The Pope and the West are "doomed"
 

Link


Way to prove a point!

So, there we go again, the old man cites a long dead emperor and all Islam world burns up instantly. I was talking with some friends over this matter and whether the Pope should've refrained to make any comments on Islam, but seriously, isn't this getting ridiculous anyway?
Should the whole world change in order to make the fundamentalists feel comfortable? Should we all refrain to express ourselves in fear of offending others?
I think the point here is not whether the Pope shoulded or not made those quotations, but that in a way, the whole world is being hostage of this fundamentalists. It's a shame that in the name of "GOD", fear and death are planted all over the world.
I, for one, know that i won't be giving away my right to think and express whatever i want (with the due respect, that is) beacuse some lunatics have arrogated themselves with the power to decide what is true and what is acceptable.

We don't need less comments on Islam, we need more of it. The truth shall set you free after all.

As long as we keep blaming ourselves and keeping our heads in the sand its going to get worse not better.

The really ironic thing is that it was a Byzantine emperor who said it and the Pope won't be going to turkey unless he offers an offical appology (abasement). Now I'm sure you all took enough history to see the irony.

As a side note, we all owe a debt of thanks to the Byzanties who held off the muslim invasion of Europe for centuries, long enough to regain the strength to resist the invasion after the fall of Constantinople.

Problem is not Islam, but islamic extremists. I know first hand that most muslims are peacefull, good persons, but these bastards give the whole Islam a bad name.

History speaks otherwise. The old emperor wasn't talking out his ass when he made those comments. I think most people are peacefull, good persons, muslims included, but as a force of history, Islam has been anything but peaceful in its spread.

Completely agreed.
But then, they had an excellent model to work off of in Christianity.

Ironman and Superbelt..I agree completely and made a similar observation in another discussion that Mojo refuted by rewriting history.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...6&postcount=35

The current state of terrorism has nothing to do with Muhammed and everything to do with the desperate and extreemist responses by Middle Eastern forces to strategic socioeconomic powerplays by the US and the UK. The pope was simply repeating old world religous bigotry; he slipped and let a little hate out. It's not uncommon for religous leaders to be somewhat defensive of their religon and somewhat offended by other religons. As was stated by Superbelt, many religons have been spread through violence and even "evil", including Christianity and Islam. It's an unfortunate byproduct of people being able to wield the power of the minds of those who are devoted to faith. The thing is, singling out a religon for being violent is like singling out a single tree for being green, and that singling out is usually done by a mamber of another religon. That's called religous bigotry.

Rewriting history now? I didn't know that Papal records and studies by historians and the BBC the world over equated as my lowly self rewriting history.

Now you're making assumptions here, will. You can't speak for the dead suicide bomber, you don't know that he was desperate. you don't know anything about him. You can assume all you want, but unless you've actually spoken to someone who'se driven a bomb-laden truck into a mosque or strapped himself full of explosives packed with ball bearings, you don't know that they were really desperate or really why they do what they do. How is a sunni gunning down shiites on the streets of baghdad a strategic response to the socioeconomic powerplays by the US and UK? The gunman is still a terrorist, trying to instill terror in others. Is he desperate? I don't know, and neither do you.

By the way, the first thing muhammed did when he started his religion was create an army and start conquering. I don't think Jesus and the apostles did that. It wasn't until much later that christianity was used as a justification for war, however war and islam are bound at the hip.

I'd call it a safe assumption. I doubt that people who are simply dissatisfied and unhappy would be willing to safrafice themselves to make a political statement like a suicide bomber.

Now who's making asumptions? I happen to know a lot of people in Iraq, Palestine and now Lebanon. A lot of the information about suicide bombings I get come from their experiences and friends instead of MSNBC or a book written by a professor in Texas. I consider their take on this to be reliable and when I base my understanding on their experience I do so with confidence.
Why do they have weapons? The US and UK have been playing God with the ME, and while we supply Israel with everything from munitions to nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia supplies extreemists in order to counter that. They are living in violence based in bigotry, so it is to be expected that the bullets will be spread across anyone they hate. The thing is: the person you describe isn't a terrorist. Terrorists use fear as a tool, they simply are killing each other out of hate. That isn't terrorism. Suicide bombings are terrorism. Attacking areas that should be safe or that represent things like economics, religon, military power, political power etc. would be terrorism.
The first thing that Muhammed did was write the Qu'ran.
The community is one community is a preaching of peace between nations, not conquoring.

All the battles that took place during the Prophet's lifetime, under the guidance of the Qur'an and the Muhammed, have been surveyed and shown to have been waged only in self-defense or to pre-empt an imminent attack. I doubt we in the US are in any position to condemn a preemptive military action.

War and Islam are not bound at the hip any more than any other religon.

An affront of this magnitude by a pontiff is extremely rare, and I can't imagine why this pope would choose to make a statement such as this. His "apology" that he didn't believe the comments himself, appeased no one.
If he didn't believe it, why make the statement at all?

I believe Will is correct that some religious bigotry slipped out. I believe he will need to do more to mend the damage.

As you know, history is written by the winner. Who won all those wars in muhammed's time? give up? muhammed and his muslim army. They won many wars for many years. Then wrote many history books.

No. Christianity waited for a hundred + years or so and bought one that was already established.
Then they went and canibalized themselves over official doctrine.

BTW: Paul wasn't exactly a pacifist. Considering most christians put more emphasis on his writings than Jesus'....

I'll agree that a purely Jesus centered Christianity is a superior, peaceful religion. But there are hardly, any 'christians' on earth (and hardly ever were). Most are 'Paulstians' with a side order of Christ.

good for christianity. do I care?



nope.

Muhammed did not write the Qur'an. It was written about 60 years after his death. In reality the first thing he did was run off to Medina and create an army

Pre-empt an imminent attack? Are you serious? The Byzantine Empire payed no attention to Islam until they started invading Egypt/Palestine/Jordan. They were busy fighting Syssanid Empire.

Come on Wil, did you actually read the make-believe history you're sprouting or are you just making it up?

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...lim/article.do

How many of your people need to be 'extreme' before its no longer just 'extremists'?

Amazing how people who were so happy to equate with religious right with a tiny handful of abortion bombers are so quick to distance the 'average' Islamist from the 'extremists', no matter how many of these people there seem to be or how many nations are already under their control.

Why trust history at all then? Why trust anything written before you were born? The best we can do is try to figure out what happened. The best guess as to what happened at the genesis of Islam is what I stated above. Islam may have been introduced by aliens to a guy named Mac who lived in Australia for all we know, but I say we simply rely on what we understand.
True. The first thing Muhammed did was spread the word, and that word was the words of the Qu'ran. That was waht I was meaning to say, but thank you for correcting me. Actually, that's the first thing all religous leaders do.
I read it in a text book and heard it from a prof. and since I don't see you disproving it I have to assume you can't.

