-
I don't know how I missed this gentleman's videos in the past but I came across this one today and my first thought was THR...then of course coming here to share it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9dXGJ2rYdA I'm personally still somewhat undecided on the nature of Islam not being much of a theologian myself but I can apprecaite that there seems to be a problem of violence within Islam to some degree. Few people seem to be willing to speak frankly and honestly about that and I found his candor refreshing.
All that said, whats the good reading material I should be going to if I want to startying trying to make up my mind on if the problem is an extra noticeable sect of nuts or a more widespread issue?
-
Sigh. Not this ^&%$ again.
-
Sigh. Not this ^&%$ again.
Posting far more frequently at thr than here, I have to ask, has this already been beaten to death? Did I just post the equivelant of hampster dance?
-
I haven't seen this video before, but Islam has been argued six ways from Sunday. Or Friday, as the case may be. And we have a Muslim member here, who keeps these threads very lively.
I'm also on the fence about whether Islam is essentially violent, or whether the moderate and liberal Muslims have a valid interpretation. So, I usually sit this stuff out.
-
That guy kicks ass.
-
Sigh. Not this ^&%$ again.
Posting far more frequently at thr than here, I have to ask, has this already been beaten to death? Did I just post the equivelant of hampster dance?
Yup, and our favorite CAIR reps will be along shortly with 19 paragraph replies (That no one will read) as to why You Just Hate All Muslims ©
-
Okay, this is actually worrying.
The "Islamic Society of Greater Manchester" here has been trying to get a mosque built. So. Who do they invite to be a speaker at a fundraiser?
http://www.isgm.net
Siraj Wahhaj.
Siraj f-ing Wahhaj
A radical Nation of Islam imam and an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 WTC bombing who testified in defense of the "blind sheik". A guy whose recorded lectures include such titles are "Are you ready to die?"
What the HELL?! Is that what's going to go on in that mosque, then?!
-
You can't appease Islam because Islam is not a person-it doesn't have any desires. These threads are almost always fruitless-you can appease individuals, and you can target individuals, and you can argue what individuals believe. But you can't do anything personal to something that isn't a person, and a religion is not a person.
Having a discussion about "appeasing Islam" makes about as much sense as having a discussion about "negotiating with Judaism"-it is a waste of time and tends to lead the discussion towards bigotry and stereotyping. If you focus on the individuals who are complaining, receiving, or doing anything, then it's possible to have a rational discussion about beliefs and interests.
-
Okay, this is actually worrying.
The "Islamic Society of Greater Manchester" here has been trying to get a mosque built. So. Who do they invite to be a speaker at a fundraiser?
http://www.isgm.netSiraj Wahhaj.
Siraj f-ing WahhajA radical Nation of Islam imam and an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 WTC bombing who testified in defense of the "blind sheik". A guy whose recorded lectures include such titles are "Are you ready to die?"
What the HELL?! Is that what's going to go on in that mosque, then?!
Siraj Wahhaj is not a "nation of Islam imam"; he's a Muslim, by pretty much anyone's definition.
The "unindicted coconspirator" business is pure hype-people get listed as coconspirators so that the Feds can introduce their statements more easily, not because there is actually any real evidence that the guy cooperated in a plot to destroy america. If you believe for one second that the Feds just ignore evidence that some muslim guy who preaches like that was connected to a terror plot and don't actually try to jail him...I got a bridge to sell ya.
-
Sigh. Not this ^&%$ again.
Could be worse. You could be Derek. I swear to the Gods, the man has the patience of a saint.
-
I couldn't pay attention past the first 2 mins cuz his collar was crooked and it was really bugging me.
-
Nuke them from orbit.
The only way to be sure.
-
You can't appease Islam because Islam is not a person-it doesn't have any desires. These threads are almost always fruitless-you can appease individuals, and you can target individuals, and you can argue what individuals believe. But you can't do anything personal to something that isn't a person, and a religion is not a person.
