement must arrange to protect them from the surrounding population. The vast majority of whites don't approve of them to the point that they must have police protection to appear in their klan garb in public. There is no sense of concent with regards to the general white population and the kkk.

Silence implies concent.

 

[vyo476]

So if biggoted white KKK members begin to actively kill blacks, you wouldn't bother speaking out against them. You would be content to remain silent and allow blacks to believe that either you approved of what they were doing or might be under one of those hoods yourself?

Are you aware that the kkk can't march or protest without first gaining a permit far in advance? This isn't because they are disliked, this is because the local law enforcement must arrange to protect them from the surrounding population. The vast majority of whites don't approve of them to the point that they must have police protection to appear in their klan garb in public. There is no sense of concent with regards to the general white population and the kkk.

Silence implies concent.

There is a fundamental difference between the KKK and Islamic terrorists. Those Islamic terrorists are far, far more effective at what they do than our brand of white-hooded yahoos who like to ride around on horses lynching black people. A Muslim in a Middle Eastern country who is making too much noise against what the terrorists are doing becomes a target and is eventually killed in an entirely unpleasant way. Silence doesn't imply consent, it implies fear, and considering they're the ones living in a country with daily bombings, ambushes, and suicide bombings, I hardly blame them.

Take into account that a lot of Arab Muslims still don't like us too much, as Americas are foreign aliens to them and we've been doing nothing but messing with them now for a long, long time. Do you suppose that a lot of them are going to go out of their ways to speak out against terrorists when A) doing so isn't going to change the terrorists' minds and B) they're probably going to get blown up for it and C) they don't particularly like Americans anyway. The American vision of the "bigger man" includes standing up for someone who is being attacked regardless of how you feel about him, but that's the "bigger" man. Just let them be men.

 

[9sublime]

Oh, so the crusades were ok because they were in response to some Muslim aggression over Holy Lands that were hardly populated with Christians in the first place?

Well, if mindless slaughter in response to Muslim aggression is OK, well then its fair to say that mindless slaughter in response to Western aggression is ok too then?

If that is the case, then you should be in full support of Palenstinian militants who attack Israel after Israeli forces launch a completley over the top attack on perfectly innocent people?

But you don't, do you?

 

[palerider]

Oh, so the crusades were ok because they were in response to some Muslim aggression over Holy Lands that were hardly populated with Christians in the first place?

Some historical research on your part is in order. The holy lands were occupied long before the 7th century when islam came onto the scene. It is disingenuous at best to suggest that muslims were the rightful landlords of the holy lands. Christians were there 7 centuries before islam was even invented, and jews were there for thousands of years before the christians. Islam is, was, and always has been an aggressor.

Well, if mindless slaughter in response to Muslim aggression is OK, well then its fair to say that mindless slaughter in response to Western aggression is ok too then?

You are comparing western military tactics to the tactics of muslims? Is that the basis for your argument?

If that is the case, then you should be in full support of Palenstinian militants who attack Israel after Israeli forces launch a completley over the top attack on perfectly innocent people?

But you don't, do you?

Tell me, how did Israel come to occupy the west bank in the first place? Are you suggesting that they are the aggressors here? Are you saying that they drew first blood? You might also consider that the soldiers of israel wear uniforms that identify them as combatants to anyone who looks. Can the same be said for islamic "soldiers" or do they hid among women and children and readily use them as shields as their religion teaches?

If you are going to hold an opinion, it is always better to base it on truth rather than whatever politically correct drivel is in fashion.

 

[palerider]

A Muslim in a Middle Eastern country who is making too much noise against what the terrorists are doing becomes a target and is eventually killed in an entirely unpleasant way.

Exactly right. Because to speak out against islamic terror is to identify oneself as an infidel. Only good muslims fight the infidel. Bad muslims are infidels themselves. Those who cower in fear, are not, in reality, muslims.

Silence doesn't imply consent, it implies fear, and considering they're the ones living in a country with daily bombings, ambushes, and suicide bombings, I hardly blame them.

Fear of being identified as an infidel. Fear of being known as a bad muslim. Fear of being killed for speaking out against allah's warriors.

 

[vyo476]

Exactly right. Because to speak out against islamic terror is to identify oneself as an infidel. Only good muslims fight the infidel. Bad muslims are infidels themselves. Those who cower in fear, are not, in reality, muslims.