Ok Wil, here's what was going on in reality.

The Byzantine Empire and the Sassanid Empire were at war for generations at this point. They fought themselves hallow basically. Lo and behold the religion of peace starts declaring war with both empires, the Sassanid crumbling first. Then the slow conquest of Anatolia followed. Neither empire delt with the Arabian Penninsula prior, only in trade. To claim it was in self defense to take down the two powerful empires in the region is ubsurd.

geez..another fucking idiotic thread in which the entirety of islam gets painted with the same one-dimensional, uninformed brush. there is no point in even trying to have a conversation about this kind of thing if the conservatvie premises are--again--nothing more or less than racism dressed up behind a pseudo-historical figleaf ((seaver's posts aside...))
it is racism masquerading as history--which is a big part of the marketing of the "war on terror"--that perhaps explains stuff like this:

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091800597.html

as for ratzinger--the man was an appalling reactionary when he was the ideological hatchetman for john paul 2 and he has not magically changed now that he is called benedict.
but i do like the idea that he forgot for a moment that he was pope.

Totally correct as I understand it.
Do you mean that they were fighting a holy war? I'm confused by your usage of the word hallow.
The collapse of the Sassanid Empire: Khosrau the Second had led a succesful campaign against the Byzantine curing their civil war had actually served to weaken the Sassanian Empire because they didn't have the resources to wage a full scale war after their own civil war (the revolt of general Bahram Chobin). Byzantine retaliated by attacking Persia from the rear. Meinwhile, Khosrau the Second and his Khosrau the Second were acting like children, allowing suspician to rule their actions, and the Sassanid lost a great general and army. The Byzantine military won the battle of Nineveh, coupled with the assasination of Khosrau the Second, plunged Sassanid into a full scale civil war. That was how the empire fell. The remaining generals were striking out in all directions acting like warlords. One of the peoples that they attacked were the Arabs. The problem was that in it's weak state, the Sassanian Empire wasn't prepared for a counter attack, and the Persians eventually lost.

The Arabs did go to war with the Byzantine Empire after defeating the Sassanian threat and coverting most Persians, but they didn't win. Thanks to a great military and greek fire, Constantinople was never taken, and the Byzantine continued on to it's "Golden Age" in the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries under Macedonia.


Actually, maybe Roach can settle this one, being a history prof.

Mistype, supposed to be hollow.

I do agree with that aswell, then. Their wars could have easily led to the destruction of both empires.

I agree with Ustwo on this and this alone. There needs to be a hell of a lot more dialogue than there is currently. Stop talking about each other and start talking with each other.

Doc has great wisdom. :)

Of course there is that whole 'talk about islam in any negative way and we kill you' mentality to deal with first.

It tends to stifle a dialog.

Well, I just don't think that 'not talking to people' is a very intelligent way to figure anything out. I see it as immature and counterproductive. It's what children do when they don't get dessert.

I'm not implying in any way whatsoever that these extremists are good people. Or even that they are the ones that we sholud be talking to. But the Islam community as a whole. You know, try and get some support from within that mindset somewhere, get some trust. If anyone can help with this type of situation, it is Islamists themselves.

I mean, everyone watches the news. They know what is being said about them. And even normal, peacefull muslims (the ones that could help, if they wanted) see the light in which we (or our press) view them. I can understand why they don't jump at the chance to take a stand with the U.S. against their violent brethren

Had they done so to start then we wouldn't have had such views. There are plenty of friendly outlets for them to speak their minds, yet most are silent. Some I'm sure are intimidated by their murderous brethren, but we see little from them even in countries where they should be safe to speak their mind.

I know enough peaceful muslims to know that while they are not willing to die as terrorists, they support the idea behind it. These were very highly educated muslims, from all over the mideast who I worked with closely for 3 years. They were very nice, but I also saw their reactions to 9/11, and heard what they thought of israel. Its here that I decided that there really was no hope for peace until there was a very large pile of bodies. If I was with some of the best educated, with people who spent years in the US and other western nations, some for over 10 years, and yet they still felt this way, I had to despair as to what the average citizen of their nations thought.

You won’t see muslim outrage over terrorism because they are not upset by it, unlike a cartoon or a pope quoting a guy dead for 600 years, thats worth being outraged over.

I do see the irony you point out here. There is no way to not see it.

And I agree with you also that, as a whole, there does not seem to be "outrage" in the muslim community regarding terrorist acts, but more a sense of "disagreement" with terrorism. Which is a far cry from outrage.

But I don't think killing them all is the answer (extreme understatement)! Some sort of an attempt should be made at real communication. Whether or not we believe they deserve communication with us is moot. The only other alternative is a continuous back and forth of escalating violence.

Interestingly there are moderate Muslim leaders calling for more "rationalism" to brought to the religion.

There were quotes from the heads of state from Brunei and Malaysia today that pretty much agreed with what the Pope was saying, if not how it was being said.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...RI-1222wmv.jpg

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: I hereby declare that this sinister regime [Israel] is the banner of Satan. It is the banner of the Great Satan. All it does is to implement the orders of the criminal America and England. They think that the peoples are the same as they were 100 years ago. They are not aware that things have changed in the world. Today, all the peoples have awoken. The Iranian people is the standard-bearer of this awakening for all the peoples. As we can see, from the southernmost point in South America to the easternmost point in Asia, all the people are shouting a single cry. With placards in their hands and clenched fists, they shout: Death to Israel.

Crowd: Death to Israel.

Sorry to host this thread, but this is the face of islam today.

willravel, seaver: can't really help you gentlemen. history is big and no-one knows all of it.



ustwo:

you cannot possibly be serious.
perhaps in your racist fantasy world, it is.
in the big empirical world that other folk know about, yours is a ludicrous position.
it has nothing to do with the empirical world and everything to do with the ways in which conservative media uses racism to sell the bush administration.
works for you, apparently.

repellent stuff, ustwo. truly repellent.

Ustwo... perhaps if you had said, "This is one of the faces of Islam".

Saying it is the face if Islam is as ignorant as saying Pat Robertson is the face of Christanity.

You are being entirely facile in your world and it's really disturbing. I expect more from you.

It seems to me that Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi accepts the Pope's apology. I am not sure what your point is...

As for where Badawi stands, his speech last July seems pretty clear to me: LINK

Read the whole speech. He may not make the Western news but he is the leader of one of the biggest national populations of Muslims.