Having a discussion about "appeasing Islam" makes about as much sense as having a discussion about "negotiating with Judaism"-it is a waste of time and tends to lead the discussion towards bigotry and stereotyping. If you focus on the individuals who are complaining, receiving, or doing anything, then it's possible to have a rational discussion about beliefs and interests.
Dar-el-Islam vs. Dar-el-Harb.
The extremists want the world to abide by Sharia law. The extremists want to outlaw singing, dance, and merriment. The extremists want to relegate women to the status of cattle, to make them live under full-body covering, to ban them from traveling alone without male relatives.
The extremists want everyone to be like them, and they WILL kill moderate Muslims for not being "Islamic enough". They do it all the time.
No desires, hm? Oh, the extremists as a group have plenty of desires. And you're enabling them.
-
Well, at least our resident terrorist supporter, err, CAIR apologist did it in under 19 paragraphs.
-
Fair warning.
I'm in a foul mood.
Please keep this adult like.
Or, as adult like as a few of you CAN keep it.
Soybomb, welcome.
You opened a can-o-worms.
Watch this thread carefully...you will learn how to debate on this forum like an adult, and like a child.
-
You can't appease Islam because Islam is not a person-it doesn't have any desires. These threads are almost always fruitless-you can appease individuals, and you can target individuals, and you can argue what individuals believe. But you can't do anything personal to something that isn't a person, and a religion is not a person.
Having a discussion about "appeasing Islam" makes about as much sense as having a discussion about "negotiating with Judaism"-it is a waste of time and tends to lead the discussion towards bigotry and stereotyping. If you focus on the individuals who are complaining, receiving, or doing anything, then it's possible to have a rational discussion about beliefs and interests.
To some extent I agree but if a significant portion of people share similar desires can't you group them together and discuss what are likely desires held by a majority of that collective? Can't I appease or negotiate with Islam just like I could with a labor union if not on a larger scale?
I think my main problem is I'd like to dismiss the terrible deeds done by some muslims as just extremists nuts just like I can the parents of the young girl that allowed her to die without medical care without condemning all of christianity. I'm having trouble dismissing these collective actions as being part of a small enough minority though. It isn't just a few stories here and there though, its seeing multiple countries who use this religion as a basis to justify or even encourage poor civil rights activities. Why is it that the muslim portion of countries with mixed religions is often so dangerous? Why is it that when some group of christian nuts gets mad about something they write some letters, when the muslim nuts do it they threaten muder? Why do honor killings in today's world seem largely linked to islam? Why is female genital cutting somewhat denounced by Islam and yet most commonly linked to Islam and required by some of its schools?
I guess my question is isn't there a point at which the nuts begin to grow so massive in number that they reflect poorly on the others and rightfully so? No doubt some christian fundamentalists feel ashamed of the actions of their more moderate brothers but the group is defined by its most obvious deeds and usually by numbers. Is my urge to give Islam the benefit of the doubt on the whole and dismiss the bad as those nutty fundies because of some socialized obligation to be accepting? If I do so am I being blind to the actions of a very large number of muslims? At what point do I get the right to say "there's a problem with islam?" I'm a child of the multicultural teaching in school age but I feel like perhaps I'm being willfully blind in a "these aren't the droids you're looking for" kind of way. Perhaps there really are a lot of problems with Islam even if they don't apply to all followers and we should be talking about them and not pretending as though its great because its diversity.
-
You can't appease Islam because Islam is not a person-it doesn't have any desires. These threads are almost always fruitless-you can appease individuals, and you can target individuals, and you can argue what individuals believe. But you can't do anything personal to something that isn't a person, and a religion is not a person.
Having a discussion about "appeasing Islam" makes about as much sense as having a discussion about "negotiating with Judaism"-it is a waste of time and tends to lead the discussion towards bigotry and stereotyping. If you focus on the individuals who are complaining, receiving, or doing anything, then it's possible to have a rational discussion about beliefs and interests.
Dar-el-Islam vs. Dar-el-Harb.
The extremists want the world to abide by Sharia law. The extremists want to outlaw singing, dance, and merriment. The extremists want to relegate women to the status of cattle, to make them live under full-body covering, to ban them from traveling alone without male relatives.
