[Islam] "Killing Christians"

[abu afak]

Killing Christians
By Amitai Etzioni - November 12, 2002

On October 17, bombs killed 6 people and wounded 143 in Zamboanga, the Philippines. While press accounts mentioned in passing that the victims were Christians, few conveyed to the reader that these were people assaulted by Muslim extremists because of their religion. On September 25, militant Muslims shot dead 7 Christian Pakistanis execution style in Karachi. Most of the media failed to report this at all, though it was at least the fifth bloody attack on Christians in Pakistan in the last twelve months.

And the media almost never point out that Christians are being killed, often at places of worship, in several countries with Islamic majorities or governments, not because they are Westerners or Americans (many are neither) but because they are Christians. Nor is the White House or Congress nearly as attentive--to put it mildly--to this pattern of killing as it is to any injury on either side of the conflict in Israel.

People who follow international news are aware that a civil war raged in Ethiopia for more than 30 years. But few realize that it was a religious war--between Muslim Eritrea and Christian Ethiopia--in which tens of thousands perished. Many know that the people of East Timor were savaged, but it is rarely mentioned that most East Timorese are Christian, while the Indonesian militants who killed many of them and brutalized the refugees in West Timor are Muslim.
Indeed, Christians in other parts of Indonesia have hardly fared better; for instance, thousands died during riots in the Moluccan Islands in 2000.

The bloody war in the Sudan, similarly, pits the Muslim government in the North against the Christian and animist South. And in Nigeria, as Muslims try to impose a strict version of the legal code called sharia in several provinces, armed conflicts between Muslims and Christians have erupted and thousands have died. Just lately, in the Ivory Coast, Muslims in the North have been attacking Christians in the South. On a smaller scale but very much along the same lines, scores of Coptic Christians were killed in Egypt in January 2000; several churches were burned in Kenya the following year.

It seems somehow inflammatory to point to the religious element of these and many other conflicts. Nearly every day, meanwhile, some scholar assures us that Islam is a peaceable and loving religion. What is going on here? >From the beginning, Islam drew a distinction between Christians and Jews and other non-Muslims. The former were "people of the book." They had to pay special taxes and wear identifying clothing, yet their status reflected a certain respect for what Muslims saw as the earlier but incomplete and corrupted revelation recorded in the Bible. In the modern period, Christians and Jews are typically called Kuffr, or infidels. In countries under strict sharia, apostasy is a capital crime, and in the minds of extremists like Osama bin Laden, infidels too deserve death. While Muslim societies differ widely in their levels of tolerance, pluralism, and religious freedom, full respect for Christianity is virtually absent.

This matter came up last spring at a conference held by Iranian reformers in Isfahan. The gathering brought together a number of Islamic and Western intellectuals in opposition to the thesis advanced by Samuel Huntington of Harvard University that Western and Islamic civilizations are bound to clash. During his presentation, Ebrahim Moosa, an imam from South Africa now teaching at Duke University, urged that Islam be recast so as to accommodate liberal attitudes. He stressed the need for three changes: recognition of women's equality with men; toleration of capitalism; and recognition of the full dignity and humanity of nonbelievers. But we are still waiting to hear from many other Muslim leaders as to whether they wish to move Islam in this direction.

The White House has solid tactical reasons for stating and restating that our fight is only with terrorists, not Muslims. We must face the fact, however, that while the prophet has many moderate followers, the terrorists command great sympathy in the Islamic world not only because Islamic populations are anti-American or anti-Western, but also because the terrorists are attacking infidels. An elderly Afghan freed from detention at Guantanamo last week made a telling statement to a Washington Post reporter: "The Americans treated me well, but they were not Muslims, so I didn't like them."

It is true that other religions have passed through violent and intolerant phases. And it is possible that moderate interpretations of Islam may again come to predominate. But we shall be unable to recognize and foster that development if we refuse to acknowledge that the violence currently erupting in many parts of the Islamic world is aimed not simply at the political and economic leadership of the West but also at its Judeo-Christian tradition. When Christians and Jews are no longer characterized as Kuffr, we shall know we have turned a corner.

©2002 - The Weekly Standard

[reason]

Originally posted by abu afak
Killing Christians
By Amitai Etzioni - November 12, 2002
On October 17, bombs killed 6 people and wounded 143 in Zamboanga, the Philippines. While press accounts mentioned in passing that the victims were Christians, few conveyed to the reader that these were people assaulted by Muslim extremists because of their religion. On September 25, militant Muslims shot dead 7 Christian Pakistanis execution style in Karachi. Most of the media failed to report this at all, though it was at least the fifth bloody attack on Christians in Pakistan in the last twelve months.

And the media almost never point out that Christians are being killed, often at places of worship, in several countries with Islamic majorities or governments, not because they are Westerners or Americans (many are neither) but because they are Christians. Nor is the White House or Congress nearly as attentive--to put it mildly--to this pattern of killing as it is to any injury on either side of the conflict in Israel.

People who follow international news are aware that a civil war raged in Ethiopia for more than 30 years. But few realize that it was a religious war--between Muslim Eritrea and Christian Ethiopia--in which tens of thousands perished. Many know that the people of East Timor were savaged, but it is rarely mentioned that most East Timorese are Christian, while the Indonesian militants who killed many of them and brutalized the refugees in West Timor are Muslim. Indeed, Christians in other parts of Indonesia have hardly fared better; for instance, thousands died during riots in the Moluccan Islands in 2000.

The bloody war in the Sudan, similarly, pits the Muslim government in the North against the Christian and animist South. And in Nigeria, as Muslims try to impose a strict version of the legal code called sharia in several provinces, armed conflicts between Muslims and Christians have erupted and thousands have died. Just lately, in the Ivory Coast, Muslims in the North have been attacking Christians in the South. On a smaller scale but very much along the same lines, scores of Coptic Christians were killed in Egypt in January 2000; several churches were burned in Kenya the following year.

It seems somehow inflammatory to point to the religious element of these and many other conflicts. Nearly every day, meanwhile, some scholar assures us that Islam is a peaceable and loving religion. What is going on here? >From the beginning, Islam drew a distinction between Christians and Jews and other non-Muslims. The former were "people of the book." They had to pay special taxes and wear identifying clothing, yet their status reflected a certain respect for what Muslims saw as the earlier but incomplete and corrupted revelation recorded in the Bible. In the modern period, Christians and Jews are typically called Kuffr, or infidels. In countries under strict sharia, apostasy is a capital crime, and in the minds of extremists like Osama bin Laden, infidels too deserve death. While Muslim societies differ widely in their levels of tolerance, pluralism, and religious freedom, full respect for Christianity is virtually absent.

This matter came up last spring at a conference held by Iranian reformers in Isfahan. The gathering brought together a number of Islamic and Western intellectuals in opposition to the thesis advanced by Samuel Huntington of Harvard University that Western and Islamic civilizations are bound to clash. During his presentation, Ebrahim Moosa, an imam from South Africa now teaching at Duke University, urged that Islam be recast so as to accommodate liberal attitudes. He stressed the need for three changes: recognition of women's equality with men; toleration of capitalism; and recognition of the full dignity and humanity of nonbelievers. But we are still waiting to hear from many other Muslim leaders as to whether they wish to move Islam in this direction.

The White House has solid tactical reasons for stating and restating that our fight is only with terrorists, not Muslims. We must face the fact, however, that while the prophet has many moderate followers, the terrorists command great sympathy in the Islamic world not only because Islamic populations are anti-American or anti-Western, but also because the terrorists are attacking infidels. An elderly Afghan freed from detention at Guantanamo last week made a telling statement to a Washington Post reporter: "The Americans treated me well, but they were not Muslims, so I didn't like them."

It is true that other religions have passed through violent and intolerant phases. And it is possible that moderate interpretations of Islam may again come to predominate. But we shall be unable to recognize and foster that development if we refuse to acknowledge that the violence currently erupting in many parts of the Islamic world is aimed not simply at the political and economic leadership of the West but also at its Judeo-Christian tradition. When Christians and Jews are no longer characterized as Kuffr, we shall know we have turned a corner.

©2002 - The Weekly Standard

Sadly these are facts, no one can deny that many Muslims with political goals have taken the religious path to attain that goal.Its a fact I would be dishonest to deny, but you would be dishonest to deny that catholics and protestants in Ireland are going through the same thing. Islam and christianity are the world 2 largest religions thats why there are more clashes between them than any other two religions. Who do we blame? I think this is a moot question.It is moot because I believe the two sides are equally guilty through out history and both sides have shown equal tolerance and non tolerance of other religions (not the actual religions but their supposed "followers").But as of today there is no doubt in my mind that some Muslim countries are alot more backward than some secular western ones, interm of civil rights, human rights, and what ever rights.Yes Muslims are the ones who must reform, adapt, and return to what god intended his religion to be , simple, peaceful,tolerant and good.That is why Muslims MUST speak out against these acts.

Now after saying all this , I have to add that the vast majority of Muslims are not violent , Islam is a religion of peace and those who disagree with the latter I would love to answer his concerns.I dont blame christianity for what the Inquistions did, so please dont blame Islam for what Bin Laden does.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by reason
That is why Muslims MUST speak out against these acts.

Now after saying all this , I have to add that the vast majority of Muslims are not violent , Islam is a religion of peace and those who disagree with the latter I would love to answer his concerns.I dont blame christianity for what the Inquistions did, so please dont blame Islam for what Bin Laden does.

Muslims Haven't 'spoken out against these acts' in any meaningful or large way.. WHERE are These guys?? Why wasn't there a demonstration of Pro-America Muslims in Washington DC since 9/11?

Please read my string "The vast Majority of Muslims are not Violent, blah blah"..

and Christianity IS to blame for the Inquisitions. As Islam is to Blame NOW.

If Islam was just fighting with Christianity, we might have to look closer if it might be the Christians fault (Though in places like Sudan and Indonesia etc etc etc, Christians are clearly Being Butchered through no fault of their own)

BUT, it's not Just Christians/Christianity. Wherever Islam touches another religion there is WAR. War with the Hindus on the Asian Subcontinent, War with the Jews in their 1/800 of the Middle East, and barring an opponent from another religion, Muslims kill each other (Iraq/Iran, Iraq Kuwait, Algerian Civil War, Afghan war we just Interupted, etc etc etc)

It's NOT ISRAEL! ..... Israel is just a Tiny Spot on the Long 'Islamic Frontline' where HUNDREDS DIE EVERY DAY..

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by abu afak
Muslims Haven't 'spoken out against these acts' in any meaningful or large way.. WHERE are These guys?? Why wasn't there a demonstration of Pro-America Muslims in Washington DC since 9/11?



http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=1854

there you go, all muslim leaders, 95% of muslim leaders, enjoy

[abu afak]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=1854

there you go, all muslim leaders, 95% of muslim leaders, enjoy

Incoherent answer Ilya .. try again.. What's your point?

[reason]

Originally posted by abu afak
Incoherent answer Ilya .. try again.. What's your point?

Incoherent? My god, he provided you with a list of Muslim leaders that proves you are wrong, how is that Incoherent?

[abu afak]

Originally posted by reason
Incoherent? My god, he provided you with a list of Muslim leaders that proves you are wrong, how is that Incoherent?

I guess you missed Our exchange on another string 'reason' and it Does NOT prove I'm wrong.. au contrare.. From the string ">>>"the Great Majority of Muslims are Peaceful" blah blah<<
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&postid=33371#post33371 2 posts at top of page ---------------------------------------------------

abu afak
Full Member
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 52
[] [] []
Great Ilya.. you've lined up a few Muslim leaders who 'condemn' terrorism ........ Like Arafat Condemns it... LOL

Where are the Muslims who want to get rid of Sadam, the Biggest Killer of Muslims of all time??.. The Bigoted Tribalism of these people is astonishing... we could never have gone after Milosevich if we had their sick Mindset. They are defending Sadam from 'the Christians/Zionists'.

And where are the American Muslims demonstrations of Support for America since 9/11!!! You think these people could have at least put on a Faux one in DC... but they can't... That's the Problem..there is quiet support for their Genocidal brothers.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
11-14-2002 01:35 AM

------

IlyaFurman
Senior Member
Registered: Oct 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 255
[] [] []
IlyaFurman is currently
Offline.
(post #17)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by abu afak
Great Ilya.. you've lined up a few Muslim leaders who 'condemn' terrorism ........ Like Arafat Condemns it... LOL

Where are the Muslims who want to get rid of Sadam, the Biggest Killer of Muslims of all time??.. The Bigoted Tribalism of these people is astonishing... we could never have gone after Milosevich if we had their sick Mindset. They are defending Sadam from 'the Christians/Zionists'.

And where are the American Muslims demonstrations of Support for America since 9/11!!! You think these people could have at least put on a Faux one in DC... but they can't... That's the Problem..there is quiet support for their Genocidal brothers.

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

ILYA: "Sadly I agree with almost everything you said."
__________________________________________________ __





That's how it ended on the other string.. Ilya AGREES with Everything >I< said.

[Mediocrates]

Sadly these are facts, no one can deny that many Muslims with political goals have taken the religious path to attain that goal.


No what's sad is that the religion and its political goals have become indistinguishable from one another. Islam has progressed to the point where a couple of hundred years from now historians will look back and call it the Age of Jihad, an analog to Christianity's Inquisition of the 16thC. And we understand now that that pushed the Prostestant Reformation to the fore. Time will tell if Islam spinters into its own Reformation.

[reason]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Sadly these are facts, no one can deny that many Muslims with political goals have taken the religious path to attain that goal.


No what's sad is that the religion and its political goals have become indistinguishable from one another. Islam has progressed to the point where a couple of hundred years from now historians will look back and call it the Age of Jihad, an analog to Christianity's Inquisition of the 16thC. And we understand now that that pushed the Prostestant Reformation to the fore. Time will tell if Islam spinters into it's own Reformation.

No the religion and the politics are distinguishable, one is not the other. Are you saying that judaism is also indistinguishable from politics hence a jewish state?

[Mediocrates]

No I'm saying what I'm saying. It wasn't any sort of analogy.

[IlyaFurman]

I did post hunderds of muslim leaders that apolozige and say Islam is really not like that, but I dont agree with you saying they are "against it like Arafat", how would you know? I belive they agree to what they are saying, notice arafat and saddam didnt write in those statements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by abu afak

Where are the Muslims who want to get rid of Sadam, the Biggest Killer of Muslims of all time??.. The Bigoted Tribalism of these people is astonishing... we could never have gone after Milosevich if we had their sick Mindset. They are defending Sadam from 'the Christians/Zionists'.

And where are the American Muslims demonstrations of Support for America since 9/11!!! You think these people could have at least put on a Faux one in DC... but they can't... That's the Problem..there is quiet support for their Genocidal brothers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with this statement above though, Muslims need to get away and distance themselves from the extremists, or people will start confusing them together which is happening already.

And tribalism is a good term, its not yet out of the system, it will be out, for example saudi arabia was united after they united different tribes only in the 1920's I belive, it will change

[abu afak]

Happily!! "Killing Christians" even in 'moderate' Indonesia. A perfect article to back up my title post of this string... and not the last

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/13/1037080786304.html

[Leon Uris]

Now after saying all this , I have to add that the vast majority of Muslims are not violent , Islam is a religion of peace and those who disagree with the latter I would love to answer his concerns.

A complete lie. For one, the statement that the majority of muslims are not violent is belied by fact. Moreover, islam itself is a violent and insane religion whose teachings enjoin their followers to kill and rape the innocent.