Approximately 2 out of 5 Americans approve of the job George W. Bush is doing. Is he the face of America? Yes, it could be argued, but is he the heart of America?

The same effect applies to anything that receives a high profile. Falsehoods run rampant if you only look on the surface of things. I've never looked to the media to teach me about anything. Why would I have them teach me about Islam?

Hey great, one of the many muslim nations isn't ruled by fanatics, we should celibrate!

I'm sorry Charlatan but the Pat Robertson comparison is poor. Pat Robertson is just a guy, he even has people who follow him, but until they start killing people at his bidding, burning mosques, blowing themselves up, that sort of thing while the rest of Christindom sits idle its a false one.

LOOK around the world, look at was these muslims leaders as a whole say look at what they want their people to do, look at what they allow and then tell me.

Robertson says we should kill Chavez and much of the country and I'm sure Europe thought it was assinine, and said so. The president of Iran says 'Death to Israel' and they chant right along.

You must know enough aboust sociology and anthropology to understand that a population in poverty acts differently than a population with wealth. I will bet you $5000 that if the US was in the same political, economic, and sociological situation we see in the Middle East, we would see some sort of massive group think led by anyone charismatic enough to catch everyone's ear. As we've seen time and time again in history, the lodest voice is often the most radical voice.

Islam itself is a wonderful faith that helps people understand themselves and the world around them, just like any other religon - yes, even scientology can help people to live happier lives. How in God's name do I know this? Well there are muslims in my very city! I'm even friends with several!!! Do you know what they communicate to me? Not all Muslims are radical. In fact, they are liberal peaceniks just like I am. They have no interest in hurting anyone, because they recognize that to hurt someone because of intolerance is hypocritical. Even with the intolerance of Islam you continually post, I doubt they'd do anything more to you than dislike you. They wake up, eat breakfast, kiss their kids goodbye, work hard, go home, spend time with their families, and go to sleep like everyone else.

I strongly suggest you go to a mosque and ask some questions. Keep an open mind, and you might just learn something about these people you so quickly judge.

So I'm just wondering, Ustwo, where do you want to go with this? What are you trying to make us see here?

Are you suggesting we stop being friends with Muslims? Not allow them into our country? Kill them all? If we take what you are saying as the truth, what would you have us do?

Here's the text of the lecture if anyone is interested. I'll paste the relevant part here in the thread.
http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.or...lo.asp?c=94807

Looking at the lecture as a whole it is not some outrageous attack on Islam rather an analysis of theological issues to do with rationality. Though I do see why people may find it offensive and call for an apology. I think we can agree that the responses to this lecture calling for violence are, however, completely asinine. I'll leave the debate over the general beliefs and attitudes of Islam toward the west to others.

Thank you, akula. I made assumptions based only on what I saw quoted in my news sources. Your post gives the context needed to gain some understanding.

Uh... Are you trying to avoid the Godwin thing, because there are plenty of examples of Western and even Christian nations behaving that way in times of social and economic crisis. That particular sociological mechanism transcends culture, religion, and ethinicity. I'd bet you could find examples of it on every continent save Antarctica.

Yeah, I've overused the Nazi comparison lately. I was thinking about the Inquisition but certian people don't think it exiasted (and people call me a conspiracy nut), and I didn't want to threadjack. Being vague gives me the oportunity to bring up any case of religous zealotism in history.

i think this edito from today's guardian outlines a reasonable critique of both the pope's speech and reactions to it from all sides.

it takes some account of the current pope's reactionary politics and uses it to brush aside the defense that was floating about on the weekend that he had, somehow, forgotten that he was pope for a bit.

there are two main problematic areas in the speech--the first comes not so much from this:

in itself as from the fact that it was the pope who made the allusion.

second is the wholly false claim that islam is an irrational religion and that christianity is the logical successor of athenian thought. if you look at the last paragraph of the pope's speech in the quote from akul;a above, you'll see the argument---it's premises are worth prcisely nothing if you are not yourself christian and are thereby inclined to treat biblical material as a source that crosses or trumps all others.

anyway, onto the edito:


source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...876422,00.html

Lovely piece roachy, its great seeing how the left is trying to remain blind to the issue and blaming the west for the conflict.

I'm taking the pope over the leftwing columnist on this one. Also I'd think there should be a form of 'Goodwining' for comparing one to Bin Ladin.

This is where he missed the point. The religion may be the center but its NOT a clash of religions, its a clash of civilizations, of people, the religion is just being used by one side as a way to motivate their people and justify barbaric acts.

Oh christ, has this guy been LISTENING to what the Islamic religious 'leaders' have been saying lately? How do they feel about Jews? I don't think I need to quote these guys here to prove THIS point now do I.

ustwo: you yourself buy the same logic that the edito criticizes, the same logic it attributes to bin laden, but from the bush admin side. so i cant see why you would try to swat it away.
but you dont seem to understand the basic point of the article, which is that is you repeat the huntington thesis in the context of tfp, no-one really cares (it is irritating because it is a stupid argument, but really no-one cares) but if the pope says the same thing, then its significance is different.
because the pope is the pope, you see.
q.e.d.

this is not rocket science.

Slightly off-topic, but in response to a quote I saw earlier in this thread...

While not all Muslims are religious extremists, it's no coincidence that most religious extremists are Muslims.

It's just something to think about.

(PS> When I say religious extremists, I mean those people who advocate the death of a specific group of people based solely on religious ideology.)

Very good. That gives a base from which to work.
The question is, are the extremists "extreme" because of their religion? What I mean is, does Islam, in itself, specifically call for death and violence? Or, is it more a cultural thing?

The religion calls for it.

These are just a couple, and strictly from the Qur'an. The various other texts and teachings get much worse. So you see why the whole "Religion of Peace" is PC crap.

OMG NOT THIS AGAIN. Seaver, do I really have to post the numerous Christian, Jewish, Hindu, etc. texts that seem to allow for violence, racism, war, murder, etc. etc.? This has been done over and over and over, you'd think people would finally stop making that argument. Jesus Christ.

I was told by a Jordanian friend (one of the nicest guys I know) of a profficy where the Jews would be all pushed into the sea and murdered. I looked it up for a post a while back and found out he wasn't making it up.

"The Prophet said: the Resurrection will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Muslims kill them. The Muslims will kill the Jews, rejoice [in it], rejoice in Allahs Victory. The Muslims will kill the Jews, and he will hide

The Prophet said: the Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: oh servant of Allah, oh Muslim this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!. Why is there this malice? Because there are none who love the Jews on the face of the earth: not man, not rock, and not tree everything hates them. They destroy everything they destroy the trees and destroy the houses. Everything wants vengeance on the Jews, on these pigs on the face of the earth, and the day of our victory, Allah willing, will come."
-Sheik Ibrahim Madiras Friday sermon, PA TV Sept. 10, 2004:

If this is a religion of peace I'd hate to see one of the violent ones.