Uh, no, they don't-the "Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb" distinction does not exist in any theology I'm aware of, even the most extreme wahhabist one, such that "dar al harb" means "open to attack by virtue of what it is." There is no movement, even Bin Laden's, claiming that Islam supports killing people just because they don't abide by islamic law.
That isn't a gloss on anyone-you're not even close to what the extremists are teaching. There is simply no way to debate whether or not we should "appease Muslims who want to kill everyone that isn't Muslim", because no such group exists.
-
You can't appease Islam because Islam is not a person-it doesn't have any desires. These threads are almost always fruitless-you can appease individuals, and you can target individuals, and you can argue what individuals believe. But you can't do anything personal to something that isn't a person, and a religion is not a person.
Having a discussion about "appeasing Islam" makes about as much sense as having a discussion about "negotiating with Judaism"-it is a waste of time and tends to lead the discussion towards bigotry and stereotyping. If you focus on the individuals who are complaining, receiving, or doing anything, then it's possible to have a rational discussion about beliefs and interests.
To some extent I agree but if a significant portion of people share similar desires can't you group them together and discuss what are likely desires held by a majority of that collective? Can't I appease or negotiate with Islam just like I could with a labor union if not on a larger scale?
This is a good point, and a great example-no, you can't negotiate with Islam like you can a labor union, because labor union is a person-it has defined representatives and mechanisms for binding itself to their acts, like a corporation. Islam isn't a corporate body; it has no officers or structure. It is a word that describes a set of beliefs about the world, not a label for a group like a union or a club or anything remotely similar. There is no "Islamic leadership" or "islamic ruling body."
If we are just talking about what the majority of Muslims believe, then we're reduced to looking at polls, which basically tell us that the vast majority of Muslims want democracy, American style freedoms, and decent wages. There's not much to go on there if you are talking terrorism.
It isn't just a few stories here and there though, its seeing multiple countries who use this religion as a basis to justify or even encourage poor civil rights activities. Why is it that the muslim portion of countries with mixed religions is often so dangerous? Why is it that when some group of christian nuts gets mad about something they write some letters, when the muslim nuts do it they threaten muder? Why do honor killings in today's world seem largely linked to islam? Why is female genital cutting somewhat denounced by Islam and yet most commonly linked to Islam and required by some of its schools?
Where is the "muslim portion" of a mixed country dangerous? If you could point out some examples, we could discuss them, but I'm not sure what this means. I think if you look at specific examples, your questions would be quite easily answered by an examination of the facts on the ground. This is one of the problems with dealing in generalities that span a category as broad as "Islam" generally-you can't really prove or deny any one claim, because there are so many examples and counter examples that you can cherry pick to make whatever claim you want seem reasonable.
Is my urge to give Islam the benefit of the doubt on the whole and dismiss the bad as those nutty fundies because of some socialized obligation to be accepting? If I do so am I being blind to the actions of a very large number of muslims? At what point do I get the right to say "there's a problem with islam?" I'm a child of the multicultural teaching in school age but I feel like perhaps I'm being willfully blind in a "these aren't the droids you're looking for" kind of way. Perhaps there really are a lot of problems with Islam even if they don't apply to all followers and we should be talking about them and not pretending as though its great because its diversity.
I would say you are analyzing the question in the wrong light-there is no one to "accept" or "give a pass to" when you are thinking of Islam as a whole, because it isn't a person, or even a unit of people united under some leadership.
Think of it this way: If you wrote a contract to end all violence involving Muslims, and wrote a section that said "Islam sign here", who could even in theory sign that piece of paper with a straight face? Who would you go to in order to have it signed? There isn't any such person, and that's why talk of either condemning or accepting "Islam" without reference to any particular persons who fall under the description will ultimately yield little in the way of understanding.
-
RANCHI: Angry groups of Muslims ransacked the main building of Ranchi University on Thursday protesting against the contents of a PG History question paper that sought comments from students on Prophet Muhammad who was described as a "trader" whose career ended as a "raider".