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by Leon Uris
A complete lie. For one, the statement that the majority of muslims are not violent is belied by fact. Moreover, islam itself is a violent and insane religion whose teachings enjoin their followers to kill and rape the innocent.

So your telling me there are 1.4 billion violent muslims running around waiting to kill the infidels?

[abu afak]

Originally posted by Leon Uris
A complete lie. For one, the statement that the majority of muslims are not violent is belied by fact. Moreover, islam itself is a violent and insane religion whose teachings enjoin their followers to kill and rape the innocent.

Ex from Letter to the Sditor of WSJ


"...In 1990, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, I was watching TV with some non-Arab Muslims. When they saw Saddam's tanks roll into Kuwait, they cheered. I'm not easily shocked by the inanities of Muslims (I've seen too much of them in my lifetime), but this was too much even for me. I screamed, "What the hell is wrong with you? He's just invaded a Muslim country and is slaughtering its inhabitants!"

That didn't matter. What mattered was that Big Daddy Saddam, the new Saladin, was sticking it to the Crusaders. And criticisms like mine were fit only for--that's right, quislings.

So: A pseudo-Muslim Arab leader invades an Arab Muslim country, rapes and slaughters its inhabitants, and plunders its wealth. Meanwhile, non-Arab Muslims cheer him on, as though he were Saladin (the Kurd). Of course, after the war, Saddam goes out and annihilates the Muslim population of Kurds...""

Irfan Khawaja - Princeton, N.J.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by abu afak
Ex from Letter to the Editor of WSJ


"...In 1990, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, I was watching TV with some non-Arab Muslims. When they saw Saddam's tanks roll into Kuwait, they cheered. I'm not easily shocked by the inanities of Muslims (I've seen too much of them in my lifetime), but this was too much even for me. I screamed, "What the hell is wrong with you? He's just invaded a Muslim country and is slaughtering its inhabitants!"

That didn't matter. What mattered was that Big Daddy Saddam, the new Saladin, was sticking it to the Crusaders. And criticisms like mine were fit only for--that's right, quislings.

So: A pseudo-Muslim Arab leader invades an Arab Muslim country, rapes and slaughters its inhabitants, and plunders its wealth. Meanwhile, non-Arab Muslims cheer him on, as though he were Saladin (the Kurd). Of course, after the war, Saddam goes out and annihilates the Muslim population of Kurds...""

Irfan Khawaja - Princeton, N.J.

PS- Palestinians and alot of the 'Arab street' were also cheering

[abu afak]

[i] KILLING MORE CHRISTIANS [/B] Lebanon Probes Missionary's Death
Fri Nov 22, 1:55 PM ET

By HUSSEIN DAKROUB, Associated Press Writer

BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) - Lebanese authorities were investigating Friday whether the slaying of an American missionary was linked to anti-U.S. sentiment in the Middle East, but a Palestinian guerrilla official said the killing was to avenge her Christian evangelist activity in a Muslim town.

The U.S. Embassy, however, said it was too early to speculate on the motive behind the first targeted killing of an American in Lebanon in over a decade.


Bonnie Penner, 31, who worked as a nurse at a missionary clinic caring for needy Lebanese and Palestinians, was shot to death Thursday in the southern port city of Sidon.


Investigators believe a gunman knocked at the door of the clinic and shot Penner with a 7mm pistol. Her body was found lying in a pool of blood with three gunshot wounds to the head.


A Lebanese security official said Friday the investigation was focused on the possibility that Penner's slaying was "a result of the mounting anti-American sentiments in the Middle East."


Anger has been rising among Arabs over U.S. support for Israel in its conflict with Palestinians and Washington's threat to wage war on Iraq.


However, the Unity Center, where Penner worked, also has been criticized in Sidon, a predominantly Muslim city, for trying to convert young Muslims to Christianity.


Penner, who was originally from California, grew up in Washington state and attended the Moody Bible College in Chicago, where she met her husband, Garry Witherall of Britain.


Witherall said he forgave his wife's killer. "God led us to Lebanon, and we knew that we might die," Witherall, 36, said in an interview published Friday in The Times of London.


"I forgive anyone who did that. It doesn't take the pain. It's a costly forgiveness ... it cost my wife," he said, adding that the couple didn't care about politics and wanted to help the poor in southern Lebanon.


Penner's slaying was the first targeted killing of an American in more than 10 years in Lebanon, which saw many attacks against Americans in the 1980s during the country's sectarian civil war. On Nov. 12, amid rising anti-U.S. sentiment, small bombs exploded outside three American fast-food restaurants in Lebanon, causing damage but no casualties.

A senior Palestinian guerrilla official denied Friday that the Ein el-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp near Sidon, where anti-U.S. extremist groups have taken shelter, had anything to do with the killing. He linked the slaying to the Unity Center's Christian activities.

"The killing was the result of a hostile Muslim reaction in Sidon to the preaching and indoctrination lessons the center was giving to Muslim youths," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Among the Muslim extremist Palestinian factions in Ein el-Hilweh, Lebanon's largest refugee camp, is Asbat al-Ansar, which is on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist organizations.

"It's too early in the investigation to speculate" on the motive behind the killing, Candace Putnam, the U.S. Embassy's public affairs officer, said Friday.

The U.S. Embassy also issued a warning on its Web site asking Americans — estimated to number about 10,000, mostly of Lebanese origin — "to remain vigilant with regard to their personal security and to exercise caution."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_american_killed_17

[abu afak]

and killing YET more Christians...

Bonnie Penner, Nurse/Missionary was shot (see my article above) and the shot twice more in the head... for good measure

Seems Muslims didn't like her 'Christian Spirit'

http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,56621,00.jpg

[abu afak]

Originally posted by abu afak
and killing YET more Christians...

Bonnie Penner, Nurse/Missionary was shot (see my article above) and the shot twice more in the head... for good measure

Seems Muslims didn't like her 'Christian Spirit'

http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,56621,00.jpg


Christians terrorized in Muslim Indonesia
Saturday, December 8, 2001

By Art Moore
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

Thousands of Islamic militants with apparent ties to Osama bin Laden are terrorizing Christians in central Indonesia, according to religious advocacy groups.

More than 50,000 Christians in the Central Sulawesi province town of Tentena are in imminent danger of attack by a paramilitary group called Laskar Jihad.

The jihad fighters' intention? To completely eliminate Christians from the region, said Steven Snyder, who took a survey trip to the area in late November. Snyder is president of Washington, D.C.-based International Christian Concern.

About 15,000 Laskar Jihad troops equipped with AK-47 assault rifles, rocket launchers and bulldozers are in the region, said Snyder. "If they all gather to attack, there is going to be a bloodbath."

At least 600 homes and six churches were burned during the Nov. 26-29 attacks, according to local sources reporting to the Voice of the Martyrs, an Oklahoma-based group that monitors persecution against Christians. The largest church in the coastal town of Poso, north of Tentena, was bombed and burned during the onslaught, and 15,000 Christians reportedly fled the area, VOM said. About 28,000 of the Christians under threat in Tentena are refugees who fled their homes in Poso, according to ICC's Snyder.

Laskar Jihad's leader, Ja'far Umar Thalib, wants to make Indonesia an Islamic state. In pursuance of that utopian goal, the movement waged a violent campaign against Christians in neighboring Maluku province, where at least 9,000 people have been killed since 1999.

Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world, with more than 180 million. A minority supports the radical Islamic parties that share the aim of converting the nation into an Islamic state, analysts say.

Laskar Jihad openly collects money on street corners in Indonesia for "jihad," the Compass Direct news service reported. Eyewitnesses say the group is collecting funds on the island of Java, the country's most populous, claiming – ironically – that Christians are raping Muslim women in Poso and have declared holy war on all Muslims....."""

ex from http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/christia.htm

[Frans_1]

"Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam" is worth reading, by Christians at least. Moreover, it was writen by a Jewish writer.

When equivalences are drawn between Christianity and Islam please bear in mind that when Europe was Christian, the people were mostly dead poor and completely illiterate. When the crusades were going on, the printing revolution and Bible reform had not yet happened. A guy could be good at swinging a sword, using bow and arrow or ploughing a field, but less so at reading. Reading in general and reading and interpreting the Bible especially was reserved for the clergy. To claim that two sides are equally guilty through out history is to start a body count of 2000 years of Catholicism 700 years of Protestantism and 1400 years of Islam which would be an ugly game. But personally, I'm Protestant non denominational so I don't fear going there.

[Frans_1]

Ok,

Are Jews equally guilty as Muslims ?

Are Hindus equally guilty as Muslims ?

Are Buddhists equally guilty as Muslims?

...preposterous...

[Frans_1]

Why does noone ever mention the non Muslim Chinese in Muslim Indonesia and Muslim Malaysia ?

I remember the Muslim Malaysian premier Mahatir Mohammed once called the overseas South Asian Chinese diaspora the "Jews of Asia" in one of his biographies. But I have to dig up his exact quote. But then again, he also blamed the "Jews" for Asias 98 financial crisis....

South Asian Chinese (and Indians, by the way) tend to be neither Muslim or Christian. How exactly are they/were they equally guilty ?

[andak01]

Originally posted by Frans_1 To claim that two sides are equally guilty through out history is to start a body count of 2000 years of Catholicism 700 years of Protestantism and 1400 years of Islam which would be an ugly game. But personally, I'm Protestant non denominational so I don't fear going there. [/B]

To what purpose? According to the Numbers game, the Japanese were more humane than the United States in WWII. According to the numbers game, the Confederate side of the US Civil war was the less barbarous. According to the numbers game, the Somalians were paragons of virtue. According to the numbers game, the Palestinians are three times as peaceful as the Israelis.

[Frans_1]

>>>>To what purpose ?

Then why suggest both sides are "equally" guilty ?

[andak01]

Originally posted by Frans_1
>>>>To what purpose ?

Then why suggest both sides are "equally" guilty ?

Let me make a radical and unthinkable proposition. Both sides are human. When Muslims do something wrong, it is assumed that they do so becaues they are Muslims, not despite it. Yet the hijackers for one example were breaking almost every tenet of Islam. Conversely, when Christians have massacred people or are involved in pedophilia scandals or abortion clinic bombings, it is never said that they do this because they are good Christians. Most Muslims are motivated by other factors in addition to or instead of their religion.

[Frans_1]

Is that getting out of the territory of equal guilt and moving into theology ?

To follow from that theme, what is a Muslim crime and what is a Chrisitian crime ?

[andak01]

Originally posted by Frans_1
Is that getting out of the territory of equal guilt and moving into theology ?

To follow from that theme, what is a Muslim crime and what is a Chrisitian crime ?

Suicide, killing women and children, oppression. All these are against Islam. Of course we have thousands of Christian murderers in Americas largely Christian prison population.

[abu afak]

Where Have All the Christians Gone? PART 1

November 25, 2001
by Carl Pearlston

In early November, the Los Angeles Times featured an article about a 14-year old Israeli boy murdered by a Palestinian terrorist in a bus attack. The article discussed the resultant incursions by Israel's army into the nominal territory of the Palestinian Authority, and talked of damage inflicted by Israeli forces "on the largely Christian city of Bethlehem and its residents."

While this statement regarding Bethlehem being a Christian city would have been true 50 years ago when Christians were 90% of the population, it is grossly untrue today when they number only 35%, and are continually dwindling both as a percentage and in absolute numbers. This Christian population reduction is a fact not only for Bethlehem, but for the entire area. Consider, for example, that in the last census conducted by the British mandatory authorities in 1947 there were 28,000 Christians in Jerusalem; the census conducted by Israel in 1967 after the Six-Day War showed just 11,000 Christians remaining in the city. This means that some 17,000 Christians (or 61%) left during the days of Jordanian King Hussein's rule over Jerusalem, and were replaced by Muslim Arabs from Hebron. Pope John Paul II was mindful of these sobering facts when, on the occasion of his visit to Bethlehem in March 2000, he urged Arab Christians to remain in Bethlehem, the home of Christianity, saying, "Do not be afraid to preserve your Christian heritage and Christian presence in Bethlehem."

This serious error in not recognizing the decline of Christianity in its ancient home by a staff writer and copy editor of a leading newspaper is symptomatic of a general media neglect of the plight of Christians under Islamic governments, facing the abuses of radical Islamicists.

When the invading Arab Islamic armies swept out of the Arabian peninsula in the 7th century and conquered Palestine (which was roughly the area of present-day Israel and the West Bank), the inhabitants were almost entirely Christian and Jewish subjects of the Christian Byzantine Empire. Since that time, except for the relatively brief period of the Crusader kingdoms, the Christian presence has steadily declined. By the beginning of the 20th century, Christians were only 13% of the total population; today they are less than 2% of the 2.8 million Palestinian Authority population and about the same for the 6-million Israeli population. Forecasts for the future envision a total Christian presence of only a fraction of 1% by mid-century, thus abandoning the home of Christianity.

The Palestinian Christians are subject to subtle institutional discrimination by the Palestinian Authority, whose official religion is Islam, and whose basic laws reflect the Koranic Shari'a. The militant rhetoric of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad, which advocates a unified fundamentalist Islamic state over the entire Mid East, offers no comfort to Arab Christians, who have been fleeing the area at four times the rate of Moslems. There are presently more Palestinian Christians living abroad than in their homeland.

The situation to the north in Lebanon shows much the same reduction of Christian population. In 1975, before the 15-year civil war which wrought havoc on the structure of Lebanese society, Christians (primarily Maronites affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church) were nearly 60% of the population. They are now only 25-30% of the roughly 4 million population. Although formerly a clear majority in charge of the country, currently Christians are an embattled minority, fearful of the nation's growing Islamization. Since 1975, more than 600,000 have left for better conditions in Europe, Latin America, and the US; about 150,000 were killed in the war. Christians remaining have seen their influence further marginalized by the 1995 naturalization of some 300,000 Muslims from various Arab countries. Thousands of Syrian workers have been brought in by the 35,000 Syrian troops who actually control the country. The Iranian Hezbollah, dominant in southern Lebanon, is working to establish all of Lebanon as a fundamentalist Islamic state, and had some success in the last elections.

The Maronite Patriarch, Cardinal Sfeir, quoted in Charles Sennot's excellent series on this subject in the Boston Globe (January 1998), stated: "The Christian church has been here from the dawn of Christianity. But what we see today is very sad for us. We see the Christian majority shrink to a minority. We fear it will shrink even more. The Christians have no confidence, no trust in the future." A Christian college student stated, "...there are too many Muslims. They are rearranging the country. I feel like a stranger here. This is not even Lebanon anymore. They are killing this country."

Although the population of modern Turkey is more than 99% Moslem, less than one hundred years ago, under the predecessor Ottoman Empire, it was about 30% Christian. The situation changed when some two million Armenian Christians were massacred between 1905 and 1918, a genocide which the Turkish government still denies. Of the remaining Christians, many fled immediately, while others facing death threats, systemic harassment, and discrimination, emigrated later. The Greco-Turkish war of 1922 resulted in most of the 200,000 Greek Christians leaving the country, with only a small remnant remaining, who continue to complain of government harassment and discrimination.

In Egypt, the Coptics, one of the oldest Christian sects, have seen their numbers shrink from 20% of the population in 1975 to less than 10% of today's 60-million population. Over one million have emigrated to the US, Canada, and Europe in that time period. Those who stay face the rising influence of Islamicist fundamentalism, the denouncing of their religion by radical Islamic clerics, the imposition of Koranic Shari'a law, discrimination against their children in schools, church burnings, the loss of political and economic power, and local massacres. Christians are second-class citizens. As one Copt lawyer stated, "Those who can afford to have left the country. For those of us who stay, life is made very difficult. Opportunities are limited. Discrimination is rampant."