THE DIFFERENCE WILL IS THIS IS BEING PREACHED CURRENTLY BY THEIR LEADERS.

Plus please find such things in the new Testiment.

The leader of our country preaches the benifits of war, and talks about how our wars were given a big okay from God. Bush thinks he can talk to God, and he's going to war over it. Still think our leaders aren't preachig war?

You should check out this movie:
http://www.apple.com/trailers/magnol...scamp/trailer/'

Edit: Silly me, I forgot to mention a few New Testiment verses tha you asked for.

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

Matthew 11:20 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: (Jesus condeming entire cities to death for not believing in Him)

Romans 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Homosexuals (those "without natural affection") and their supporters (those "that have pleasure in them") are "worthy of death."

I have a feeling you don't know what 'upbraid' means. It basically means to use harsh words. There are alternate translations to this as well...

ASV: Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not.

BBE: Then he went on to say hard things to the towns where most of his works of power were done, because they had not been turned from their sins.

DBY: Then began he to reproach the cities in which most of his works of power had taken place, because they had not repented.

KJV: Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:

WEY: Then began He to upbraid the towns where most of His mighty works had been done -- because they had not repented.

WBS: Then he began to upbraid the cities in which most of his mighty works had been done, because they repented not.

WEB: Then he began to denounce the cities in which most of his mighty works had been done, because they didn't repent.

YLT: Then began he to reproach the cities in which were done most of his mighty works, because they did not reform.

I'm sorry Will Jesus did not 'condemn' cities to death.

As for
Matthew 10:34 (Jesus speaking) Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

The sword was not a physical sword, it was a metaphorical one, for Jesus was telling the disciples that when they preach his word, it will cause strife at first as some will believe and some will not and they will often fight and even kill each other. So he was saying the words of the disciples will cause destruction as people will fight over religious beliefs. It’s a far cry from from saying go kill people who don't believe.

Also if you take the christian tradition, it wasn't the christians doing the killing for their beliefs but being killed and driven out, in the same passage as the sword reference...

Don't be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.

So what he is saying is they will kill you for preaching christianity, but do not fear death on earth, fear not being saved.

and finally...

Romans 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Homosexuals (those "without natural affection") and their supporters (those "that have pleasure in them") are "worthy of death.

Yes we know, God hates fags. Homosexuality was considered a horrible sin.

So lets get this straight, on the one hand we have Christians, who speak harsh words to unbelievers, are willing to be killed for preaching their faith (but not kill others), and they think homosexuality is a capitol offense.

Then we have Islam which wants to wage war with all unbelievers and preaches genocide vrs the Jews.

Now that I look at it this way Will, how could I have missed the moral equivalence?

Edit:Oh and I forgot, the last execution for homosexuality that got world attention was in .... Iran.

Actually Wil, Jesus was stating how God would punish. The sword he was talking about was the flaming sword, and the condemned cities were an allusion to Soddom and Ghemorra from prior acts of God.

Jesus never said to go out and kill non-believers. He never stated to fight them, disgrace them, force them to subjegation, or flat out kill them. In Jesus' teachings God would take care of that in the afterlife.

You left out they also believe that homosexuality is a sin unto God, and is more than death-worthy (and they practice it).

Yea I just added that in an edit while you were typing this it seems. So in Christianity we have a tradition of executing homosexuals, though when the last one was I don't know, and in Islam, they still do it.

It's like the only voice everyone hears is their own.

Seaver posted wonderful quotes from the Qu'ran out of context. In response and because of Ustww's polite invitation, I posted quotes from the New Testament out of context. I know what "I came not to send peace, but a sword." means to me and most Christians, but to a fringe few it could be used to justify the killing of non-Christians....oh say like the Qu'ran is used by the extreeme minority to try and excuse their acts.

Blaming the Qu'ran is like blaming a tool for the way that it is used. Imagine if someone was beating people to death with an olive branch (there's some symbolism for you). Would the olive branch be evil? THE MINORITY of muslims might try to use the Qu'ran to excuse their violence, but THE MAJORITY of Muslims accept a peaceful understanding of the Qu'ran, and do not condone the acts of the violent few.

Oh Will the irony of your words can be heard from here to the parinoia board.

Islam is a religion that has been spread almost entirely through violence and conquest since its inception. It seeks not to convince but to subjugate. This is there history, it is undeniable, it is in their preaching past and current, it is still their stated goal.

Will just where IS this MAJORITY of muslims, I haven't heard from them, I haven't seen them. Would they be in Iran? Sudan? Saudi Arabia? Syria? Lebanon? Where is this peaceful majority?

I always wonder when this comes up:
Why only in the new Testiment? when did the old one became obsolete?

0 B.C.E. if you are a Christian.

Ad hominem argument. My posts in Paranoia have nothing to do with my argument here. Ignoratio elenchi, the suggested irony of my words has nothing to do with Tilted Paranoia.

When, oh when, are you going to stop arguing with fallacies? I've decided to start calling you on them, btw, so expect more responses like this one as you continue to try and argue without making any real arguments.
Was Islam spread in the US through violence? Nope. I Islam being spread by violence right now? Nope.
The US, Canada, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and yes even in the Middle East. You see, majority means "the most of something, more than 50%". Most of Muslims are not suicide bombers. Most of Muslims do not protest against disrespectful cartoons or Popes that talk out of their asses. Most of them are dissapointed, but they are not violent in the least. Howdo I know this? Well, I don't start the day with a cup of coffee and a fit of bigotry. When you assume that most Muslims are violent, you can watch the news of a suicide bombing or protest and let that wash over you. "There you go," you think, "That is what all Muslims act like." Outside of that, of course, is reality. Very few people in general are violent, most prefer to either work it out with words or run away. That's just the way the world works. The same is true of any religon.

BTW, did you know that violence against Muslims in the US is up 30% since 2004? Do you think those are Muslims beating up Muslims?

So which Christian church do you go to that only preaches from the New Testemant?

I'm not, but:

cool, so no more 10 commandments?

Only on courthouses. :rolleyes:

The beauty of being Christian is that you get to pick and choose which of the laws, that are explicitly spelled out in the Old Testament, are applicable.

Not unlike a buffet line, really.

I take the whole package, not just one thread :thumbsup:

Oh noes!