Fear of being identified as an infidel. Fear of being known as a bad muslim. Fear of being killed for speaking out against allah's warriors.

No, fear of being killed for their differing beliefs because extremists are willing to go that far to propagate the image of Islam which you hold dear, pale rider. To speak out against Islamic terror is to identify oneself as an infidel ONLY IN THE EYES OF THE TERRORISTS. Religion is an interpretative animal and those who have interpreted it radically have used enormous means to make their views known worldwide. What enormous means can moderate Muslims, who really just want to be LEFT ALONE in their beliefs, use to compete with a sect willing to (for instance) fly air planes into skyscrapers?

The bottom line is that your extreme view of Islam is not shared by a majority of Muslims.

 

[9sublime]

Are you suggesting that they are the aggressors here?

Yes.


The Jews had not been the owners of any of Palestine for a very long time. And as the Palenstinians are not Jews, they shouldn't have to accept it is the Jews rightful holy land.

Its like someone coming into your house and telling you that they were the owners 40 years ago and they want it back. They also have the support of various powerful organizations more powerful than you.

So they move into your house against your wishes, and in your eyes totally illegally. They say they have come back here because it is part of their religion to live in the house they were born in or some crap like that which you don't believe.

So what do you do? Tell them its fine and you will live peacefully giving up half of your house to them and be their best friend?

I doubt you would, I think you would be more likley regard them as your worst enemy in your life, and you would regard them as the aggressor as well.

It's a naive thing to believe Israel ever would, or ever will work. Israel knew that they would be met with fierce resistance, but they fight just as dirty as the terrorists now, killing thousands of civillians with minimum precision attacks.

The Jewish people had lost the holy land long ago, and nobody is the 'landlord' of a country as you say.

As for a political viewpoint being in fashion, thats a stupid thing to say that is not debaiting, its just plain ignorance and a very cheap shot because I'm hardly one of the 14 year olds who walk around wearing Che Guevara t-shirts.

 

[palerider]

No, fear of being killed for their differing beliefs because extremists are willing to go that far to propagate the image of Islam which you hold dear, pale rider. To speak out against Islamic terror is to identify oneself as an infidel ONLY IN THE EYES OF THE TERRORISTS. Religion is an interpretative animal and those who have interpreted it radically have used enormous means to make their views known worldwide. What enormous means can moderate Muslims, who really just want to be LEFT ALONE in their beliefs, use to compete with a sect willing to (for instance) fly air planes into skyscrapers?

Sorry guy, the qur'an states quite clearly who is a good muslim and who is a bad one and states explicitly that muslims who turn from their faith are to be killed and their faith demands fighting the infidel until no one is worshipped but allah.

It is the "peaceful" muslims that have interpreted islam radically, not the jihadists. There are 100 passages in the books of the qur'an demanding violence for every one that proposes peace. And many of the single verses that you see that propose peace are not given in the context of the verses before and after for very specific reasons.

The bottom line is that your extreme view of Islam is not shared by a majority of Muslims.

Silence implies concent. Any muslim that isn't speaking out against the violent nature of islam, is promoting it.

 

[palerider]

Yes.
The Jews had not been the owners of any of Palestine for a very long time. And as the Palenstinians are not Jews, they shouldn't have to accept it is the Jews rightful holy land.

There has never been a palestine, a palestinian language, nor a palestinian people. They are an arab fabrication. There was a block of land set aside for Israel and a block of land several times as large that was called the palestinian mandate. Jordan has occupied about 80% of the palestinian mandate and kicked the natives off and yet, you don't hear a word about that since the jordanians are not jews. This isn't about the land, it is about jews.

Its like someone coming into your house and telling you that they were the owners 40 years ago and they want it back. They also have the support of various powerful organizations more powerful than you.

As for a political viewpoint being in fashion, thats a stupid thing to say that is not debaiting, its just plain ignorance and a very cheap shot because I'm hardly one of the 14 year olds who walk around wearing Che Guevara t-shirts.

You have defended your position several times now referring to historical inaccuracies that you either believe is fact, or are using as a deliberate misrepresentation because they are politically correct. You tell me which. If you genuinely don't know the history, then your position is based in untruth, if your postition is based on deliberate PC misrepresentation then it speaks for itself. Either way, the defense of your position is not rooted in historical fact and therefore your position is not valid.