Sudan is ruled by a 39% Arab minority of a population of 34 million. 70% of the people are Sunni Moslems living in the north, while some 7 million Black Africans of various Christian denominations and animists live in the south. They have been devastated since 1983 by a jihad or holy war led by the government's National Islamic Front against all in Southern Sudan and the Nuba mountains who have resisted the imposition of Shari'a, Islamic law. According to the Institute on Religion and Democracy, this government-sponsored terror has resulted in the deaths of at least two million Christians, moderate Beja Muslims, and animists. Tens of thousands of women and children have been abducted and taken north into slavery, the children to be raised as Muslims. Many of the child slaves are subsequently sold back to their parents. Christians in refugee camps have been denied food and water unless they convert to Islam. The Institute notes that the government bombs civilian hospitals, feeding centers, and refugee camps; churches are favorite targets. The Institute asserts, "It is a deliberate strategy by the government to empty the south of non-Muslims and to keep the oil-rich land for itself." The government is constructing an oil pipeline out of southern Sudan in cooperation with partner companies such as Canada's Talisman Energy and the China National Petroleum Company. The Institute warns that the Moslem government "will soon be able to purchase high-tech weapons of warfare in exchange for oil, and complete its intended decimation of the people in southern Sudan." Over a million south Sudanese, primarily Christians, are living in exile.

[abu afak]

PART 2

In Algeria, Islamicist terrorists of the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) and the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) have been engaged in a civil war since 1992, seeking to establish an Islamic Republic. They have declared their intention to eliminate Jews, Christians, and polytheists, and have targeted Christians in a reign of violence, focusing their killing on Bishops, priests, monks, and nuns. As a consequence, there has been a large exodus of Christians, leaving less than 25,000 in a population of 30 million. In the other North African Islamic states--Libya, Tunisia, Morocco--there has been a negligible Christian presence since the 7th century Islamic conquests, when the Christians, drained by paying the required exorbitant head tax, converted to Islam.

There are about 1 million remaining Christians in Iraq, concentrated in the north, out of a 17-million population. More than 1 million Iraqi Christians have emigrated to Europe, Australia, and North America. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, about 500,000 Persian, Armenian, and Assyrian Christians live amid 60 million Muslims in constant fear of mob violence, usually done with government complicity. Syria's 1 million Christians are now about 6% of the 16-million population; over 250,000 Christians, or 20%, have emigrated. Jordan's Christians are about 3% of the 4.5 million population, and emigration and conversion to Islam are steadily reducing their numbers.

In Saudi Arabia, Christians are less than 1% of the 21-million population, and the public practice of Christianity is virtually unknown. Any non-Islamic or dissident Islamic religious expression is forbidden. Christian meetings are outlawed except for worship services held in foreign embassies. Offenders are arrested and imprisoned by the mutawa, the religious police. Any Saudi who seeks to leave Islam faces death. Saudi Arabia was recently rebuked by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights for its treatment of Christians. It regularly makes the top of the worst-nation-persecuting-Christians list, followed by Afghanistan, whose recent now-vanquished Taliban rulers until recently held captive 8 foreign workers for practicing Christianity. The Taliban had just this year required non-Moslems to wear special marking on their clothing to distinguish them from Moslems. And their barbaric destruction of the Bamian Buddhas in March of this year demonstrated the utter contempt of Radical Islamicists for the concept of religious tolerance.

In Pakistan, human rights groups constantly worry about attacks on Christians, who are only 1.5% of the population. A church in the Punjab Province was recently attacked by radical Islamicists who massacred 16 worshipers. The extremists have hung banners calling on Muslims to kill Christians as part of their religious duty. Similar violence has been visited upon Christians in Indonesia's Moluccan islands, where hundreds of people have died because of atrocities, and thousands have fled for their lives. A radical Muslim movement, Laskar Jihad, aims to eradicate Christianity in the area, and has engaged in forced conversions, church burnings, and massacres.

There is no question that Islamicists--those who profess a radical, fundamentalist Islam which becomes more a political ideology than a religion--are intolerant of non-Moslems and seek to eliminate any religious minorities within their borders. And when Islamicists control the government, they put those beliefs and policies into practice with the full force of governmental power. Even those Islamic governments deemed "moderate" betray an essential hostility toward non-Moslems, and Christians regularly report discrimination and harassment. While, so-called moderate Islamic governments may profess religious tolerance in the abstract, their real-world performance is sadly deficient in allowing any significant measure of religious freedom. The really troubling question, given the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in every Islamic country in the past decade, is to what extent the radical Islamicists represent the future course of those heretofore "moderate" Islamic governments.

Source: Freeman Centre

http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/prsecutn/where.html

[abu afak]

Christians in Islamic Countries Targeted
NewsMax.com Wires
Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2001

WASHINGTON - The situation of Christians has deteriorated in many Islamic countries since the terrorist attacks on the U.S. and the subsequent U.S.-British raids on Afghanistan, according to Paul Marshall, a senior fellow at the Center for Religious Freedom.
A prominent U.S. imam Monday assailed as un-Islamic the persecution of Christians in Muslim countries ranging from Indonesia to Nigeria. "The Koran enjoins Muslims to treat everybody with dignity and compassion," said Muzzamil Siddiqi, director of the Islamic Society of Orange County, Calif., when asked about the murder threats, violence, forced conversions, incarceration and discrimination some Christians are being subjected to.

Diane Knippers, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, praised Siddiqi's remarks as a wonderful statement. "We need more of this. We need Muslim groups in the U.S. to raise their voices on behalf of Christians in predominantly Muslim areas."

Knippers pointed out that "U.S. churches were quick to speak up on behalf of Moslems in our society. They rightly encouraged all America to treat them with respect. At the same time the churches should speak up when Christians in Muslim areas are in jeopardy."

The National Council of Churches' news service also condemned persecution Monday.

"We consider persecution of any religious group unacceptable. We are actively engaged in protecting Christians and other religious minorities in countries around the world in partnership with indigenous religious groups. To give specific details could jeopardize both their security and our efforts on their behalf," the service said in a statement.

In a similar vein, Jerry Powers of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops stated that his church had been consistently active on behalf of persecuted Christians abroad.

Marshall, an internationally recognized authority on religious rights, said Christians were in peril in a long belt of Muslim nations stretching from the eastern parts of Indonesia all the way to West Africa.

In some cases this was due to government policies; in others religious fanatics are menacing Christians, embarrassing national governments, he added.

In an interview with United Press International, Marshall drew a grim picture, country by country:


Indonesia: In the eastern islands of this largest Muslim nation in the world, white-uniformed militiamen of Laskar Jihad are forcibly converting Christians to Islam. Marshall said this caused considerable embarrassment to the government, which did not condone such actions.
This campaign has so far cost the lives of 5,000 to 6,000 people, the British-born scholar related. "There are links between Laskar Jihad and top terrorist Osama bin Laden," he said.


Bangladesh: Small radical groups supporting Osama bin Laden have bombed or burned down churches.

Pakistan: Christians depend on the protection of the government as several Muslim leaders have issued fatwas (religious decrees) to kill two Pakistani Christians for every Afghan Muslim who dies in the Anglo-American air raids.
There have also been attacks on Christians along the Afghan border, Marshall told UPI.


Egypt: The government discriminates against Christianity by financing the construction of mosques, while denying permits for the reconstruction of Christian sanctuaries, according to Marshall.

Saudi-Arabia: In the last two months, 15 Christian expatriates have been jailed for worshiping in private homes, and three have been tortured, according to the religious rights organization International Christian Concern.
An information officer at the Saudi embassy in Washington, who declined to give his name, denied this Tuesday: "As far as we know this is not true. We are not aware of any in jail at this time," he said.

No religion other than Islam is allowed in the kingdom, and there is no church. When asked about this, Abdullah M. Khouj, rector of the Islamic Center in Washington, replied, "This is a matter to be negotiated between governments."


Sudan: Some 2 million people, chiefly Christians, have been killed in a civil war fought by the radical Islamic regime in the north of the country against non-Arab population in the south, according to several sources including Marshall and Diane Knippers' Institute on Religion and Democracy.
For several years now, international religious rights organizations have reported that Christians are being raped, tortured to death and crucified.


Somalia: Anybody found out to be a Christian will quickly be beheaded by Muslim vigilantes, Marshall said.

Nigeria: In 12 states, versions of Shari'a law, the Islamic penal code, have been imposed - in violation of the constitution of that African federal republic.
After the imposition of Islamic law, riots ensued killing 5,000 in the city of Kaduna alone, said Marshall. Other reports put the death toll at around 1,000.


In other Muslim countries, such as Algeria, Islamic radicals opposed to the government are killing other Muslims, primarily women and children although they have also murdered priests, nuns and even a bishop, Marshall explained.
Others, such as the once-tolerant, formerly republican African nation of Mauritania are now taking tougher measures against Christians, Marshall continued. "If you arrive with a Bible, they'll take it off you. And it's illegal to preach Christianity to the locals."

Becoming a Christian in many Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran or Afghanistan can mean that one loses one's job, one's ability to be educated, one's family, and even one's life, Wendy Norvell of the Southern Baptist Convention's International Mission Board told UPI.

Added Robert Reccord, president of the SBC's North American Mission board, "We look forward to the day when Christians living in Islamic countries will have the same religious freedoms that Muslims currently enjoy in the United States and Canada.”

Copyright 2001 by United Press International.

All rights reserved.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/10/16/210223.shtml

[abu afak]

"First the Saturday People, Then the Sunday People"

Ah Islam

[andak01]

You want to give a source for that quote? Probably not.

[abu afak]

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22First+the+Saturday+People%22+&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N

[cerulean]

I've read that particular slogan "First the Saturday People, Then the Sunday People" (in Arabic, of course) dates back a thousand years or more, and it is obviously still in use today. I'm sure you can find the origin if you look in the links abu afak provided.

[andak01]

Originally posted by abu afak
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22First+the+Saturday+People%22+&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N

Look at the links. Do you go to Arabic hate sites to determine what Jews say? I thought so.

Christians
christianactionforisrael.org/ isreport/feb02/horizon.html
christianactionforisrael.org/isreport/feb03/truth.html
Women in Green for Jerusalem
mailman.io.com/pipermail/freemanlist/ 2003-August/000847.html
Zionists
www.freeman.org/m_online/oct98/winston5.htm
ww2.forwilliam.org:8002/notice/tear_fund_nz.htm
www.gamla.org.il/english/article/1998/sept/win6.htm

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by andak01
Look at the links. Do you go to Arabic hate sites to determine what Jews say? I thought so.

Christians
christianactionforisrael.org/ isreport/feb02/horizon.html
christianactionforisrael.org/isreport/feb03/truth.html
Women in Green for Jerusalem
mailman.io.com/pipermail/freemanlist/ 2003-August/000847.html
Zionists
www.freeman.org/m_online/oct98/winston5.htm
ww2.forwilliam.org:8002/notice/tear_fund_nz.htm
www.gamla.org.il/english/article/1998/sept/win6.htm

As I understand you, you are saying that pro-Israel sites are biased and, therefore, are unreliable sources regarding what Palestinians think, say, and do.

The "proof" you offer is the well known fact that there are pro-Arab web sites containing wall-to-wall lies.

However, it does not follow that if Palestinian supporters slander Jews then Israel supporters must be slandering Arabs/Muslims.

The bigotry, intolerance, and ill intentions of Israel's Arab enemies are indeed unique. Contrary to your assertions, Palestinian supporters pretend they are great friends of Christians in the hope of driving a wedge between Christians and Jews--if not reviving ancient hatreds. Yet given the slaughter of Arab Christians in Lebanon led by the PLO this Muslim-Christian friendship is suspect, to say the least.

The reports regarding Palestinian child abuse, discussed on some of the sites, are well documented and supported by a mountain of solid evidence. To wit, what don't you understand about Palestinian videos proudly displaying children reciting the "kill the Jews" pabulum they are spoon-fed from the time they utter their first words?

[andak01]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
As I understand you, you are saying that pro-Israel sites are biased and, therefore, are unreliable sources regarding what Palestinians think, say, and do.

And you say exactly the same thing about pro-Palestinian sites. And we are both correct in some cases.

However, it does not follow that if Palestinian supporters slander Jews then Israel supporters must be slandering Arabs/Muslims.

And it doesn't follow any study of human nature that any group consistantly lies or consistantly tells the truth.

The bigotry, intolerance, and ill intentions of Israel's Arab enemies are indeed unique.

HOW IS THAT? Have you forgotten the holocaust?

Contrary to your assertions, Palestinian supporters pretend they are great friends of Christians in the hope of driving a wedge between Christians and Jews--if not reviving ancient hatreds.

And Christians pretend to be friends with Jews. Occasionally, with all this pretending, true friendships form. This kind of psuedo-friendly sparring is known as diplomacy. It is something worthwhile persuing. Hopefully with everyone pushing in different directions we can maintain moderation.

To wit, what don't you understand about Palestinian videos proudly displaying children reciting the "kill the Jews" pabulum they are spoon-fed from the time they utter their first words?

Hate speech should not be repeated, period. It serves absolutely no constructive purpose. Repeating someone else's hate speech is just as bad. How would you like if I spent my days quoting Kahane Chi to prove some sort of Jewish conspiracy? I cannot stop Palestinians from teaching this stuff, but I certainly speak out when I hear it in my own community.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by andak01
Look at the links. Do you go to Arabic hate sites to determine what Jews say? I thought so.


You asked for a source.. I gave Many.

There are many more sites than you listed. (Hundreds)

christianactionforIsrael is not a Hate site, nor are the others.
(You are such a disingenous POS it's really annoying)

Because You won't find this quote on CAIR's site that doesn't mean everyone else made it up.

[cerulean]

As pointed out on this forum a long time ago, mosques in Israel regularly broadcast "Butcher the Jews" from their loudspeakers in Arabic.

[andak01]

Originally posted by cerulean
As pointed out on this forum a long time ago, mosques in Israel regularly broadcast "Butcher the Jews" from their loudspeakers in Arabic.

I know, and we drink the blood of children at Ramadan. :mad: More Jews were killed by Christians in Jerusalem during the Crusades than in both intifadas.

I'm curious. What were you taught that the Arabic for "Butcher the Jews" is? Anyone here speak Arabic?

[cerulean]

Nice try to deflect the fact that hate propaganda is continually broadcast from and in mosques. A reasonable person would admit there is a problem with hate propaganda, rather than try to deny that mosques broadcast it, using official government resources to do so.

I've read about that particular slogan many times.

NewsGuy references it here:
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=1261#post1261

[andak01]

In fairness, I haven't travelled to Palestine. I think the level of hate speech there is significantly worse than in other parts of the Arab world. If you go to that link, Newsguy doesn't claim this is broadcast from the mosques, he says it is a slogan. And he defends the fact that not all Pals use the term. I wonder if he still feels this way? For that matter, how much sway does Newsguy still hold here?

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by andak01
In fairness, I haven't travelled to Palestine. I think the level of hate speech there is significantly worse than in other parts of the Arab world. If you go to that link, Newsguy doesn't claim this is broadcast from the mosques, he says it is a slogan. And he defends the fact that not all Pals use the term. I wonder if he still feels this way? For that matter, how much sway does Newsguy still hold here?