I did forget about the peaceful role model Luis Faracon. The rest are due to mainly imigration. Is Islam being spread through violence? I can't say I know all locations, but its attempting to become the dominant force in many nations it is currently. Somalia, Indonesia, the Phillipines, all using terrorism as a way to gain control.

About the bigotry issue, if you are calling me a bigot you can fornicate yourself with a sharp stick. If you are not please disreaguard, so which is it?

Now for the rest. I never said they were all suicide bombers, most people don't want to die, but I stand by my belief that the MAJORITY of Muslims support the use of violance, including terrorism against the US and Israel. You don't have to put dynamite on your back to support terrorism. You recall all the street celebrations in Egypt and the PA after 9/11 (The ones the PA tried to crack down on due to bad press). Those were not terrorists they were terroist supporters. The fact that they are not violent themselves does not matter, they are doing nothing to stop it and are lauding those who are 'martyrs', encouraging young people to kill themsleves in Allah's name. Its in their childrens TV shows for gods sake.

Sigh, I was going to link pictures of these celebrations but I can't because all of the ones I found CONTAIN CHILDREN. This is your majority. They might not have the guts to blow themsleves up but they cheer on those that do.

And?

I don't I'm an atheist. As a Catholic I was always told New Testemant > Old.

Muslim culture in most muslim nations has been subverted by the extremists, they have been teaching their children the special brand of hate and revisionist history. This is the majority of muslims in muslim lands. Not every muslim is a terrorist, but their culture has become such.

I don't want to turn this into a religious thread as it is a major tangent but the reason Christians hold the new testament with more reguard than the old is because everything changed with Jesus. He came and fulfilled the law so you would not have to. Much of the old law no longer applies because of this.

Gaining political control and converting people are two seperate issues. They occasionally cross paths, but I doubt many victims of terrorism are going to convert to Islam because of it.
I don't have to call you a bigot. You took care of that yourself.
No one made you write that. You wrote it yourself, and I think you actually belive that. BTW, a bigot is a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Another quick thing: TFP isn't ruled by anarchy. There are rules that we all follow in order to remain a member of this community. When you suggested that I fornicate on a sharp stick you broke those rules. Now, I can give as good as I get, but it's a side issue in this thread and it would be against the rules for me to come down to your level. The level you do operate on is a dangerous one, however, because you not only walk the line of good taste and forum rules, you often cross it. I suspect that your comment is ban-worthy, but I'll leave that to the moderation. Needless to say, whether you're banned or not you just destroyed your own argument by acting like a child.

If you would like to exchange insults, I will gladly give you my e-mail and we can do that all day long. TFP isn't for trading insults.
Where do you get the idea that most Muslims support violence? How many muslims do you know (the second time I've asked this question)?
...and that is very relevant information. Whether you are violent - or support violence - against Muslims is beside the point here. People who are not Muslims are becoming more and more violent against the Muslim community here in the US. The suspected 9/11 hijackers were all Saudi. None of them was an American. There were no street celebrations in the US after 9/11 by Muslims.
Yes, the New Testimant is more relevant to Christians than the Old (because of that Jesus fellow), but that hardly negates the Old. The Old Testimant is taught in great detail in all Christian churches. Speaking as the son of a pastor who lived his childhood in a bible, I can say that with great confidence. How can we understand Jesus without the massive context given by the Old Testament?
When was the last time you were in Iraq? Lebanon? Israel? UAE? Iran? I've not been to the UAE or Iran, but I do have friends and acquaintences scattered all over the ME. I've been to Iraq. I've been to Israel. I've been to Lebanon. One of my good friends in Lebanon was just killed, as a matter of fact (not to elicit sympathy for my argument, but to show that innocent Muslims die in the ME, too).

You can't speak for these people just by reading a newspaper or watching a news program, Ustwo. In order to speak for a culture, espically one that is not your own, you must be intamately familiar with it. Judging by your posts, you are not. Therefore, all this huffing and puffing about Muslim extreemism being the norm and not the exception is useless. It would be like me teaching a class on 16th century French Literature. I don't know jack shit about the subject except for maybe a week of English classes my Sophmore year in college, but I could pretend to know what I was talking about enough to where I could actually fool a few people into thinking I knew. How could I do that? Well I'm a pretty sharp guy and I'm good at talking at people, just like you.

Hey, you know what, there were many things spread by the sword. Well, at least until the use of gunpowder. Democracy, for example, was spread by the sword... and guillotine... and probably a lot of gunpowder too. Why so? Well, you can't quite request the king to hold general elections now, can you? (Especially if you didn't vote for him.)

As a sidebar:

In the Qur'an, there are references to one they call:
"God's Word"
"a Spirit from Him"
"The Messiah"
"prophet"
"envoy"
"messenger"
"among those who are close to God"
"worthy of esteem in this world and the next"
"blessed"
"sure word"
"Servant of God"

Can you guess who this is?

"Jesus son of Mary"


I find this interesting, actually. So much that I'm thinking of reading more about Islam. You know, to understand it a bit more. Can anyone here recommend any good books?

The Qu'ran. :thumbsup: There is a whole chapter in the Qu'ran named "Mary" refering to the mother of JESUS.

Read the new Testiment and the Old. While still vengeful, God turns a MUCH nicer page. In the old he was cranky, mean, and impatient. In the new he turns forgiving, accepting, and borderline friendly. Most modern Christians lean more heavily to accepting the latter. The Old Testiment is still very prominent, however aside from the 10 Commandments and Genesis it is mostly not taught or relied much upon. However, by the hard liners and "God-fearing" the Old provides the good ol' fire and brimstone.

Man I had a whole bunch of books on it, unfortunately I sold them all to half-priced books because I moved. The only ones I know off-hand are Hourani and Khuri, but they are primarily modern scholars that track the social/religious/political areas of modern-day. Hourani is my favorite, extremely detailed however it takes him about 50 pages to cover one topic.

hmm...a friend of mine mentioned that Jew will hide behind trees and forced out into the sea (btw he himself is a non practicing muslim arab) was something that is taught commonly to children in the middle east, specifically palestinian children. at first i found it funny because i thought it was some sort of stupid story that they made up, but apparently it has a source.

willravel. after the whole thing with the pope and you see images with people screaming death to america, death to israel (they have nothing to do with this), what is your response. don't you think a lot of has to do with ethnic and religous hatred?

Most aren't extreemists, but some are. The ethnic and religous hatred stems from ultra-conservative lifestyle. Conservatism is just starting to leave the ultra-conservative theocratic nations of the ME. I suspect that if the US and UK are able to stop interfering with the ME, it will finally give liberalism, and thus freedom of thought and choice, to take root and grow across the desert. But...every time a US bomb kills a family, every time the Pope declairs the Muslims to be violent, every time Israel occupies foriegn land, it sets back freedom and postpones peace. It takes two to tango, so don't think that I only blame the invading forces, I realize that a lot of Arab Muslims feel a lot of hate and many of them let that hate out in terrible was, unforgivable ways.