The language used in the paper so incensed some Muslims that they assembled in large numbers and attacked the university building. Police resorted to lathicharge to disperse the crowd following which the agitators forced down the shutters of shops on the Jharkhand capital's main road.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Ranchi_boils_over_exam_paper/articleshow/3002747.cms
What causes this childlike rage of temper tantrums among the extremists? Were they never spanked as children, or what?
If you can't deal with your faith being questioned without throwing a violent tantrum, is that the fault of the questioner, or your own fault for not believing enough that you can just shrug off or answer such questions like a mature human being?
-
RANCHI: Angry groups of Muslims ransacked the main building of Ranchi University on Thursday protesting against the contents of a PG History question paper that sought comments from students on Prophet Muhammad who was described as a "trader" whose career ended as a "raider".
The language used in the paper so incensed some Muslims that they assembled in large numbers and attacked the university building. Police resorted to lathicharge to disperse the crowd following which the agitators forced down the shutters of shops on the Jharkhand capital's main road.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Ranchi_boils_over_exam_paper/articleshow/3002747.cmsWhat causes this childlike rage of temper tantrums among the extremists? Were they never spanked as children, or what?
If you can't deal with your faith being questioned without throwing a violent tantrum, is that the fault of the questioner, or your own fault for not believing enough that you can just shrug off or answer such questions like a mature human being?
This is a perfect example of local politics being in play, but but the conflict being blamed on religion.
Perhaps the roughly million people killed in the various wars following partition, followed by angry mobs of Hindus ransacking, raping, and burning Muslim enclaves throughout India (and vice versa for Pakistan) has something to do with the outrage?
There is no one in India who didn't lose scores of relatives to the violence that followed the split-so yeah, that might explain why they tend to have out of proportion reactions to insults to their particular groups (and that holds true for hindus as well-but I guess that's not relevant, since pointing out that hindus riot over offenses on a regular basis in India wouldn't serve to justify our campaign against Muslims.)
-
Sigh...
1) I think I could party with Derek.
2) I think that some folks here in America still haven't realized that there are nutjobs who would REALLY like to cut off their heads. And it doesn't matter if they say nice things about the nutjobs or not.
There's the primary difference between most moslems, and most nutjobs. Just like most of the nutjobs are moslems, most of the kluckers are gun nuts. Doesn't make moslems nutjobs any more than it means that gun nuts are kluckers. The kluckers just like their hardware, and the nutjobs just like playing with sharp instruments and explosives.
Maybe if we put the kluckers and the nutjobs all in an arena somewhere, and randomly gave 50% knives, and 50% hand grenades.
I'd pay per view for that one...
Okay. Shootinstudent, you have to go set up the meeting with the nutjobs. See y'all later...
-
This is why I make the distinction between Muslims and extremists.
The extremeists are a perversion of the religion that has been spreading. They literally are taught HATE from birth. Witness the Hamas TV for that. Crazy stuff, teaching toddlers that Jews are evil and should be killed, using those Disney knockoffs to teach hate, and that blowing yourself up for that cause is a good thing. Crazy parents who are proud when their kids blow themselves up in a cafe and kill a bunch of innocent people. Crazy people.
Muslims are not crazy people. SOME Muslims are crazy people. They're extremists. You cannot reason with them. Watch the interviews, where you see a blank look at any suggestion that Jews should not die, or that Sunni/Shi'a should not die, depending on the sect of the extremists. Wahhabists are a fun bunch, too. No music, no art, no dancing, no fun, women are objects.
You cannot reason with the extremeists. If you try to make nice with them, they will kill you. They will kill Muslims for not being "Islamic enough", because they reject the death-cult perversion of the religion that the extremists adhere to.
And the sooner people realize that, the better for everyone. For peaceful Muslims who just want to be left alone and not bother anyone, for civilization in general.
The extremists have to go. Quit appeasing them. Quit tolerating them. Tell them "No", and if they react with violence, destroy them.