Nonsense, the same level of hate speech has been spewed from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, and elsewhere for many, many years.

I was in Israel twice during the Oslo years and the hate speech being spewed from Cairo--a country supposedly at peace with Israel--was mindboggling. This stuff is documented. Maybe you need to spend some time at the MEMRI website.

[andak01]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Nonsense, the same level of hate speech has been spewed from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, and elsewhere for many, many years.

I was in Israel twice during the Oslo years and the hate speech being spewed from Cairo--a country supposedly at peace with Israel--was mindboggling. This stuff is documented. Maybe you need to spend some time at the MEMRI website.

I've already visited it. They are proof that 250 million people can produce enough hate speech to fill a website. And I realize that calling Muhammad (SAW) a rapist or saying Islam=murder doesn't count as hate speech to you.

What productive function does MEMRI serve, other than to repeat hate speech? They are a translation service that doesn't have one positive thing to say about the people who speak the language they translate.

Translation should be a bridge between cultures, but your superiority doesn't allow you to build bridges anymore. You just want to pave over everything that is there.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by andak01
I've already visited it. They are proof that 250 million people can produce enough hate speech to fill a website. And I realize that calling Muhammad (SAW) a rapist or saying Islam=murder doesn't count as hate speech to you.

What productive function does MEMRI serve, other than to repeat hate speech? They are a translation service that doesn't have one positive thing to say about the people who speak the language they translate.

Translation should be a bridge between cultures, but your superiority doesn't allow you to build bridges anymore. You just want to pave over everything that is there.

First, I have never called Muhammad a rapist or equated Islam to murder.

You claim you are misinterpreted here. Yet you willfully misinterpret me and put words in my mouth. If your positions are honorable, why do you need to resort to dishonest tactics?

MEMRI serves a very useful purpose. It's very important that people know what the Arabs are saying to each other in Arabic because it is inconsistent, to put it mildly, with what their official spokesmen claim when speaking to Western media and governments.

[Canajew]

andak, is this a joke? Read the whole thread over again. i just read it for the first time, and your argumentation looks absolutely ridiculous when its all there in sequence to see. Pure rhetoric and diversion, and absolutely zero substance.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by andak01
I know, and we drink the blood of children at Ramadan. :mad: More Jews were killed by Christians in Jerusalem during the Crusades than in both intifadas.

I'm curious. What were you taught that the Arabic for "Butcher the Jews" is? Anyone here speak Arabic?

I don’t know about drinking blood but many of your brothers and sisters savors the killing of Jewish children and pregnant women.

Are you looking for Arabic lessons?

[andak01]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
First, I have never called Muhammad a rapist or equated Islam to murder.

My understanding is that you are a moderator here. Correct me if I am wrong.

As moderator, you have allowed whole threads to be built around the above subjects. You have absolutely nothing to say about them.

MEMRI serves a very useful purpose. It's very important that people know what the Arabs are saying to each other in Arabic because it is inconsistent, to put it mildly, with what their official spokesmen claim when speaking to Western media and governments.

Well, I certainly don't challenge MEMRI's right to exist. My understanding is that Arabs are purforming similar 'services' for the Hebrew media. So let them soak in their mutual hatred. There is more to life.

[Frans_1]

Well, I certainly don't challenge MEMRI's right to exist. My understanding is that Arabs are purforming similar 'services' for the Hebrew media. So let them soak in their mutual hatred. There is more to life.


You Andak would rather that the ugliness pouring out of mainstream Arabic media and governments be ignored and unseen just because it comes out of the mouths of "fellow Muslims" .

Now if they were Jews, or Christians sloshing that kind of mindless hatreds, you would be waving it around . Instead, all you've got to work with is mostly a couple of US preachers saying some mildly critical things and stuff that happened in Europe 800 years ago.

My observation only.

[andak01]

Originally posted by Frans_1
You Andak will rather that the ugliness pouring out of the Arabic media and governments be ignored and unseen just because it comes out of the mouths of "fellow Muslims".

It ought to be ignored by EVERYONE, Arabs included. When you start looking for the bad in people, you'll find it.

Try a little experiment. Before you go home tonight, say to yourself: "I wonder what kind of mischief my family has done against me today. I wonder what foul deeds they have done and what kind of lies they are going to tell me to cover it up." And whenever you get a chance, try to imagine all the bad things they are doing behind your back. See how long it is before you have no family.

Now there are Muslims that want to kill you, no doubt. There are others that are just as nice as your family. You need to recognize the former and distinguish them from the latter.

Now if they were Jews, or Christians sloshing that kind of mindless hatreds, you would be waving that around . Instead, all you've got to work with ismostly a couple of US preachers saying mildly critical things and stuff that happened in Europe 800 years ago.

I've got more to work with than that. But I refuse to post it here, because a) It doesn't reflect my own views. b) It's counterproductive towards improving communications. and c) Because I don't like it when people treat me that way.

[Frans_1]

It ought to be ignored by EVERYONE, Arabs included. When you start looking for the bad in people, you'll find it.

"see no evil, hear no evil ...."

Too bad, there is nothing positive or enlightening coming out of that part of the world.

I've got more to work with than that. But I refuse to post it here, because a) It doesn't reflect my own views. b) It's counterproductive towards improving communications. and c) Because I don't like it when people treat me that way.

:D no comment

[Canajew]

Originally posted by andak01
It ought to be ignored by EVERYONE, Arabs included. When you start looking for the bad in people, you'll find it.


Is this for real? Are you really suggesting that the best way to deal with the hatred and militarization in the Arab world is to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist? What kind of rediculous proposition is this? I mean, come on man. If it were just the odd nutball it wouldn't be so much of a problem, and I would agree with you that since the actor is marginal and marginalized within the larger community, that such actions should not really be paid too much attention. but the situation in the middle east is not one that can be ignored in the hope that it goes away and everything becomes super-duper.

Hatred towards Israel, Jews, the West, and in general 'outsiders' is both pervasive and rampant in the Arab world. I fail to see how the situation can be improved if we, "stop looking for the bad and only look for the good." With respect, this is the sort of position a 10 year old would have. It is not a reasonable position for anyone with any semblance of control over their faculties.

And its not like we go out looking for the bad - it is constantly shoved in our faces when they chant death to jews on tv and send bombers to blow up innocents.

Also, to convey something more personal, I have to tell you that the security present at Toronto synagogues this rosh hashanah was HUGE. I have never seen it so big. Cops everywhere, searching bags. Shuls downtown had SWAT team guys walking around with MACHINE GUNS. But of course if they would just see the good and try not to pay too much attention to the evil and the Jew hatred, then everything would be just peachy.

Your suggestion is preposterous.


Try a little experiment. Before you go home tonight, say to yourself: "I wonder what kind of mischief my family has done against me today. I wonder what foul deeds they have done and what kind of lies they are going to tell me to cover it up." And whenever you get a chance, try to imagine all the bad things they are doing behind your back. See how long it is before you have no family.


Well, no one in my family went to a rally where they chant death to jews, no one is funding a bully to come and assault me on a regular basis, and as far as I am aware, no one has yet hired a hitman to come and kill me and my little brothers.

Your position is retarded.


Now there are Muslims that want to kill you, no doubt. There are others that are just as nice as your family. You need to recognize the former and distinguish them from the latter.


I do, but this is not the point. Arab Muslim culture is rotten. it produces far more hatred than could possibly be justified, and it glorifies and encourages just that kind if bad behaviour which you would like to ignore. So go ahead and continue to ignore it. All that will happen is that you will fail to understand why Jews react the way they do, and why your insights for 'peace' don't really lead anywhere. Absolutely ridiculous.

[andak01]

Originally posted by Canajew
Is this for real? Are you really suggesting that the best way to deal with the hatred and militarization in the Arab world is to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.

You're damned right. Start preaching peace and disarmament until they shoot you. When they come at you with a gun, give them a knife. Deaccelerate this madness instead of playing into it.

Bin Laden is a liar. Saddam is a liar. Arafat is a liar. And anyone who tells us that war and killing are the only solution to problems is a liar. They don't have any answers for the future. They should be demoralized, broken and taken down, not put on the news and the covers of magazines month after month. Not quoted repeatedly. Not used by the other side to build up a military machine.

Did Saddam invent Bioterrorism, Nuclear Warfare, Mustard Gas? He bought these things from unscrupulous people. He got the money to buy these things from unscrupulous people who should also have been exposed.

We are being told that we have to hate each other by forces on both sides. For God sake, don't listen. I don't hate you because Bin Laden says I have to. He's a stupid crank, and if nobody had ever listened to him, the world would be a lot better off.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by andak01
You're damned right. Start preaching peace and disarmament until they shoot you. When they come at you with a gun, give them a knife. Deaccelerate this madness instead of playing into it.


israel has already done this several times. it is not working, nor will it work in the future. What you are really asking for is not to play into but to GIVE INTO terrorism and purposely fermented hatred. It is one of the least constructive or well thought out positions on this issue that I have possibly ever seen, to be perfectly honest, and I really don't see how any rational observer could come to the conclusion that what is necessary is to appease those who call for the destruction of the Jews and work to carry that out.

Really, this position is a complete joke. Militant Islam must be defeated. Unless we do that it will really be the fall of Rome to the Barbarians all over again. They have no vision of the future other than their little magical utopian world, which depends not on hard work and industriousness, but on oppression, imposition of uniformity and the obeyance of 'god's law'. They will not be appeased and they will not be mollified. Why can you not see this? What makes you ignore all of these factors and focus only on yourself? I mean, I'm sorry if you feel targeted or if you feel unfairly maligned, but there is a real war going on here, and Jews are on the front lines. not by choice, but because we are, apparently, the sons of pigs and dogs (which isn't completely inaccurate, as all mammals stem from a common ancestor, but they don't believe that so I'll digress).

Unless you missed it, after the holocaust the survivors took up a new motto that became a motto for the State of Israel's defence policy: never again. This doctrine holds that never again will Jews sit passivly by while others plot to destroy us, never again will we blind ourselves to the threats and dangers posed by outsiders, never again will we allow the possibility of another extermination. And this includes not wilfully blinding ourselves to the hatred and vitrol pouring out of the Arab world.

So, couple this never again doctrine with the rabid antisemitism pouring out of the Arab world and what do you get? Certainly not the position that the Jews should say to the Palestinians, please don't set off bombs in our civilian population centres - here take this knife and just break into our homes and stab our children in their beds.

Again, your position is abjectly retarded.


Bin Laden is a liar. Saddam is a liar. Arafat is a liar. And anyone who tells us that war and killing are the only solution to problems is a liar. They don't have any answers for the future. They should be demoralized, broken and taken down, not put on the news and the covers of magazines month after month. Not quoted repeatedly. Not used by the other side to build up a military machine.


I like the last line blame Israel type of thing (or maybe you were blaming the US, it really doesn't matter). And sometimes war is the only answer. 1940 Europe for example. Peace with Hitler would not have been a good thing for humanity. And all these things you point out above, the biggest support these people get is from the ARab world and the Arabic media. So really you are saying these people have no answers, all they preach is death and destruction, so we should ignore them and try to moderate them while ignoring all the support they get from the Arab world and the Arab media. This needs to be fixed OVER THERE. We here are not the problem.


Did Saddam invent Bioterrorism, Nuclear Warfare, Mustard Gas? He bought these things from unscrupulous people. He got the money to buy these things from unscrupulous people who should also have been exposed.


relevance?


We are being told that we have to hate each other by forces on both sides. For God sake, don't listen. I don't hate you because Bin Laden says I have to. He's a stupid crank, and if nobody had ever listened to him, the world would be a lot better off. [/B]

I don't hate you. I don't hate Arabs. I don't hate Muslims. My tailor is an Arab (I assume Muslim) and I like him very much. He is a very nice guy. But again a distinction must be drawn between individuals and the dominant culture. The abject depravity of the Muslim world is eclipsed only by its pronouncements which are full of rabid Jew hatred and incitement to genocide.

Now as we have amply illustrated, most Muslims like yourself prefer to ignore these problems and focus on 'constructive' solutions, notwithstanding that these solutions are an impossibility until this hatred and intolerance is dealt with. So its not that I hate you or any other Muslim, rather it is that I really don't care about you or what you have to say if your actions either further or do not hinder the goals of Mainstream Islam and its quest to kill the Jews.

So while I feel bad for the palestinian civilians who are injured or killed because they live next to terrorists and their 'safe houses' I do not really really care, especially as most plaestinians support the PURPOSEFUL taregteing of innocnets. Were one to be injured who had repeatedly argued that suicide terrorism was wrong (and wrong because it was morally wrong, not because, as dahlan says, it was not an effective strategy), then this position would be different and I would deeply regret any injury or suffering.

Similarly, I am not overly concerned that North American Muslims feel maligned while at the same time they allow themselves to be represented by CAIR, they fund terrorism in the middle east and abroad, and they derive much of their funding from Suadi Arabia and the wahhabiis. For those like Ms. Manji who stand up and say 'this is wrong' I feel nothing but humanity, compassion and consideration. She is just another western person entitled to all the rights and respect of any other. But for those who demand to be intolerant in the name of tolerance, for those who demand to be treated as innocents even though they support the guilty, I have very little sympathy.

Curious that you would perceive this to be the problem rather than a manifestation of the real problem.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by andak01
In fairness, I haven't travelled to Palestine. I think the level of hate speech there is significantly worse than in other parts of the Arab world. If you go to that link, Newsguy doesn't claim this is broadcast from the mosques, he says it is a slogan. And he defends the fact that not all Pals use the term. I wonder if he still feels this way? For that matter, how much sway does Newsguy still hold here?

Hello Andak,

I'm not sure whether "Itbach alYahud" ("Butcher the Jews" in Arabic) is being taught in Mosques, although it is undisputed that many mosques serve as sites for incitement. For example, the Mosque of the Dome, situated on the Temple Mount (above the Western wall) has produced sermons that incited Muslims to throw rocks at the Jews praying at Judaism's holiest site below.

We also know that many mosques in Gaza and the West Bank serve as places to store anti-tank missiles, hand grenades, rifles and suicide belts which are used to massacre Israelis.

And we also know that many mosques have been used as recruiting places for Hamas activists and suicide bombers.

But at the same time, we should not assume that EVERY mosque is used to incite violence.

As a side note, I don't hold all that much sway here. The more active Moderators and members like you set the direction of the forum and determine its content for the most part.

[andak01]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
Hello Andak,

I'm not sure whether "Itbach alYahud" ("Butcher the Jews" in Arabic) is being taught in Mosques, although it is undisputed that many mosques serve as sites for incitement.

The original post said that it was being BROADCAST from the mosques. I find it easier to believe (but almost as repulsive) that it is spoken among people with extreme sentiments or possibly taught in some places.

For example, the Mosque of the Dome, situated on the Temple Mount (above the Western wall) has produced sermons that incited Muslims to throw rocks at the Jews praying at Judaism's holiest site below.

We also know that many mosques in Gaza and the West Bank serve as places to store anti-tank missiles, hand grenades, rifles and suicide belts which are used to massacre Israelis.

And we also know that many mosques have been used as recruiting places for Hamas activists and suicide bombers.

But at the same time, we should not assume that EVERY mosque is used to incite violence.

I consider myself fortunate never to have witnessed such a thing. You have to understand that this type of action flies so much against what we are accustomed to, that it is very difficult for us to believe. I have seen enough evidence (on the web, not in person), to convince me that such hatred does exist. But I don't share it.