So to answer your question: yes, a lot of it has to do with deeply seeded bigotry built into their ancestory and society, but it's decreasing. We can help by allowing the liberal youth to grow in their understanding of peace and freedom. We can help by allowing them to learn on their own and shatter old world hatreds.

Actually in my opinion, they are regressing. 80 years ago it was perfectly acceptable to be openly gay in Iraq (the most popular entertainer was a cross-dressing man), now people are killed for much less. 45 years ago a woman walking around without a burqua in Egypt would be seen as independent and successful, now she is hounded and called a whore.

i don't know. i know arabs who were born and raied here and still say hezbollah is entirely legitimate and the rockets that they launched into israel were, in their words, "no big deal." they continued to say israel is the agressor and that they have no right to go into lebanon. so basically, arab factions that actually do have a strong representaiton in the country can do what they want but israel can't respond because it was "no big deal." if this is a person born and raise din the US, i can only imagine what i would here from an arab living in the middle east.

I dont know how many people also get this, but ive talked to so many muslims about 9/11 and i've always gotten this "ye it was terrible BUT..."

Religion of Peace or Death Cult.

Let the actions speak for themselves.

It's the old "look at this from their perspective" thing. There are a lot of people in the US that treat arabs like garbage out of some misplaced sence of vengence or fear for 9/11. Even in a liberal place like the San Francisco Bay Area, known for being ultra liberal and ultra open minded, I do notice a difference in word and deed by people. It is similar to the way some people act around black people, but it seems more specific. Public transportation, malls, the HP Pavilion, planes, etc. all seem to be different since 9/11.

Arabs in the US are not unaware of how the people in their home countries are treated. Most are able to look at the situatuion objectively, but they have the benifit of having vested interest in both groups, the Israeli-US-western side and the Hezbollah-Lebanese or Palestinian-etc. side. That's something that a lot of Americans don't have.

Of course, I, a white as snow son of a Lutheran pastor born and raised in the US, also think that Israel was the aggressor. This conflict is longer than a few months, it goes back to before I was born. Israel invaded Lebanon because they chased all the Palestinians out and they started to cause trouble from Lebanon. The Lebanese got pissed when Israel invaded and fought back (and lost). Israel pulled out most of it's troops about 5 or 6 years back, but not all of them. Israel still occupied a small part of Lebanon and still does so today. Why? Because Israel doesn't recognize the land as being Lebanese, despite the fact that Lebanon claims it and the country that Israel claims the land belongs to say it ain't theirs. You know, that old chestnut.

I'm still not convinced that your "majority" constitutes more than 50% of muslims. However, I do have a better idea where this repeated statement comes from. I wonder though if you think it be as fair to claim that just before the Iraq invasion the majority of Americans supported violence in the spread of democracy... To me it seems an equivalent sort of supporting violence, if not more vigorous. Is it different only in that one is "terrorism" and the other is state sanctioned? Or is it that one is in support of your moral ideals and the other is not? Or is it something less relative? I'm genuinely curious.

Oh, and because no one else saw it, I understand that you are sensitive to being labelled bigot. Let's keep the labels like that out of the conversation on both sides.

And let's also not suggest that others fornicate themselves with sharp sticks. It sounds dangerous.

Splinters.

Okay, this is what was missing from one "Islam: Religion of Peace?" argument (omissions are in blue):

Quote:
[2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. [2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

Don’t exceed the limits? The Koran teaches restraint!?

Quote:
[2.216] Fighting is enjoined on you, and it is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know. [2.217] They ask you concerning the sacred month about fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is a grave matter, and (hindering men from) the Sacred Mosque and turning its people out of it, are still graver with Allah, and persecution is graver than slaughter; and they will not cease fighting with you until they turn you back from your religion, if they can; and whoever of you turns back from his religion, then he dies while an unbeliever—these it is whose works shall go for nothing in this world and the hereafter, and they are the inmates of the fire; therein they shall abide [2.218] Surely those who believed and those who fled (their home) and strove hard in the way of Allah these hope for the mercy of Allah and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Fighting is disliked? And could be evil?

Quote:
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement…

Okay, I admit this punishment is a bit severe… but do we know what is meant by “mischief” (and is this a good translation)? And is this that much worse than what America could be doing in secret?

Quote:
[8.39] Shakir: And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.

Then surely Allah sees what they do… and hmm, maybe fighting is no longer necessary?

Quote:
[9.12] And if they break their oaths after their agreement and (openly) revile your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief—surely their oaths are nothing—so that they may desist. [9.13] What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Apostle, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers. [9.14] Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and heal the hearts of a believing people.

Breaking an oath is a serious offense. Openly reviling one’s religion is too. But expulsing the Apostle and attacking first? That sounds really bad.

Quote:
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.

This sounds like a call to fight any who aren’t of an Abrahamic religion [edit: or who don't follow the laws and customs of Muslims in Muslim lands], and Islam wasn’t the only religion to persecute pagans. But if this does refer to anyone who isn’t Muslim, then this model isn’t that bad. Paying a tax as a non-Muslim within a Muslim state is better than being exiled or killed. Actually, isn’t this similar to the economic systems found in monarchies? Monarchies have subjects too, right?

Why was so much left out of these passages? These weren't culled directly from sleazy propagandist websites, were they? Does anyone else here think that much of the meaning was altered in these omissions? This does not help us get the the truth, does it? The other issue is that we're missing other elements of context in terms of where these passages appear in the Koran and which passages are missing in between.

Yes, there is violence in the Koran, but these are instructions for preservation of a belief, a Truth. Both the Jews and the Christians have been historically violent for the same reason. Violence is a painful part of our humanity. Pointing fingers doesn't solve the problem of why people are committing evils which we are all capable of.

Baraka_Guru, that was one of the most brilliant posts I've read on TFP. Thank you for taking the time to share the truth of the situation. I sincerly hope the truth of your post isn't lost on everyone.

Truth is elusive to those who refuse to see with both eyes.

Baraka, I left those out because that is how it's been quoted for centuries. From Sal al-Din (Saladin), to Qutb, to Hamas, Hezbolla, Iran, or every terrorist organization in Islamic history dating back to day one with the Assasins.

There are many rules of war mensioned. You can not cut down the trees of your enemies, you can not kill non-combattants or seize their items. You can not kill PoW's or poison water supplies. Unfortunately for these teachings even Muhammad ignored them (Battle of the Trench).