-
The extremeists are a perversion of the religion that has been spreading. They literally are taught HATE from birth. Witness the Hamas TV for that. Crazy stuff, teaching toddlers that Jews are evil and should be killed, using those Disney knockoffs to teach hate, and that blowing yourself up for that cause is a good thing. Crazy parents who are proud when their kids blow themselves up in a cafe and kill a bunch of innocent people. Crazy people.
And here is the problem with your approach to this issue-what on earth does Hamas have to do with riots in India? It's simply impossible to connect the two-there are no television shows in India that are even capable of carrying Hamas programming, because no one there speaks the language. It's hard enough to find translations into english of what Hamas types are saying-I'd be shocked to find any regional Indian language version at all. So how that is connected to riots in India is not clear to me at all.
Muslims are not crazy people. SOME Muslims are crazy people. They're extremists. You cannot reason with them. Watch the interviews, where you see a blank look at any suggestion that Jews should not die, or that Sunni/Shi'a should not die, depending on the sect of the extremists. Wahhabists are a fun bunch, too. No music, no art, no dancing, no fun, women are objects.
Again, this is the language of someone who has not watched the interviews-if you watch them, you will not see "all Jews should die!" or "All Shia should die!"-what you will see is rather mundane justification of murder, ie, "but x people killed my people!" or "hey-they were mixed in with reservists in the army, so those civilians were just collateral damage." That is what the extremists are saying, not that all non-Muslims should die. The fact that you don't recognize this is evidence that you are not actually supporting your opinions with statements and evidence from extremists more than anything else.
Extremists, btw, do not recognize a "sunni/shia" divide. That is completely phoney-the more extreme a Muslim is, the more likely he/she is to deny that there is any such distinction. Wahhabists included. So I'm curious as to where you got that claim from...perhaps the same place you got your theories about Muslims and Jews/non-Muslims?
The extremists certainly exist-but there is no extremist group that exists which claims the things Manedwolf puts into the mouths of extremists. Rather, they claim the mirror image of the radicals on this side of the fight-that all civilians are targets because "they fail to vote against the war on Muslims" and because they "are silent about terror against Muslims around the world." That is the mark of an extremist Muslim, not some fantasy ideology about killing non-Muslims....there is no such group in Islam today.
-
This is a good point, and a great example-no, you can't negotiate with Islam like you can a labor union, because labor union is a person-it has defined representatives and mechanisms for binding itself to their acts, like a corporation. Islam isn't a corporate body; it has no officers or structure. It is a word that describes a set of beliefs about the world, not a label for a group like a union or a club or anything remotely similar. There is no "Islamic leadership" or "islamic ruling body."
This may be where our paths diverge. Just because no one leadership or headquarters for something doesn't exist, it does not give it a get out a jail free card for responsibility. If a significant number of people seem to be causing problems or doing bad things in the name of something, be it squirrels or a religion, it seems like that is all the justification one needs to focus on that group as the common thread it unites under. It may not be all inclusive but it would also be no small number.
If we are just talking about what the majority of Muslims believe, then we're reduced to looking at polls, which basically tell us that the vast majority of Muslims want democracy, American style freedoms, and decent wages. There's not much to go on there if you are talking terrorism.
That may be but it also ignores that we have several countries in the world that have a variety of non-human rights friendly practices in the name of Islam. Okay these people don't represent all of Islam nor are they available by writing Islam Central at 200 market street ny, ny but it doesn't seem like that dissolves my abillity to be critical of Islam for this large number of people practicing under that flag. As it relates to the prior point, how can I address my problems with this very significant population of people acting commiting misdeeds based on their religious values if not by those religious values?
Where is the "muslim portion" of a mixed country dangerous? If you could point out some examples, we could discuss them, but I'm not sure what this means. I think if you look at specific examples, your questions would be quite easily answered by an examination of the facts on the ground. This is one of the problems with dealing in generalities that span a category as broad as "Islam" generally-you can't really prove or deny any one claim, because there are so many examples and counter examples that you can cherry pick to make whatever claim you want seem reasonable.