As a side note, I don't hold all that much sway here. The more active Moderators and members like you set the direction of the forum and determine its content for the most part.

I assume you have better ways to spend your time. :D :) :cool:

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by andak01

I consider myself fortunate never to have witnessed such a thing. You have to understand that this type of action flies so much against what we are accustomed to, that it is very difficult for us to believe. I have seen enough evidence (on the web, not in person), to convince me that such hatred does exist. But I don't share it.



I'm sure you are shocked.

[andak01]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
I'm sure you are shocked.

I'm not shocked, but I am saddened. You don't have to believe me when I say that. I don't like to hear any group dehumanized and spit upon. It sickens me. God gave us life and variety and various points of views and cultures. That's a gift, not a curse.

[abu afak]

Philippines kills JI bombmaker, eases security fears for Bush visit

[Photo]

MANILA Oct 13 - The Philippines government hailed Monday the killing of a top Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) operative, calling it a victory against terrorism just days before President George W. Bush's visit here.

The United States and countries in the region also welcomed the death of Indonesian Islamic militant Fathur Rohman al-Ghozi in a shoot-out with security forces on the southern island of Mindanao Sunday.

The killing of Afghanistan-trained al-Ghozi eased a major security headache ahead of Bush's state visit to Manila on October 18.

He was a key operative for JI, the Al-Qaeda-linked group blamed for the Bali bombing, and had been accused of plotting and carrying out attacks across Southeast Asia before his embarrassing escape from jail in Manila three months ago.

National police chief Hermogenes Ebdane said al-Ghozi was killed in a brief shoot-out near the town of Pigkawayan in Mindanao late Sunday. Police launched the raid after a tip-off from an informer.

President Gloria Arroyo said al-Ghozi's death should serve as a warning to terror groups that they would not find sanctuary in the Philippines, which has been one of the staunchest supporters of the US war on terror.

``The death of al-Ghozi signals that terrorists will never get far in the Philippines, and that the long arm of the law will eventually get them,'' Arroyo said in a statement.

``This event should lift much of the anxieties of our people.''

National Security Adviser Roilo Golez said: ``It's a major triumph of the world against international terrorism. It shows the resoluteness of (Arroyo) in her campaign against terrorism.''

US ambassador to Manila Francis Ricciardone met with Arroyo and congratulated her for the ``success in bringing to conclusion this case,'' embassy spokeswoman Karen Kelley said on television.

Al-Ghozi was a ``threat to all of us in the region,'' Kelley said.

Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said al-Ghozi's death was ``a step forward in terms of getting terrorist organisations in Southeast Asia under control.''

He warned though that the risk of terror attacks remained.

Singapore's internal security officials also welcomed the development, noting that al-Ghozi was a ``dangerous'' JI operative who had plotted attacks in the city-state.

``Any removal of terrorists such as Al-Ghozi and (previously arrested JI leader) Hambali would be significant to the campaign against the threat of terrorism in the region,'' a spokeswoman for Singapore's home affairs ministry said.

Al-Ghozi and two Filipino Muslim militants from the Abu Sayyaf group escaped from a jail inside the Manila police headquarters in July during a visit by Australian Prime Minister John Howard to the Philippines. Al-Ghozi had been serving a 17-year jail term for illegal acquisition of explosives.

The fiasco embarrassed the Philippine government, which was severely criticised by its key anti-terror allies.

Al-Ghozi trained in Afghanistan and set up a JI terrorist training camp within the Moro Islamic Liberation Front's Camp Abubakar in Mindanao, according to a report from the International Crisis Group.

Shortly after he was convicted, al-Ghozi reportedly confessed that he used some of the explosives he had acquired to bomb the Manila light railway, killing 22 people in December 2000.

He also reportedly said JI had planned to use the remainder for a bombing campaign in Singapore.

According to prosecutors al-Ghozi helped mount a car bomb attack outside the Jakarta home of then-Philippines ambassador Leonides Caday on August 1, 2000, killing two Indonesians and injuring 21 others.

Al-Ghozi's death followed the arrest in August of another fugitive Indonesian, Hambali, who was in Thailand and is now under US custody. Hambali is said to be the operations chief of the JI.

Meanwhile in JAKARTA, al-Ghozi's mother said Monday her son died as a martyr and she wanted his body to be handed over to the family for burial.

``I hope that his body can be taken home. If not, I ask for the body to be buried without a shroud or being bathed because he has died as a martyr,'' Rukanah was quoted by the state Antara news agency as saying.

Rukanah, whose husband died in May, said she received the news of al-Ghozi's death from the Indonesian embassy in Manila. She said a lawyer would convey her request to the embassy.

Prosecutors have said al-Ghozi also detonated a bomb at the Philippine ambassador's residence in Jakarta in August 2000 which killed two people.

The military said al-Ghozi was killed in a clash. But officials in the area said there had been no reports of a battle, giving rise to speculation that he may have been caught and killed. - AFP

http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/content.asp?y=2003&dt=1014&pub=Utusan_Express&sec=World&pg=wo_02.htm

[andak01]

Originally posted by Leon Uris
[B]A complete lie. For one, the statement that the majority of muslims are not violent is belied by fact.

Indeed??? So you are saying anything approaching 600 million Muslims have committed acts of violence?

I think I'm going to call you on that one. Any proof to back up that HUMONGOUS exaggeration?

[Frans_1]

(post #60)


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Leon Uris
[B]A complete lie. For one, the statement that the majority of muslims are not violent is belied by fact.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Indeed??? So you are saying anything approaching 600 million Muslims have committed acts of violence?

I think I'm going to call you on that one. Any proof to back up that HUMONGOUS exaggeration?

How about this ? The fact that the billion strong Islamic world supports the terrorists, the violent and the hate spewers ? Or in your case you make a job of blowing smoke to obscure all this ugliness with your verbal jihad.

You can try to shrug that off with your usual glibness of course.

I don't accept the line that "terrorists hijacked a great religion...etc". Andak's late behaviour has completely proven that.

[andak01]

Originally posted by Frans_1
[B]How about this ? The fact that the billion strong Islamic world supports the terrorists, the violent and the hate spewers ? Or in your case you make a job of blowing smoke to obscure all this ugliness with your verbal jihad.

I'm not just blowing smoke. There may be many Muslims that have gone over to extremism, but many doesn't make a large percentage. If the worst polls are true, then over a million Palestinians DO NOT support terrorism. Sharia courts are willing to sentence terrorists to death, and Saudi and Yemeni police are killed in shootouts against terrorism.

You can try to shrug that off with your usual glibness of course.

I don't accept the line that "terrorists hijacked a great religion...etc". Andak's late behaviour has completely proven that.

I'm not glib about this. Islam has been hijacked by two groups, those who believe that there is a worldwide Jewish conspiracy and call for Jihad, and those who react to them as if they have succeeded in creating said Jihad. If there ever is a war where one fifth of the world is willing to die to kill the rest, it'll be the last war.

[Frans_1]

There may be many Muslims that have gone over to extremism, but many doesn't make a large percentage.

If by that you mean people who are flying planes into buildings and the like, then that is a very small percentage. Very true. Is that your meaning ? I am talking about people who in heart and out of mouth and with waving fists support those things.

If the worst polls are true, then over a million Palestinians DO NOT support terrorism. Sharia courts are willing to sentence terrorists to death, and Saudi and Yemeni police are killed in shootouts against terrorism.

In fact the polls show Palestinians majorly support the continued terrorist war against Israel. There should have been a thread about that recently.

But we are always speaking on crossed lines and lost definitions. i never know whether we mean the same thing with the same word. For example, when Israeli actions against the terrorists or even the very existence of Israel, since you mentioned the Palestinians, is defined as terrorism (has been and often is), then naturally the Arabs totally oppose terrorism.

I'm not glib about this. Islam has been hijacked by two groups, those who believe that there is a worldwide Jewish conspiracy and call for Jihad, and those who react to them as if they have succeeded in creating said Jihad. If there ever is a war where one fifth of the world is willing to die to kill the rest, it'll be the last war.

I'm trying to make sense of what you've just said .Do you mean, in your view, group A has not succeeded in creating said jihad? That is, there is no jihad ? At what point do you think is the successfully created Jihad ? To take the bin Laden example, he called for jihad and took various actions, is that not his jihad, though not every Muslim may agree with it ?

[andak01]

Originally posted by Frans_1
[B]If by that you mean people who are flying planes into buildings and the like, then that is a very small percentage. Very true. Is that your meaning ? I am talking about people who in heart and out of mouth and with waving fists support those things.

They get a lot more press than law abiding businessmen. And photos and film of shouting people burning flags is more interesting than people doing nothing.

In fact the polls show Palestinians majorly support the continued terrorist war against Israel. There should have been a thread about that recently.

60% or 70% I believe. Even that leaves room for almost a million Palestinians that don't.

But we are always speaking on crossed lines and lost definitions. i never know whether we mean the same thing with the same word. For example, when Israeli actions against the terrorists or even the very existence of Israel, since you mentioned the Palestinians, is defined as terrorism (has been and often is), then naturally the Arabs totally oppose terrorism.

Palestinians blowing up a bus is pretty clearly terrorism. What about one of Saddam's Baathist soldiers that fires a rocket at our occupying troops? It's great to call everyone that one doesn't like a terrorist and everyone that doesn't agree a terrorist supporter.

I'm trying to make sense of what you've just said .Do you mean, in your view, group A has not succeeded in creating said jihad?

There is no world Jihad any more than there is a world Jewish conspiracy.

That is, there is no jihad ? At what point do you think is the successfully created Jihad ? To take the bin Laden example, he called for jihad and took various actions, is that not his jihad, though not every Muslim may agree with it?

If it were a valid Jihad (against total war waged specifically against Muslims), then nobody who didn't agree would still be a Muslim. We are impossibly far away from such a situation. The answer is, the Muslim ummah will not allow itself to be destroyed. However, killing people who are not actively attacking us is one of the worst sins imaginable.

Put the shoe on the other foot. If the whole Arab league and Russia decided to shoot their entire arsenal into Israel, wouldn't it be the duty of every Jew alive to defend it rather than to experience another holocaust?

Defending oneself against certain destruction is something almost everyone is in agreement about, but the Muslims put it on paper. And if I reserve that right for me, I certainly have to respect your right to the same. We may not agree on methods, but at the bottom of it all, I still respect Israel's right to defense.

[Frans_1]

They get a lot more press than law abiding businessmen. And photos and film of shouting people burning flags is more interesting than people doing nothing.

When you have whole streetfuls of people enraged and shouting, that should tell you something. You can treat that as a poll of itself. It 's not like the "silent" remainder who aren't doing that at the moment are in disagreement.

60% or 70% I believe. Even that leaves room for almost a million Palestinians that don't.

You got to see some humour in this. First you said over a million. Now , one post later, it's almost a million..........

[Frans_1]

Palestinians blowing up a bus is pretty clearly terrorism.
However, killing people who are not actively attacking us is one of the worst sins imaginable.

Not from their point of view - which is the majority.

[andak01]

Originally posted by Frans_1
You got to see some humour in this. First you said over a million. Now , one post later, it's almost a million..........

Forgive me, I try so hard not to exaggerate, but at the same time, I didn't feel like looking up the exact numbers. Still, missing it by 1 would have everyone labeling me a liar again. So here it is.

http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/opt_statistics.html
Total population of occupied territories according to Unicef.

3,311,000

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1016938/posts
The poll mentioned on Free Republic says 62%.

2,052,820 subtracted from 3,311,000 gives

1,258,180

OK. So now, if you wish to call me a liar, at least I am lying in the right direction. Yes, truly in a worse case scenario, if that poll is true, there are a million and a quarter Palestinians that do not support suicide attacks against Israelis. Of course, the same people who would have defended the accuracy of it, had I dared to question it on this forum will tell me that it isn't accurate because it isn't high enough.

[Simon]

Cerulean: As pointed out on this forum a long time ago, mosques in Israel regularly broadcast "Butcher the Jews" from their loudspeakers in Arabic.


Is the above remark in quotations the same as "Itbah al Yahud"??

[Simon]

Ibrodsky:
First, I have never called Muhammad a rapist or equated Islam to murder.


Actually, I have called mohammad both of these things. And backed it with proof. And if anything, I believe Ibrodsky and Mediocrates have censored my posts on several occassions.

For eg. mohammad was a two bit hoodlum who raided merchant convoys. When faced with this fact, andak retorted "what else could mohammad do? those were hard times, blah....

So lets get this straight. mohammad and muslims can resort to violence, loot, kill, torture people. THen take their widows for sexual purposes - an act that andak described as "taking these widows into their home - and all this is justified if mohammad or a muslim is jobless or unemployable.

BTW, the shahih bukhari was the one book that andak sought to downplay in importance when i quoted a verse from it where mohammad tells his followers that they do not have to practise "coitus interruptus" with captured jewish women who were being held for ransom by mohammad and his mad-dog followers.

So let us see.

mohammad says that "allah" gives his followers the right to rape jewish women.

When jobless, allah gives his followers the right to ransack/raid caravans, loot them, put innocent people to death.

Gee. mohammad being labelled a rapist, murderer. Really far-fetched, eh?

To call a pile of pig-offal exactly what it is is not hate speech. It is called deductive reasoning.

And people like andak who justify every vile act committed by mohammad are terrorism-apologists, liars and hypocrites.

[andak01]

That is not what we believe. I have said it before and I will say it again. There is no reason for a Muslim to hate the Jews. However, there was historically a certain group of Jews that tried to (and almost suceeded) destroy Islam. They took up arms against the Muslims of Medina, broke their treaty of alliance AND actively petitioned the other allies of the Muslims to rally against them. For this treason, betrayal and active warfare, the men of the Bani Qaraizai who were captured in battle were executed. That being done, there were widows, children and elderly remaining. Women in Arab society would normally have had few options for survival at that time. They could be cast into the desert, take up prostitution or simply starve to death. Muhammad (SAW) did not wish that to happen, so he took a wife and asked that others follow his example. By doing that, the elderly and the children could also be brought into the new families. The women (nor the children or elderly) were not forced to convert, and many did not.

Rape is different from marriage. I shouldn't have to explain the difference. If the Muslims had simply wished to rape the women, they certainly had the power to. There were no rules of war in the seventh century. They could have raped them and killed or abandonned them. They didn't. They brought them into their homes and provided for them. And most women would choose marriage over exile or prostitution. There were few paying jobs for women in the 7th century.

If you don't agree with this read on history, there is no other eye witness account. Other accounts are based upon the writings of the Muslims themselves. And if you omit this part of the story, it is in the realm of opinion.

Muslims who extend what happened to the Bani Qaraizai to all Jews are as much in the wrong as those who think that Islam promotes rape. There are many places in the Quran where God speaks of the righteous message provided to the Jewish Prophets. We can and do read the Torah and there is much to learn from it.

One last thing. You are taking this example from a historic incident in the life of Prophet Muhammad (SAW). You choose to interpret it in the worst possible way. How should I interpret an incident from Jewish history? To be fair, I must say, that if it is part of religious history, then there may be a religious interpretation that is right guiding as well as a possibly separate historic record. Here is the story of the tribe of Ai from the book of Joshua. As compared to the six hundred men of the Bani Qaraizai, the tribe of Ai was completely destroyed, to the tune of twelve thousand men, women and children. The women were not raped, they were killed. Yet, it is not for me to say that someone reading this cannot learn from it and take a moral path.