I know the truth as Will so eliquently puts it, I see with both eyes. I see how they are simply statements which are ignored by the very people who write them. How half of the sentence is worthy of repeating in a blood-chant, while the rest are suitable for being ignored.

The Old Testiment mensions the treatment of slaves and lepurs, are we to judge it based on that... or what is taught to our children (the golden rule, etc)? If they teach their children only the parts I quoted, and ignore the others are we to judge them based on what is taught or what is left out?

just wondering, would it take massive explosion leading to the deaths of thousands in israel for you to say that they are not the aggressor? I don't know how you say that they are still occupying lebanon if the U.N. has stated many times that they have legally left lebanon.

This is the crisis of Islam. Influential "Muslims" are bastardizing the faith, using it for political purposes. This is not true Islam. Just as the West corrupts concepts of "Truth," "Justice," democracy, "Liberty," and "Freedom," Islamic extremists are corrupting what is essentially a religion of peace. And, yes, this includes the corruption of Palestinian children.

I'm not sure how one calls it a religion of peace when it was spread by the sword. Christianity had its moments where conquest = conversion, but the highest calling a Christian could have was to be a missionary in some far off land to teach the 'true faith'. They faced death and perhaps worse, but thats the church ideal. Christianity spread far without bloodshed, while the Islamic world is limited mostly to the extent of their conquests.

Its very peaceful on paper IF you are a muslim, if not, good luck.

I must apologize and admit that I am speaking on scant knowledge considering I haven't actually read the Koran in its entirety, nor have I read any good books that represent a fair scholarship on the subject. Are you saying that the highest calling for a Muslim is to wield a sword? Because I read somewhere that it's actually the al-jihad al-akbar (the greater jihad): to veer away from evil, to be charitible.

And you're making sound as though Islam was spread only by the sword, when millions of people have embraced it by choice.

You're right, the highest calling is the inner-struggle. However, confronting inner-demons requires an ability to accept oneself as wrong infront of God. More would choose to fight an outer-demon, a face one can deal with instead of the depths of one's inner-self. The interpretations forged by Sal al-Din's father (sorry, can't remember his name) put forth the argument that facing and dying to a worldly enemy forgives all of one's sins.

Thus they have the same ideology that led us on the crusades a thousand years ago, only they have continued theirs to this day.

So then you see that it is not Islam that is violent, but some members of Islam? That's what I've been saying. It's good to agree.

Ustwo, you can't spread a religon by the sword. Faith comes through acceptance, and how willing are people going to be accepting faith in their hearts with a knife at their throat? It simply doesn't make sense. Where do you get this idea that Islam is a religon that spreads through violence? Have you read the Qu'ran? Do you know any Arab Muslims? Again, I must say:

I use Herman’s explination to Gilbert to illustrate yesterday, today and tomorrow. Both here and abroad. Religious, Political and Rio Grande.

Later in the conversation, Gilbert recorded Goering's observations that the common people can always be manipulated into supporting and fighting wars by their political leaders:
We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

"Religion is like farts...yours is good, but everybody else's stinks."

I never said the religion was peaceful, if it were Muhammad would not have clearly said to go and conquor people.

And conversion by the blade? That's not quite what they did. It was convert or be slightly better than a slave. If it was convert or die there would be no Christians or Jews in the region left. That, however, is what their religion has been turned into.

I wanted to ask this of the Jews in Saudi Arabia, but for some reason I can't find any.

That's because you've never been. It's hard to speak to a people when you don't actually speak to them.

Jewish tourism and buisness sees a lot of Jewish people moving in, around, and out of Saudi Arabia without incodent. Yes, there is a huge problem with anti-semitism there, but that hardly means there ar no Jewish people there.

The public worship of religions other than the official version of
Sunni Islam is prohibited by law: "The Government does not provide
legal protection for freedom of religion, and such protection does not
exist in practice. Islam is the official religion, and the law
requires that all citizens be Muslims. The Government prohibits the
public practice of non-Muslim religions. The Government recognizes the
right of non-Muslims to worship in private; however, it does not
always respect this right in practice, and does not define this right
in law." (SOURCE: International Religious Freedom Report,
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/ant...iarabia03.html

You didn't know this will?

There were Jews in Saudia Arabia once, guess what happened to them?

Of course I know. Just becuase the right isn't protected by law does not mean that they don't practice. What happened to the most of the Jews in Saudi Arabia? Judging by your inference, they were all killed or converted (by terrorism, no less). In reality, most of them left unharmed. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, run by many very sick people. The men implicated in the 9/11 terrorist attacks were Saudi. They commit numerous human rights violations.

The Jews left unharmed, and are rarely mistreated even today. Compare the practice of Judism to the practice of homosexuality there, where people routinly have their hands or feet are amputated.

...you rang?

Even if the majority of Muslims aren't beligerent, they're sure as hell outspoken by the number of them who are (And they really don't seem to care, either). I've not exactly seen many Muslims jump up in protest when their leaders advocate death to the West and its allies; In fact, you see just the opposite. Meh... Does anyone remember the pictures of the Saudis and Sudanese clapping, jumping for joy, burning the American flag and shouting "Death to America!" and "Praise be to Allah!" when they received the news regarding 9/11? That sort of stuff doesn't help Muslims win any friends.

And, before someone says it, I'm in no way stating that all Muslims are war-mongering. Even if it's not the mainstream way of thinking, you'd never know as every day you turn on the TV or read the newspaper or look at an article on the internet you see another Islamic ruler preaching hate for people's and/or their religions. Ironically enough, the same leaders seem to be popular within the Islamic community.

Yeah, when an Imam actually denounces terrorism it makes international news. Does anyone else find it strange that a peaceful religion makes international headlines when one of thousands of religious teachers actually says that killing innocent people on purpose is wrong?

Seaver, the vast majority of imams denounce terrorism and violence.

That is my experience over many dozens of mosques in both the US and the Muslim world.

If you think that the number of Islamic religious figures who do not advocate violence is small, then you are simply, utterly, factually wrong.

if we were to apply to christianity the "logic" of ustwo and seaver's attempts to "prove" that islam is a violent religion , we would be wondering why all christians do rituals involving the handling of poisonous snakes---or we would be trying to "prove" using a range of quotes ripped out of context that the inquisition is the adequate expression of the entirety of christian doctrine---we could read various half-baked websites that quote aquinas, snip fragments from sections of the "summa" that try to determine the line between heretic and unbeliever and from there try to "demonstrate" that christianity is "spread by the sword"..

these really are absurd claims you are pursuing.

to wax charitable for a minute, let's assume that the problem is logical:
the response: arguments from essence are stupid, lads.
they dont get you anywhere: they explain nothing, they illuminate nothing.

if we are not so charitable, the question of motivation becomes ugly indeed:

this because i see little difference between the kind of arguments they are pursuing above and those you see in the protocols of the elders of zion that attempt to "prove" the "evils" of judaism.