The first that comes to mind is the Philippines with regions like Mindanao. I'll let the reader decide but the words from the residents and muslims themselves seems quite damning http://www.gmanews.tv/story/84619/69-of-Mindanao-Muslims-say-poll-violence-a-way-of-life---SWS
MANILA, Philippines - Almost seven out of every 10 Mindanao Muslims have accepted violence during elections as a "way of life," while eight of 10 prefer a man rather than a woman to represent them in Congress.
These were among the findings of a special survey of Mindanao Muslims by Social Weather Stations (SWS) last February, six months before elections in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).
"Sixty-nine percent of Mindanao Muslims say that violence during elections 'is a way of life' in their province, and 41% say they are more worried about their personal security during election time," SWS said in a statement.
On the other hand, 62% said it is good to have an unopposed candidate, since it reduces campaign violence.
Also, 83% said they prefer to be represented by a male rather than by a female congressman. "The preference is slightly less among women (79%) than among men (88%)," SWS said.
Some 45% of the respondents said a woman should get advice from her husband or father in deciding her vote. The SWS said Muslim women have "similar opinions" as Muslim men in this regard.
With respect to the role of the ulama or a Muslim elder in elections, 83% expect them to become more influential in the coming August 2008 elections in ARMM.
Now that story just relates to elections but the history of violence there is undeniably broad and I think the residents views help illustrate some of the issues I have.
My understanding is that the largely muslim neighborhoods in france that have gained a little fame for their riots and burning of things also suffer safety issues to a greater degree than other areas. That of course ignores the riots and arson.
I would say you are analyzing the question in the wrong light-there is no one to "accept" or "give a pass to" when you are thinking of Islam as a whole, because it isn't a person, or even a unit of people united under some leadership.
Think of it this way: If you wrote a contract to end all violence involving Muslims, and wrote a section that said "Islam sign here", who could even in theory sign that piece of paper with a straight face? Who would you go to in order to have it signed? There isn't any such person, and that's why talk of either condemning or accepting "Islam" without reference to any particular persons who fall under the description will ultimately yield little in the way of understanding.
I guess I don't see why the lack of 1 central authority for everyone means I cannot critique/applaud/etc the beliefs of significant populations who unite under something. Couldn't I speak out against christianity if a significant number of people who identify as christians were teaching their kids that science is rubbish and man rode dinosaurs? Can't I critcize environmentalists if a significant number of people of identify as environmentalists have created a hystertia over the word nuclear that has lead to irrational fears of nuclear power and increased pollution? One I've seen on this site before is criticism of the gay community because a significant number of homo/bi-sexual men practice both unsafe and promiscious sex leading to increased disease rates. I think everyone has the common sense to realize that these people do not represent every last member of their community and that they don't organize under 1 name with a mailing addresses and voting record. It just seems logical and rational and address and discuss a community by name when that community has a significant number of people causing problems.
At what point can I address the problems of Islam (or anything else that people believe)? Is it when a significant number of those self identified people are causing significant problems in the world? Is it when the majority of the population that identifies as such is the actual majority? Super majority? 90%? Never? I can't put a number on it but it seems to me like once a significant number of people start doing a signficant number of bad things in the name of something, we can talk about that thing as a problem. It may not all be a problem, it may not all be the same, but we'll still be addressing a significant portion of it.
In your own view, do you believe that we see a significant number of "bad things" done in the world today either in the name of or in accordance with people's religious beliefs that they describe as Islam?
-
1) We need to identify the leaders.
2) We need to get the leaders alone.
3) We need to tell the leaders to play nice.
4) When they don't play nice, we take the video that we make of their final hours, and show it to the next guy in line.
Sooner or later, someone will get the message. It ain't pretty, but it just might save a lot of innocent lives.
-
What was that movie in the 80's with college students building a laser, where there was demo footage of what the pentagon wanted to do, a laser that could vaporize a pesky enemy leader out of the blue?
That'd be kinda nice. Orbital "smite yo' ass" button. Just "Hey, where did they go, they were right here a second ago!"
-
If a significant number of people seem to be causing problems or doing bad things in the name of something, be it squirrels or a religion, it seems like that is all the justification one needs to focus on that group as the common thread it unites under. It may not be all inclusive but it would also be no small number.