8:20
And when the men of Ai looked behind them, they saw, and, behold, the smoke of the city ascended up to heaven, and they had no power to flee this way or that way; and the people that fled to the wilderness turned back upon the pursuers.

8:21
And when Joshua and all Israel saw that the ambush had taken the city, and that the smoke of the city ascended, then they turned back, and slew the men of Ai.

8:22
And the other came forth out of the city against them; so they were in the midst of Israel, some on this side, and some on that side; and they smote them, so that they let none of them remain or escape.

8:23
And the king of Ai they took alive, and brought him to Joshua.

8:24
And it came to pass, when Israel had made an end of slaying all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, even in the wilderness wherein they pursued them, and they were all fallen by the edge of the sword, until they were consumed, that all Israel returned unto Ai, and smote it with the edge of the sword.

8:25
And all that fell that day, both of men and women, were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai.

8:26
For Joshua drew not back his hand, wherewith he stretched out the javelin, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai.

8:27
Only the cattle and the spoil of that city Israel took for a prey unto themselves, according unto the word of the Lord which He commanded Joshua.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by andak01
That is not what we believe.

Your interpretation of Islam is acceptable to me.

Unfortunately, the following is an interpretation of Islam that enjoyed sufficient support to seize power in Iran and attract a large following elsewhere:

If one allows the infidels to continue playing their role of corrupters on Earth, their eventual moral punishment will be all the stronger. Thus, if we kill the infidels in order to put a stop to their [corrupting] activities, we have indeed done them a service. For their eventual punishment will be less. To allow the infidels to stay alive means to let them do more corrupting. [To kill them] is a surgical operation commanded by Allah the Creator... Those who follow the rules of the Koran are aware that we have to apply the laws of qissas [retribution] and that we have to kill...War is a blessing for the world and for every nation. It is Allah himself who commands men to wage war and to kill.

Source: Speech by Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, as quoted in "The West and the Rest: Globalization and the Terrorist Threat," by Roger Scruton

[Frans_1]

Originally posted by andak01
Forgive me, I try so hard not to exaggerate, but at the same time, I didn't feel like looking up the exact numbers. Still, missing it by 1 would have everyone labeling me a liar again. So here it is.

http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/opt_statistics.html
Total population of occupied territories according to Unicef.

3,311,000

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1016938/posts
The poll mentioned on Free Republic says 62%.

2,052,820 subtracted from 3,311,000 gives

1,258,180

OK. So now, if you wish to call me a liar, at least I am lying in the right direction. Yes, truly in a worse case scenario, if that poll is true, there are a million and a quarter Palestinians that do not support suicide attacks against Israelis. Of course, the same people who would have defended the accuracy of it, had I dared to question it on this forum will tell me that it isn't accurate because it isn't high enough.

I beg your pardon also. I thought you were making light of the situation.

[Frans_1]

(by Andak)There is no world Jihad

It's best to remember the reason for this, even if you were to accept this propostion, is simply due to fact that the Islamic world at the moment is far weaker than the remainder of the world. You would have to go back to a time when the Arabs were equally strong or stronger than those on the other side.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by andak01
One last thing. You are taking this example from a historic incident in the life of Prophet Muhammad (SAW). You choose to interpret it in the worst possible way. How should I interpret an incident from Jewish history? To be fair, I must say, that if it is part of religious history, then there may be a religious interpretation that is right guiding as well as a possibly separate historic record. Here is the story of the tribe of Ai from the book of Joshua. As compared to the six hundred men of the Bani Qaraizai, the tribe of Ai was completely destroyed, to the tune of twelve thousand men, women and children. The women were not raped, they were killed. Yet, it is not for me to say that someone reading this cannot learn from it and take a moral path.

8:20-27 ...

So, let's see, Joshua, 2100 years before Islam existed was persecuting Muslims?

No, no ...

Joshua, by the direction of G_d was eliminating the enemy by total conquest. Perhaps such a policy in Iraq would have made the war simpler and reconstruction a cake walk.

Perhaps such a policy in regard to the PLO would have brought peace in Israel by now too.

Why do Muslims constantly seek to justify immorality?

[andak01]

Originally posted by JustPat
So, let's see, Joshua, 2100 years before Islam existed was persecuting Muslims?

Note: quotes in brackets added. I reread this and realized it sounds like 'them' is Muslims. Of course, no Muslims existed at that time or for a millineum afterwards. Apologies.

I didn't say Joshua was persecuting them [the tribe of Ai, not Muslims]. The scripture itself says that he exterminated them [the tribe of Ai]. For me to say they were wrongly persecuted would be interpretating Jewish history as written in the Tanakh. Perhaps the tribe of Ai deserved all of his wrath. Even if archeologic evidence were discovered, we couldn't know what people's motives were at that time.

Joshua, by the direction of G_d was eliminating the enemy by total conquest. Perhaps such a policy in Iraq would have made the war simpler and reconstruction a cake walk.

Perhaps (I seriously doubt it). But what Muhammad (SAW) did to the Qaraizai was NOT total conquest or total extermination, it was assimilation of perhaps 600 families, not total extermination of 12,000 people.

Perhaps such a policy in regard to the PLO would have brought peace in Israel by now too.

Once again, I doubt it.

Why do Muslims constantly seek to justify immorality?

Why do Jews consider Joshua a hero? We have an interpretation of history that can be used to build a moral life or to justify mass murder. As one commentator said, religion is a magnifier of what is already in someone's heart. If they are good people, almost any religion can make them better, and if they are predisposed to violent acts, almost any religion can cause them to kill. Even the Buddhists had their suicide warriors (the kamikazes).

So in Christianity, we find peacemakers like Mother Theresa and extremists like the Lord's Resistance Army, Jim Jones, the Branch Dravidians, abortion clinic bombers, Charles Manson (fond of quoting the Book of Revelations), Andrea Yates, the IRA, etc.

http://www.kentaxrecords.com/iaca/tactics_violence.htm

Here is a despute that underlines two faces of the Hindus in India.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,12559,1065110,00.html
One Hindu mendicant, called a sadhu, stood near the area addressing the gathering. "Now is the time for all Hindus to stand up together," he said. "Every Hindu should make a bomb in his home."

And, at the same time.
"These people are out to destroy the concept of India," said Gyan Das, a Hindu priest at Ayodhya's temple to the monkey god Hanuman. "If we carve out a nation for the Muslims, and one for the Sikhs, and one for the Christians, then what is left of India?"

Mr Das pledged his support, and the support of more than 400 other priests at the temple, to defend Ayodhya's estimated 7,000 Muslims.

[Frans_1]

Jim Jones, the Branch Dravidians, abortion clinic bombers, Charles Manson

You can put one Jim Jones, one David Koresh and a Charles Manson in Christiandom. How many more of the like and their supporters do you find in Islam ?

I keep repeating to you, its the majority mainstream part of today, Andak.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by Frans_1
You can put one Jim Jones, one David Koresh and a Charles Manson in Christiandom. How many more of the like and their supporters do you find in Islam ?

I keep repeating to you, its the majority mainstream part of today, Andak.

That's dishonest andak making the same ridiculous comparison he continually tries to make here and has had that fact pointed out to him many times...
What one could have excused as self-delusion a year ago, can now only be construed for what is, intentionally trying to mislead.

[andak01]

Originally posted by Frans_1
You can put one Jim Jones, one David Koresh and a Charles Manson in Christiandom. How many more of the like and their supporters do you find in Islam ?

It's not me that is 'putting' them there. They all came from Christianity and used the Bible as a scripture. It happens that they were all leaders. Could I find more followers for such in the Islamic world today? Yes. Did Jim Jones get support and training to fight armies as did the Mujahiddeen/Taliban. Did he receive mega injections of capital from governments, as have Hamas and Hizbollah? Did the local press support him, as they have Bin Laden in Pakistan or Saddam in the Middle East?

I keep repeating to you, its the majority mainstream part of today, Andak.

It's a large number, which happens still to be a small portion of a much larger number.

[Frans_1]

It's not me that is 'putting' them there. They all came from Christianity and used the Bible as a scripture. It happens that they were all leaders. Could I find more followers for such in the Islamic world today? Yes. Did Jim Jones get support and training to fight armies as did the Mujahiddeen/Taliban. Did he receive mega injections of capital from governments, as have Hamas and Hizbollah? Did the local press support him, as they have Bin Laden in Pakistan or Saddam in the Middle East?

And those isolated few guys, Jones, Manson, led how many ? Their popular support was in the low hundred of individuals; not hundreds of millions .

[Donna]

Jim Jones, David Koresh, and most definitely Charles Manson and Andrea Yates, were/are if not mentally ill, then clearly insane.

A select few who just do not compare.

[andak01]

Donna, do you mind moving this over to the thread where I mentioned those things?

[andak01]

Let's try to get this thread back on track. Whatever I may have done towards getting away from the inescapable fact that Abu wishes us to talk, this day, yesterday, tomorrow, every moment of the day, at the expense of all else, is (mind you, not Muslims, but Islam) killing Christians.

To make sure we don't miss the point, he posts the same year old article on three different threads.

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=33246#post33246

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=62818#post62818

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=33247#post33247

And just what hot new stories are we informed about?

The Zamboanga bombing, the Philippines.
[Update. Five of the bombers were captured.
Islamic militant Fathur Rohman al-Ghozi executed or killed in a shootout just before Bush's visit.]

http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2003/10/14/news/escapee.ghozi.was.executed..html

http://www.iir.ubc.ca/cancaps/cbul33.pdf

http://propagandamatrix.com/abus_long_standing_ties_to_global_terrorism_bared. html


The Karachi shootings Pakistan.
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/oct2003-daily/31-10-2003/metro/k7.htm
[i]Syed Kamal informed that the police had busted six terrorist groups, including the accused involved in the kidnapping and killing of US journalist Daniel Pearl, Sheraton Hotel blast, blast near the US Consulate Office and other terrorists activities

A total of 38 terrorists were arrested who were all convicted by the court of law.

While, 14 gangs involved in sectarian terrorism had also been busted and 41 terrorists arrested, who were involved in at least 141 cases. All of them were convicted by the court of law, he added.


The Civil War in Ethiopia (Abu only recognizes non-Muslim casualties in case of civil war as in Sudan).


East Timor.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/etimor/2001/1206kissinger.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB62/
http://www.etan.org/estafeta/98/summer/1newera.htm

Moluccan Islands.


Sudan. Who better to tell you about Christian oppression in Sudan than the Anglican Church of Sudan???
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/tour/province.cfm?ID=S6
http://www.anglicanjournal.com/127/05/canada02.html
A group of Canadian church leaders, including Anglican representative Alice Jean (A.J.) Finlay, called for an end to the conflict in Sudan and a moratorium on oil development there, after a week-long trip in April to the war-ravaged southern area of the African nation.
"It (oil exploration) is a major issue for the World Council of Churches and for the church representatives from the Sudan who are involved there," Mrs. Finlay told an Ottawa news conference on April 10, one day after the group's return to Canada. Mrs. Finlay is a member of the World Council of Churches central committee.
Calgary-based Talisman Energy Inc. conducts oil drilling in the Sudan, among other areas in the world. Church and social-justice advocates have repeatedly called upon Talisman to pull out of the Sudan, saying that oil revenues are fuelling the aggressive tactics of the National Islamic Front government.


Ivory Coast.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iv.html

Coptic Christians in Egypt.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/109/11.0.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/109/11.0.html
"Relations are generally good," the bishop said. "The number of church buildings doubled between 1971 and today to approximately 1,500. In Cairo there were 100 church buildings added; 20 in Alexandria. In my diocese I have been able to build approximately one church per year in the past few years. We believe President Mubarak is the best leader we have known for centuries."

Muslim-Christian relations are strongly related to economic pressures in poverty-stricken areas, external influences such as "Christian America" threatening a war with Iraq, anti-Muslim statements in the West, and relations between Christian leaders and local authorities.

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/990916/1999091641.html
Bishop Pasanti catagoricaly denied in a television interview broadcast by Egyptian Television with a group of thinkers, writers and men of religion regarding allegations by a small group of emigrant Copts that there is persecution of Copts in Egypt.

He said, "We can not generalize saying, that the emigrant Copts are those stirring these allegations, but there are a very few of the emigrant Copts who are pushed by foreign elements from the USA or Israel to make these allegations, and I would like to say that we are a minority yet a numerical and not an ethic minority. And here I would like to use Lord Kromer's phrase in which he said, 'I came to Egypt to differentiate between its Copts and Muslims yet I could not for that I found them as one texture.'"

In his interview, he negated any charge of persecution of the Copts, and said that incidents took place in which lots of Muslims were killed, more so than Copts, as results of terrorism or crimes that are take place and do not differentiate between Muslims and Copts." He added that the government does not discriminate.


Church burnings in Kenya.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engAFR320191998

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by andak01
It's not me that is 'putting' them there. They all came from Christianity and used the Bible as a scripture. It happens that they were all leaders.

But there aren't millions of Christians taking satisfaction in what these isolated nuts did, nor are there tens of millions of Christians trying to excuse what they did. Now do you understand the difference?

Did Jim Jones get support and training to fight armies as did the Mujahiddeen/Taliban. Did he receive mega injections of capital from governments, as have Hamas and Hizbollah? Did the local press support him, as they have Bin Laden in Pakistan or Saddam in the Middle East?

There you go again, trying to pin Evil on people who were simply naive and exercised poor judgement.

Of course our government should never support Jihadists. Personally, I think Afghanistan was better off under Russian imperialist control.

Your argument seems to be that we can't complain about the crimes of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban because at one time we foolishly gave such people limited and tactical support against Russian aggression. I agree we should never support Islamists. However, the fact that some of our leaders made mistakes does not disqualify us from fighting and eradicating 21st century Nazism.

[andak01]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
But there aren't millions of Christians taking satisfaction in what these isolated nuts did, nor are there tens of millions of Christians trying to excuse what they did. Now do you understand the difference?

Part of the difference is that the Christian extremists do not feel a disjoint from their governments when they see the policies in place.

There you go again, trying to pin Evil on people who were simply naive and exercised poor judgement.

Interestingly, Muslims only seem to be able to exercise poor judgement by following Islam. Our media touts their good judgement whenever they drink alcohol or buy pornography.

Of course our government should never support Jihadists. Personally, I think Afghanistan was better off under Russian imperialist control.

I don't know. But a lot of policies were created about Arab relations based upon whether they were Commies or not. We are still feeling the backlash. I can't really fault America, except to say that, with 20/20 hindsite, training the Afghans to train others to be special forces killers was throwing gasoline on a fire. Almost every terrorist captured recieved their training in Pakistan or Afghanistan, regardless of what part of the world they came from. The good news about that is that it says that training special forces terrorists is labor intensive and requires experienced personel. If those training camps can be disrupted long enough, we should see a drop in at least some types of terrorism.

Your argument seems to be that we can't complain about the crimes of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban because at one time we foolishly gave such people limited and tactical support against Russian aggression.

Complain away, but realize that Al Qaida and their descendants are not equivalent to the world of Islam. Even if every Muslim supported such operations, it would take professionals in the killing business to make it happen.

I agree we should never support Islamists. However, the fact that some of our leaders made mistakes does not disqualify us from fighting and eradicating 21st century Nazism.

I would like to see that effort go hand-in-hand with a holistic approach to anti-semitism. There is way too much similarity from European anti-semitism to Middle Eastern anti-semitism. They interchange their mythology readily.