Nice, teetering on the line there RB. So you find that my arguments are stupid and do not deserve a response other than implying that I'm one of them.

I never said that Islam was evil, as your elders of zion allusion implied. I never said that Islam was worse than any other religion. I study it in about half of my classes with my major, I'm facinated by it. However, one only has to look at the Qur'an, Shari'a, and the Hadith to realize that the whole "religion of peace" only applies in instances in which Islam is the official religion. If you call subjegating and humiliting non-believers as peaceful than your arguments are logically stupid and dangerous. It's not a random quote, it was a command from Muhammad.

Lets say Bush today said such a thing. That we were to seek out all non-Christians, subjegate and humiliate them. Could we defend him saying that it was a "range of quotes ripped out of context"? No, because the context is clear. Such an argument could hold water if say, Jesus said to find the unbelievers and torture them into conversion. Instead, it was turn the other cheek, love everyone, etc. Muhammad set a pretext and was quoted as ordering Islam to conquor and THEN convert. Come on Roachboy, you usually have very well developed arguments. This whole shut your ears while you shout "no, you're stupid!" thing does not suit you.

seaver:

the argument i advanced pertained to the posts in this thread. they refer to the symbiotic relation between your posts and those of a much lesser quality from ustwo.
it is a response to reading the posts the two of you put here.
i saw no need to make more general arguments--and if you do not understand the basis for the post i made, read through the thread yourself and you'll see it.
try for a minute to adopt the viewpoint of someone who had not read the thread for several days and returned to it, reading the posts one after the other.

sometimes a thread provides an unsettling context for the individual views presented in it.
i think that is the case in this one.

i tried not to reach around and impute particular motives to you in particular in this case, seaver. but i found the tack you and ustwo were developing, taken together, to be at the least problematic.

but read through the thread one post after another as i did ad you'll see what i was reacting to, i think.

Thats 9% IN Britain. These are people who for whatever reason decided to leave their native lands to come live in Western Europe. Just what do you think that % will be in Saudi Arabia, or Iran? You know Saudi Arabia where rich men pay the families of suicide bombers.

I would think if peace was being preached, there would be more of an effort to show it to us, and yet all we see are demonstrations of 1000's and 1000's proving a dead emperor correct.

The Pew Research Center realeased the results of a a survey last year:

Islamic Extremism: Common Concern for Muslim and Western Publics
Support for Terror Wanes Among Muslim Publics

Among the results :
http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/248-30.gif

Support for acts of terrorism in defense of Islam has declined dramatically among Muslims in most predominantly Muslim countries surveyed, although support has risen in Jordan. And while support for suicide bombings against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq remains at higher levels, it too has declined substantially among Muslim publics in all four countries with trend comparisons available, including Jordan.

In Turkey support for suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets in order to defend Islam from its enemies was already low compared to other majority-Muslim publics and has remained stable with just 14% of the public saying such actions are often or sometimes justified. In Indonesia only 15% now see terrorism as justified at least sometimes, down from 27% in summer 2002. In Pakistan, 25% now take that view, also a substantial decline from the 41% level to which support had risen in March 2004, while iin Morocco support has fallen dramatically, from 40% to 13% over the last year.

**

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/248-1.gif

Concerns over Islamic extremism, extensive in the West even before this month's terrorist attacks in London, are shared to a considerable degree by the publics in several predominantly Muslim nations surveyed. Nearly three-quarters of Moroccans and roughly half of those in Pakistan, Turkey and Indonesia see Islamic extremism as a threat to their countries. At the same time, most Muslim publics are expressing less support for terrorism than in the past. Confidence in Osama bin Laden has declined markedly in some countries and fewer believe suicide bombings that target civilians are justified in the defense of Islam.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=248

***

There are some troubling results as well, which if taken as a whole is reason for the US and western allies to better understand the range of perceptions and concerns among muslims around the world.

Most of all, we should avoid stereotypes and generalizations about the "face of Islam" and majority support for terrorism among the muslim populations.

Let's see, more people have died in wars sparked in the name of Christianity than all other reasons combined.

The Spanish Inquisition, Queen Elizabeth in England who killed off as many Catholics in England as she could, the burning of "witches", the slavery in early America practiced by this vast "true to Christian values and morals" nation we had, and let us not forget how we had to spread Christianity to the heathens.... and if they wouldn't give up their religion we then decided to kill them or enslave them..... Cortez's conquistidors, the Native Americans, the Polynesians, and so on.

And in all those killings and slaveries and conquests, someone was able to pull out a New Testament (since we are now no longer just saying "Bible' and we have to seperate the books) and point to where they were right in their violence and descration of human rights.

So for anyone to sit there and claim Christianity is not as violent nor as manipulated by its leaders, is prejudicial bullshit.

But I do love these people who have no true knowledge of a religion, taking what their political party, the media and others who just make prejudicial claims and treat them as "gospel".

BTW, if one stays true to Christ's teachings, yes it is a very non-violent, very nonjudgemental religion. But it is when you follow the leaders who turn what was said into what they want, and for their own gains that it is violent and used in name only.

Kinda sounds like Islam doesn't it?

Pan, I get your point but all your examples are hundreds of years ago, some several centuries. We should of course be concerned about what religious fanatics of all stripes are up to but the biggest threat to civilians today is from Islamic extremists. You are right, I have no true knowledge of these religions other than what is reported in the papers and news shows telling us who the terrorists are after an attack.

Really? WWI was because of Christianity? How about 2? How about Nazi'ism? How about Stalin? How about Mao? How about Pol-Pot? How about the millions killed by the Huns, how about the Mongols, how about the Vikings? how about all the cities decimated by Rome? How about the hundreds of Chinese civil wars? How about the genocides in Africa?

Dont spew lies like that and expect us to swallow it.

Here is an article I came across. I think it has some valid points, especially how the whole situation relates to hypocrisy and cowardice.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/larry_eld...0922&printer=1

I like the point made about the nun who was murdered, shot four times in the back. There was more outrage at the pope regarded the statements, from both Islam, and the west in general, then the coward fucks who murdered an old missionary. The sensitivity police are really starting to piss me off.

I also checked out that the religionofpeace.com. Some interesting stuff there, perhaps a tad intense. According to there counter the number of deadly terrorist attacks since 9/11 from Islamofacists is at 5,923.