Well, apparently this would hinge on polls, since you are talking about the numbers of people. The number of Muslims that actually commit terrorist acts is easily well below 1 percent; the number of people who support religious extremism of the sort practiced in places like Saudi Arabia is hard to measure, but based on polls, is something like 10 percent.
So what to you is a "significant number" such that all Muslims should be held accountable? I'd be interested to hear at what percentage point in the population for both acts of terrorism and support for religious extremism you would start to consider those things "a common thread."
This is another good example of the local being blamed on the religious-from the Arab and South Asian perspective, the tribesmen in the Phillippines are regularly labeled pagans because of their own traditional religious prescriptions. It's a bit like taking the Philipino Christians who crucify themselves and then saying "look-90 percent of Christians in the Philipines think it's cool to nail yourself to a piece of wood and let others whip you to pieces for religion," and then drawing a conclusion about Christianity from it.
My understanding is that the largely muslim neighborhoods in france that have gained a little fame for their riots and burning of things also suffer safety issues to a greater degree than other areas. That of course ignores the riots and arson.
It also ignores the fact that a large number of non-Muslims rioted in these very same riots, which had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with race. They were African riots, not religious riots.
In your own view, do you believe that we see a significant number of "bad things" done in the world today either in the name of or in accordance with people's religious beliefs that they describe as Islam?
In my own view, there's very little done that is religiously specific to Islam. Most of the argument is on facts, not religion. bin Laden and his followers claim that they are simply "attacking people who vote to support violence against their own", and that said attacks are justified because in democracies, the civilians can be held responsible for what their governments do. They are using essentially the same reasoning that you use here-since a majority of Americans support the war on Iraq and Israel against the Palestinians, the radicals conclude, any Americans can be held responsible as combatants in a greater war.
That's not really a religious viewpoint unique to Arabs/Muslims/anyone else, it's a symptom of the "total war" disease that seems to have swept the planet since Napoleon. And I don't see how arguing about religion addresses it at all.
-
What was that movie in the 80's with college students building a laser, where there was demo footage of what the pentagon wanted to do, a laser that could vaporize a pesky enemy leader out of the blue?
That'd be kinda nice. Orbital "smite yo' ass" button. Just "Hey, where did they go, they were right here a second ago!"
Real Genius.
One of my favorite movies ever. Val Kilmer before he made it big.
-
What causes this childlike rage of temper tantrums among the extremists? Were they never spanked as children, or what?
The opposite, they were raised by brutal parents who were raised by brutal parents.
A good book on the subject is "For Your Own Good" by Alice Miller.
-
I'm personally still somewhat undecided on the nature of Islam not being much of a theologian myself but I can apprecaite that there seems to be a problem of violence within Islam to some degree.
I have heard that the difference between follower of Islam and a Christian is, that the Islamist are willing to kill or die for Mohamed, but Jesus was willing to die for our sins.
-
I'm personally still somewhat undecided on the nature of Islam not being much of a theologian myself but I can apprecaite that there seems to be a problem of violence within Islam to some degree.
I have heard that the difference between follower of Islam and a Christian is, that the Islamist are willing to kill or die for Mohamed, but Jesus was willing to die for our sins.
Islam's Messenger died roughly 1400 years ago-sorry my friend, but there is no one (again, not even a Bin ladenite crazy) who thinks that they are dying for him.
-
Islam's Messenger died roughly 1400 years ago-sorry my friend, but there is no one (again, not even a Bin ladenite crazy) who thinks that they are dying for him.
What or who are they killing and dying for?
-
Islam's Messenger died roughly 1400 years ago-sorry my friend, but there is no one (again, not even a Bin ladenite crazy) who thinks that they are dying for him.
What or who are they killing and dying for?
For the most part, their countries-they believe that their suicide attacks target foreign occupiers of their homelands, and that because civilians contribute money and volunteers to armies, they're justified in hitting civilians as a part of the war. The more religious of the groups label all Muslims a single nation, and claim that they are acting in response to attacks on Muslms generally.