Pointing the finger soley at Islam and saying that we have to change, while ignoring the huge anti-semitic population in Europe and America is only going to alienate Muslims further.

[abu afak]

This from andak's Link! .. and this just from ONE link on ONE country andak01 Lies and denies the persecution in!
There's Much more on just Egypt Alone-- but for now.. this, HIS Linked page(!), will do.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/109/11.0.html


Egypt Acquits All Muslim Murder Suspects |
Judge blames Coptic clergy for inciting El-Kosheh hostilities. (Feb. 7, 2001)


Egyptian Court Releases All 89 El-Kosheh Defendants |
Muslim murder suspects all set free without bail. (Dec. 12, 2000)


Egypt Jails Christian for Three Years for 'Insulting Islam'
'Extremely harsh judgement' for El-Kosheh Copt to be appealed. (Aug. 9, 2000)


Egyptian Security Police Threaten, Torture Local Christian |
Coptic Orthodox layman targeted for alleged evangelism activities.(July 10, 2000)


Egyptian Court Convicts Christian Villager of Murder |
Shaiboub Arsal Given Maximum 15-Year Sentence. (June 9, 2000)


Egyptian Priest Accused of Attempted Murder |
Village cleric charged with 'provoking violence' in El-Kosheh (Feb. 11, 2000)


Egypt's Christians seek answers after deadly riots |
At least 21 Christians killed in clash with Muslims (Jan. 13, 2000)



Church of the Martyrs:
Copts thrive in the face of Bloody Carnage, legal restraint, and discrimination.
(August 11, 1997)


Other Christianity Today coverage of religious freedom in Egypt includes:

Heightened Hostilities:
What you can do to help Persecuted Christians in Egypt. (Dec. 31, 2002)

[..]

Religious Freedom Delegation Gets Cold Shoulder |
Some Coptic Christians worry that foreign intervention on their behalf would spell trouble. (May 1, 2001)



Egyptian Security Police Threaten, Torture Local Christian |
Coptic Orthodox layman targeted for alleged evangelism activities.(July 10, 2000)


Family Disputes Coptic Pharmacist's 'Conversion' to Islam |
Third alleged conversion reported by Egyptian Christians in El-Fayoum (May 8, 2000)


Egypt's Christians seek answers after deadly riots |
At least 21 Christians killed in clash with Muslims Jan. 13, 2000)


Carey Really Deny that Copts Are Persecuted? |
Was the Archbishop of Canterbury misquoted? What did he really mean?Dec. 20, 1999)


Coptic Church Forcibly Closed
Oct. 5, 1998)


Extremists Kill Coptic Christians (Apr. 28, 1997)

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

Interesting andak01 could pick sentence or two from it..
He must think Everyone is Too Stupid or Lazy to check his Links.

How Typical... Intentionally Misleading...and Dishonest... and andak01.
This is Just Despicable and Beneath contempt.

[andak01]

Originally posted by abu afak
This from [b]andak's Link! .. and this just from ONE link on ONE country andak01 Lies and denies the persecution in!

I wonder if you can quote me where I denied persecution??? What I deny is that Islam, not Muslims with a political agenda are at the heart of these acts. Secondly, I deny that they happen within a vacuum.

It's interesting to me how such an honest man as yourself can dredge up stories from three to five years ago as if they represent the same climate that we are living in today. At the very least, you should admit that efforts are being made due to political and military pressures even including bombs and drone planes from outside, that such incidents are becoming less frequent.

But for you, everything kind of happens in a vaccuum. You seriously believe in a conspiracy theory only shared by the most extreme of the Muslims. What for Bin Laden is a pipe dream, for you is the reality of the world.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by andak01
Part of the difference is that the Christian extremists do not feel a disjoint from their governments when they see the policies in place.

Are you suggesting Christians don't need to specifically support Charles Manson because his insanity is government policy?

I don't know how else to interpret such a ridiculus comment.

Interestingly, Muslims only seem to be able to exercise poor judgement by following Islam. Our media touts their good judgement whenever they drink alcohol or buy pornography.

Nonsense: if anything, Western leaders and media seem determined to shield Muslims.

I don't know why President Bush feels it's necessary to run around calling Islam a "religion of peace" when much of the Muslim world seems either uninterested in or incapable of resolving disputes peacefully.

And as I have said, there are events that go underreported. For example, how many people here know that this last Saturday Muslims rioted in Antwerp, Belgium smashing store windows and car windshields, with 35 arrested?

http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reuters11-22-100943.asp?reg=EUROPE#body

I don't know. But a lot of policies were created about Arab relations based upon whether they were Commies or not. We are still feeling the backlash. I can't really fault America, except to say that, with 20/20 hindsite, training the Afghans to train others to be special forces killers was throwing gasoline on a fire. Almost every terrorist captured recieved their training in Pakistan or Afghanistan, regardless of what part of the world they came from. The good news about that is that it says that training special forces terrorists is labor intensive and requires experienced personel. If those training camps can be disrupted long enough, we should see a drop in at least some types of terrorism.

As I said, we should have supported the other side.

Complain away, but realize that Al Qaida and their descendants are not equivalent to the world of Islam. Even if every Muslim supported such operations, it would take professionals in the killing business to make it happen.

They may not be equivalent to "the world of Islam," but that is the world from which they come. With all of its talk about "jihad" and the proper distribution of booty, it's no surprise that Islam encourages Muslims to become Crusaders.

Islam is in serious and urgent need of reform.

I would like to see that effort go hand-in-hand with a holistic approach to anti-semitism. There is way too much similarity from European anti-semitism to Middle Eastern anti-semitism. They interchange their mythology readily.

That's because the Muslim world uses Europe's off-the-shelf anti-semitism. Many Muslims seem eager to form an alliance with Christians to wipe out the Jews, just as many Muslims lined up behind Adolph Hitler during the 1930s and 40s.

Pointing the finger soley at Islam and saying that we have to change, while ignoring the huge anti-semitic population in Europe and America is only going to alienate Muslims further.

Muslims seem to be alienated for all the wrong reasons.

Are you suggesting that since Islamists commit mass murder, Christians and Jews must change? Well, we agree to that extent. I think the West needs to wake up and deal with this evil more forcefully and consistently.

Instead of passing useless UN resolutions, we should be planning military action to disable the evil Iranian mullahs' nuclear weapons program. You have to be insanely naive to believe that oil-rich Iran is developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Iran has supported terrorism for 24 years and is a fascist state. Its former "president" suggested in public what Iran should do when it gets nukes: destroy Israel.

It is almost inevitable that Islamists will one day use WMDs. I wonder what you will say then.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by reason

Now after saying all this , I have to add that the vast majority of Muslims are not violent , Islam is a religion of peace and those who disagree with the latter I would love to answer his concerns.I dont blame christianity for what the Inquistions did, so please dont blame Islam for what Bin Laden does.


“The Israeli-Palestinian conflict may be fruit on the tree of hate,” wrote Amiel, “but it is not its trunk, nor its branches nor that ‘root’ so often invoked…Militant Islam has a number of strands, but it has a straightforward ideology. First, to turn all Muslim societies into Islamic theocracies and then to conquer the world…For the Islamists, world domination is a perfectly real goal.”

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Article...le.asp?ID=10991


And the rest will follow like sheep!

[andak01]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Are you suggesting Christians don't need to specifically support Charles Manson because his insanity is government policy?


I don't know how else to interpret such a ridiculus comment.

I don't either, it's a comment of your own making. Sorry, but I never said that. I'm confused as to how to counter things that I have never said. I'll simply end by saying I never said that.

Nonsense: if anything, Western leaders and media seem determined to shield Muslims.

If anyone ever stops complaining of the lack of media balance, I'll be really upset. The fact that both sides are always complaining tells me that there is some balance remaining (though not always in a single source).

I don't know why President Bush feels it's necessary to run around calling Islam a "religion of peace" when much of the Muslim world seems either uninterested in or incapable of resolving disputes peacefully.

Not to do so at this point would cause chaos. From what I am reading around the net, there are a number of people that are simply waiting for the word to start killing us in the streets.

That's because the Muslim world uses Europe's off-the-shelf anti-semitism.

We are in 100% agreement on that one. And the reason I think it translates so well, is because it is the same thing. Many European Christians were raised thinking that the Bible proves the inferiority of Jews.

Are you suggesting that since Islamists commit mass murder, Christians and Jews must change? Well, we agree to that extent. I think the West needs to wake up and deal with this evil more forcefully and consistently.

What is more forceful than dropping bombs? Dropping more bombs?

Instead of passing useless UN resolutions, we should be planning military action to disable the evil Iranian mullahs' nuclear weapons program. You have to be insanely naive to believe that oil-rich Iran is developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Iran has supported terrorism for 24 years and is a fascist state. Its former "president" suggested in public what Iran should do when it gets nukes: destroy Israel.

Hey! Italy has a consistent record of releasing terrorists held in their prisons. Why not invade them? The WTC hijackers started their cell in Hamburg, why not invade them? Richard Ried came from London and there are extremists there, why not invade them? Is there really any place in the world that we couldn't invade using the philosophy of preemption? Oh, I forgot, that would be Israel.

It is almost inevitable that Islamists will one day use WMDs. I wonder what you will say then.

Let's see, the preemptive philosophy would say that they should be nuked first. What has the world become?

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by andak01
What has the world become?

The world has become a place where more and more people are awakening, realizing that elements within Islam want instant world domination.

The world has become a place where more and more people are awakening, realizing that many Muslims can be and are dangerous.

The world has become a place where more and more people are awakening, realizing that even moderate Muslims want a world dominated by the teachings of Mohammed.

I hope the day comes when trees start calling out "Oh Infidels there's an Islamic fundamentalist and a supporter hiding behind me".

[andak01]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
I hope the day comes when trees start calling out "Oh Infidels there's an Islamic fundamentalist and a supporter hiding behind me".

Then you truly have become the thing you hate.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by andak01
I don't either, it's a comment of your own making. Sorry, but I never said that. I'm confused as to how to counter things that I have never said. I'll simply end by saying I never said that.

Really? Let's take another look at what you said in response to my assertion that unlike millions of Muslims who support Osama bin Laden, there aren't millions of Christians supporting the likes of Charles Manson:

Originally posted by andak01
Part of the difference is that the Christian extremists do not feel a disjoint from their governments when they see the policies in place.

Now, what does this mean? Admittedly, it is somewhat cryptic. But it seems to say that "Christian extremists" don't need to support Charles Manson because they see their extremist views are embraced by their governments.

You have said some ridiculus things here, but this takes the cake.

Actually, it would be far more accurate to say that Islamist policies are embraced by Arab/Muslim states such as Iran, Syria, and Arafatistan.

If anyone ever stops complaining of the lack of media balance, I'll be really upset. The fact that both sides are always complaining tells me that there is some balance remaining (though not always in a single source).

Agreed. More importantly, Western countries tend to support freedom of speech and free markets, basic components of liberty that are missing in most Muslim states (Turkey being a notable exception).

By the way, check out this site:

http://www.reformsyria.com/

I almost didn't believe my eyes when I saw this item:

From Reform Party of Syria:

Tlass: Mideast target of colonialist, Zionist plot. The same old rhetoric. They simply do not understand what is happening all around them. Accusing others of occupation and ambitions when Syria is occupying Lebanon is the ultimate insult to the intelligence of all nations.

Originally posted by andak01
Not to do so at this point would cause chaos. From what I am reading around the net, there are a number of people that are simply waiting for the word to start killing us in the streets.

It's amazing that as Islamists blow up innocent people all over the world in their campaign of jihad-genocide, you pretend that "people that are simply waiting for the word to start killing [Muslims] in the streets."

Who might they be waiting for such a word from?

Pretending you as a Muslim are the victim while Muslim leaders preach Jew hatred even in this country is an outrageous distortion of the truth.

From http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/7350951.htm

"Muslims are the peaceful nation," Muhammad Al-Qasami told the press conference. "The Jews are the biggest terrorists of the world."

The six local Muslim clergy, or imams, who had joined Al-Qasami on the dais did not immediately object to his remarks.

"It took us by surprise," Muhaiman said as he left the conference room. Muslims "have more in common [with Jews] than we have differences," he said, adding: "We don't agree" with Al-Qasami's remarks.

Al-Qasami, who has spent the last month visiting with the Islamic community in the Philadelphia area, also expressed frustration with media coverage of the U.S. military presence in Iraq and of the Middle East conflict.

He said much of the American news media is controlled "by a third power," and urged journalists to report "how much we are bleeding in Palestine." He left the news conference before it ended.

Reached by phone at a mosque in Upper Darby where he is staying, Al-Qasami said later that his remarks about terrorism were directed only at the political leadership of Israel.

"All the Jewish community is our cousins," said Al-Qasami, whose home is Manchester, England. "Only those who don't want peace in the world are the terrorists."

He said he had spent most of Ramadan in the Philadelphia area and had speaking engagements in Florida and Ohio before he returned to England.


Originally posted by andak01 What is more forceful than dropping bombs? Dropping more bombs?

Yes. Instead of wasting our time trying to impose democracy on Iraq, we should be taking military action against the terrorist-supporting governments in Syria, Iran, and Arafatistan.

If the Bush administration remains content with a meaningless UN resolution that criticizes Iran for hiding its nuclear weapons program and then praises Iran for now being more forthcoming, it will be one of the biggest mistakes in history. Iran is ruled by Koran-reciting fascists who have already explained what they intend to do with their nukes, and have gleefully acknowledged that they are willing to see 100 million Muslims "martyred" to achieve their evil goal of destroying Israel.

Hey! Italy has a consistent record of releasing terrorists held in their prisons. Why not invade them? The WTC hijackers started their cell in Hamburg, why not invade them? Richard Ried came from London and there are extremists there, why not invade them? Is there really any place in the world that we couldn't invade using the philosophy of preemption? Oh, I forgot, that would be Israel.

This is such a childish argument. None of these governments supports terrorism. This is like saying that since the WTC hijackers lived in the US, the US government supports terrorism against its own people.

Apparently, you can't tell the difference between places where these people operate clandestinely and places where they receive support from mosques, media, schools, and governments.

To this day, the governments of several Arab and Muslim countries claim that blowing up Israeli families is "legitimate resistance." The Syrian government has said this repeatedly. The Iranian government has expressed its desire to kill every last Israeli. The PA is run by terrorists.

Let's see, the preemptive philosophy would say that they should be nuked first. What has the world become?

No, that is your phony version of the "pre-emptive philosophy." History has proved that the enemies of liberty will lie to achieve their evil aims, and that the only thing that stops people like Hitler, Bin Laden, Arafat, Assad, Matathir, Khomeini, Rantisi, ad nauseum is force. Those who believe such evil people can be persuaded or cajoled into behaving humanely are naive in the extreme.

[andak01]

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

Originally posted by andak01
Part of the difference is that the Christian extremists do not feel a disjoint from their governments when they see the policies in place.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ibrodsky
Now, what does this mean? Admittedly, it is somewhat cryptic. But it seems to say that "Christian extremists" don't need to support Charles Manson because they see their extremist views are embraced by their governments.Now, what does this mean? Admittedly, it is somewhat cryptic. But it seems to say that "Christian extremists" don't need to support Charles Manson because they see their extremist views are embraced by their governments.

To start with, there is no mention of Charles Manson in there. You have twisted my words to the point that they are unrecognizeable. No wonder you are confused.

You have said some ridiculus things here, but this takes the cake.

If I HAD said the words that you are putting in my mouth, it would be rediculous. There is nothing to do with Charles Manson.

It's amazing that as Islamists blow up innocent people all over the world in their campaign of jihad-genocide, you pretend that "people that are simply waiting for the word to start killing [Muslims] in the streets."

Who might they be waiting for such a word from?

The very people who have defended the rights of Muslims thus far. John Ashcroft and GW. If either of them were to make a speech saying that the Crusade is ON, there would be killing in the streets. I've already received threats in the mail several times myself.

Pretending you as a Muslim are the victim while Muslim leaders preach Jew hatred even in this country is an outrageous distortion of the truth.

Leaving out either portion of the story is a distortion. I have mentioned that, althought Muslim hate crimes have increased dramatically, anti-Jewish crime is higher both here and abroad. This is no surprise. What some of you seem to be less aware of is how accepted anti-semitic ideas are still among non-Muslims.

Yes. Instead of wasting our time trying to impose democracy on Iraq, we should be taking military action against the terrorist-supporting governments in Syria, Iran, and Arafatistan.

Sure. And when the destabilization caused by those actions, which if we are as humane as we were in Iraq will cost over 40,000 lives (and maybe 15,000 civilians). When that destabilization crosses borders, more war??? Why not Egypt, Sudan, Algeria, Nigeria, Pakistan? When does it end?

I'll tell you. Since you seem to discount the human cost as long as it isn't our troops, I'll tell you in a language you can understand. $200 billion per war, give or take $100 billion. That's coming from our childrens education, our roads and infrastructure, scientific research, protection of the environment, you name it.

If we don't spread our troops so thin that it endangers our security from (God forbid!) non-Muslim nations (China, North Korea, even Russia), we'll go broke.

This is such a childish argument. None of these governments supports terrorism. This is like saying that since the WTC hijackers lived in the US, the US government supports terrorism against its own people.

I'm not really big on incriminating the EU. But Italy and France have certainly done a lot more to support terrorism than I ever did. In fact, they are getting railed against all over this forum.

To this day, the governments of several Arab and Muslim countries claim that blowing up Israeli families is "legitimate resistance." The Syrian government has said this repeatedly. The Iranian government has expressed its desire to kill every last Israeli. The PA is run by terrorists.

I don't thing with the possible exception of Iran that there have been official government statements to that effect. However, I'm not stupid enough to think that there isn't support in government for many of those actions.

No, that is your phony version of the "pre-emptive philosophy." History has proved that the enemies of liberty will lie to achieve their evil aims, and that the only thing that stops people like Hitler, Bin Laden, Arafat, Assad, Matathir, Khomeini, Rantisi, ad nauseum is force. Those who believe such evil people can be persuaded or cajoled into behaving humanely are naive in the extreme.

Khomeini is dead, Matathir is retired. You should update your records.

[andak01]

Originally posted by andak01
Part of the difference is that the Christian extremists do not feel a disjoint from their governments when they see the policies in place.

Let me see if I can cast some light on that statement. I wasn't referring to Charles Manson, but to the new Crusaders who are trying to make the world into the Book of Revelations from the Bible. And what I am saying is, to them, things are going along well. I think they even sometimes ascribe extreme politics to GW that he doesn't have.

But yes, if Bush or Ashcroft were to get up and say that we are truly on a Crusade against Islam, Muslims would be killed in the streets of America. And that explains why Bush has, to his credit taken the delicate approach that he has. But when he hasn't, he throws us perilously close to chaos.

Here's a voice of reason.
http://dublin.anglican.org/reports/2003/rep030323-war-not-crusade.html

And this is not.
http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2002/03/lott-j-03-11.html

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by andak01
Let me see if I can cast some light on that statement. I wasn't referring to Charles Manson, but to the new Crusaders who are trying to make the world into the Book of Revelations from the Bible. And what I am saying is, to them, things are going along well. I think they even sometimes ascribe extreme politics to GW that he doesn't have.

This is dishonest. Anyone can go back and see I was responding to your post bringing up Charles Manson, Jim Jones, and David Koresh. I pointed out these people never attracted a broad following among Christians, to which you replied something about how there was no need as their positions have been incorporated in government policies.

As for "Crusaders," this has simply become the Islamist term for non-Muslims who give jihadists a taste of their own conquer-and-subjugate medicine. What Islamists might call "jihad in the opposite direction"...

But yes, if Bush or Ashcroft were to get up and say that we are truly on a Crusade against Islam, Muslims would be killed in the streets of America. And that explains why Bush has, to his credit taken the delicate approach that he has. But when he hasn't, he throws us perilously close to chaos.

While George Bush runs around calling Islam "a religion of peace" you make mean-spirited and totally unfounded accusations that are purely the product of Islamists' imaginations.

By the way, "if the leaders of American Muslims were to get up and say that Muslims are truly on a jihad against Jews, Jews would be killed in the streets of America."

Now, do you see why it is dishonest to make accusations based on purely hypothetical statements?

[andak01]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
This is dishonest. Anyone can go back and see I was responding to your post bringing up Charles Manson, Jim Jones, and David Koresh. I pointed out these people never attracted a broad following among Christians, to which you replied something about how there was no need as their positions have been incorporated in government policies.

No I did not. I never mentioned those distinct concepts in the same phrase. And if I wasn't clear enough, I'm sorry. I just tried to clarify as much as possible.

As for "Crusaders," this has simply become the Islamist term for non-Muslims who give jihadists a taste of their own conquer-and-subjugate medicine. What Islamists might call "jihad in the opposite direction"...

Cr@p! People who are basically saying the same thing as Bin Laden (i.e. that the entire Muslim world is at war with the rest of the world) are Crusaders. I don't really think you believe that. That's really a rather extreme element.

While George Bush runs around calling Islam "a religion of peace" you make mean-spirited and totally unfounded accusations that are purely the product of Islamists' imaginations.

For example?

By the way, "if the leaders of American Muslims were to get up and say that Muslims are truly on a jihad against Jews, Jews would be killed in the streets of America."

No doubt, by stupid followers of a mob mentality. Fortunately, in America there is a very strong law enforcement system that would keep anything like that from getting out of control.

Now, do you see why it is dishonest to make accusations based on purely hypothetical statements?

No. Maybe not dishonest, but appearently unrewarding. It doesn't seem to have moved us in a positive direction or towards any sort of understanding. So I regret my statement.

[ibrodsky]

"Crusade" is just a synonym for "jihad."

Muslim hypocrites try to depict the Crusades as the worst crime in history, but make all sorts of excuses for jihad.

[JustPat]

In history, both Muslims and Christians had less than shining moments. The question is, did we learn from it or not? Individuals claiming to be Christian may act out against some person or group in bigotry that they justify through religion, but they prove themselves to be something other than Christian. Christians, in general, are not engaged in a plot to overthrow the world.

Muslims, on the other hand, have generally adopted an agenda of hatred and bigotry that insists on the annihilation of those who believe differently. Whole nations have set themselves to support and encourage brutal, vicious, and heinous acts of cowardly terror. Rather than face their enemy in battle and give them a chance to defend themselves at least, they hide behind the face of the deceived and blow up innocent women and children, they hit and run and then brag about their dastardly deeds. There is nothing noble or honorable about the current war being waged by Islamic fundamentalists. No amount of whining about the plight of the Palestinians, the lot of the Iraqi's, or the fate of the Afghans will justify the cowardice or bring honor to the repugnant acts of these scoundrals. All that the current means of behavior will net the terror camps is bitterness, resentment and a resolve to eradicate the cockroaches from our midst.

[andak01]

Originally posted by JustPat
[B]In history, both Muslims and Christians had less than shining moments. The question is, did we learn from it or not?

And that should be a continuous question, not one where we say, OK we have arrived.

Individuals claiming to be Christian may act out against some person or group in bigotry that they justify through religion, but they prove themselves to be something other than Christian. Christians, in general, are not engaged in a plot to overthrow the world.

But many Christians do believe that Christianity will be victorious over the world in the end. The "reformation" needed in the Muslim community involves a shift of focus back to the central pillars of Islam. Those are declaration of faith, prayer, charity, fasting and pilgrimage.

There is nothing noble or honorable about the current war being waged by Islamic fundamentalists.

Amen, amen, amen.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by andak01
And that should be a continuous question, not one where we say, OK we have arrived. AMEN

Originally posted by andak01
The "reformation" needed in the Muslim community involves a shift of focus back to the central pillars of Islam. Those are declaration of faith, prayer, charity, fasting and pilgrimage. Can that happen as long as there are those who continue to spout their bigotry and hatred in the name of Islam?

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by andak01


But many Christians do believe that Christianity will be victorious over the world in the end.

Granted, there are both Christians and Muslims who believe their religion will conquer the world in the end. But what you refuse to admit is that only among Muslims is there a global crusade ("jihad") to make it happen.

And it's no surprise. When Muslims say "There is no God but God," which I gather many say every day, what they are really saying is "Christianity and Judaism are wrong." Thus, only in Islam do we find attacking other religions to be (for all practical purposes) a pillar of the faith.

The "reformation" needed in the Muslim community involves a shift of focus back to the central pillars of Islam. Those are declaration of faith, prayer, charity, fasting and pilgrimage.

No, the shift back to Islam's original core is the cause of the problem. Islamists believe Islam is the only true religion, that there is only one way of practicing Islam, and that everyone else is an "infidel" against whom Allah commands them to wage jihad.

Islam will not be reformed until its adherents admit that evil is rampant in the contemporary Muslim world, and clearly condemn that evil--including its philosophical basis. That means Muslim leaders worldwide proclaiming that non-Muslims are not "infidels," that Islam is not the only acceptable religion, that "jihad" is a thoroughly obsolete concept, and that not everything that was right in the 7th century is right today.

Likewise, Islam's sense of morality is in desperate need of a complete overhaul. Muslims need to learn that lying is wrong. Muslims need to learn that slandering other peoples is wrong. Muslims need to learn that you can't "oppose" terrorism but "understand" why people do it, because that is saying you really don't oppose it completely.

If anyone doubts the last paragraph, consider this: there was no general outcry in the Muslim world in response to the outgoing Malaysian PM's racist speech; there was no widespread disgust in the Muslim world at Comical Ali's lies (rather, the Muslim world is fertile ground for every mean-spirited conspiracy theory); there is little outrage among Muslim religious leaders against terrorism--instead, there are mountains of excuses for why the victims are at least partly responsible.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by andak01But many Christians do believe that Christianity will be victorious over the world in the end.True enough, but the majority of Christians in today's world are waiting for their Messiah to come and take the world supernaturally. Though there are some who espouse a doctrine of domination, a very small percentage, most are content to wait on their deliverance. Muslims, on the other hand, are looking for a military solution to thier vision.

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Granted, there are both Christians and Muslims who believe their religion will conquer the world in the end. But what you refuse to admit is that only among Muslims is there a global crusade ("jihad") to make it happen.

And it's no surprise. When Muslims say "There is no God but God," which I gather many say every day, what they are really saying is "Christianity and Judaism are wrong." Thus, only in Islam do we find attacking other religions to be (for all practical purposes) a pillar of the faith.



No, the shift back to Islam's original core is the cause of the problem. Islamists believe Islam is the only true religion, that there is only one way of practicing Islam, and that everyone else is an "infidel" against whom Allah commands them to wage jihad.

Islam will not be reformed until its adherents admit that evil is rampant in the contemporary Muslim world, and clearly condemn that evil--including its philosophical basis. That means Muslim leaders worldwide proclaiming that non-Muslims are not "infidels," that Islam is not the only acceptable religion, that "jihad" is a thoroughly obsolete concept, and that not everything that was right in the 7th century is right today.

Likewise, Islam's sense of morality is in desperate need of a complete overhaul. Muslims need to learn that lying is wrong. Muslims need to learn that slandering other peoples is wrong. Muslims need to learn that you can't "oppose" terrorism but "understand" why people do it, because that is saying you really don't oppose it completely.

If anyone doubts the last paragraph, consider this: there was no general outcry in the Muslim world in response to the outgoing Malaysian PM's racist speech; there was no widespread disgust in the Muslim world at Comical Ali's lies (rather, the Muslim world is fertile ground for every mean-spirited conspiracy theory); there is little outrage among Muslim religious leaders against terrorism--instead, there are mountains of excuses for why the victims are at least partly responsible. And thus, without a change of heart there will be no hope for a change in behavior. Will that change come willingly or will it be forced by the removal of all other options?

[andak01]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
And it's no surprise. When Muslims say "There is no God but God," which I gather many say every day, what they are really saying is "Christianity and Judaism are wrong." Thus, only in Islam do we find attacking other religions to be (for all practical purposes) a pillar of the faith.

REALLY??? OK, don't let me tell you what I believe, you tell me. No. Let me try it on you and see how you like it! You worship Mickey Mouse and Itchy and Scratchy and nothing you can say will make me think otherwise! Lalalalal! What a load of Cr@P!

When we say there is no God but God, we are echoing the worship of Abraham (SAW). We do say it everyday. The Muzzan calls it from minarets around the world ten times per day. We say it again during our knealing prayer ten times per day and the Iqama or secondary call to prayer says it five times per day. We say it when we become Muslims and we say it as the last words we speak in this life.

THIS IS THE FIRST PILLAR OF ISLAM!!! How strange that you are just now becoming aware of its importance. How much stranger that even now you feel the need to ascribe negative connotations to this main pillar that it doesn't have.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by andak01

THIS IS THE FIRST PILLAR OF ISLAM!!! How strange that you are just now becoming aware of its importance. How much stranger that even now you feel the need to ascribe negative connotations to this main pillar that it doesn't have.

I don't have any problem with Islam claiming it is the true way. That's to be expected of any religion.

However, I do have a problem with a religion whose "first pillar" is a roundabout attack on Christianity and Judaism. This teaches Muslims that there is nothing more important than fighting Christians and Jews. And that is why Islamists are mass murdering people the world over.

It's true that islamists are now also killing Muslims. But they justify this on the basis that (1) not all Muslims are true Muslims and (2) Muslims who collaborate with the Great Satan--like those who collaborate with the Little Satan--deserve to die.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
I don't have any problem with Islam claiming it is the true way. That's to be expected of any religion.

However, I do have a problem with a religion whose "first pillar" is a roundabout attack on Christianity and Judaism. This teaches Muslims that there is nothing more important than fighting Christians and Jews. And that is why Islamists are mass murdering people the world over.

It's true that islamists are now also killing Muslims. But they justify this on the basis that (1) not all Muslims are true Muslims and (2) Muslims who collaborate with the Great Satan--like those who collaborate with the Little Satan--deserve to die.

I guess you settled it then!

[abu afak]

"Don't Be Afraid, We Won't Kill Muslims"
By Daniel Pipes (06/10/04)

After an Islamist rampage in the Saudi town of Khobar on May 29-30 that ended in the death of twenty-two persons, survivors of that atrocity have recounted how the terrorists went to great lengths to ensure that they would kill only non-Muslims. Their actions raise a delicate but urgent issue: how might non-Muslims best protect themselves if caught in such a situation?

Even as the massacre was underway, the terrorists took pains to distinguish Muslims from non-Muslims. Here are some of the survivors’ testimonies:

Hazem Al-Damen, Muslim, Jordanian: two terrorists knocked on his door and asked him and others hiding whether they were “Muslims or Christians.”
On hearing “Muslims,” the assailants told them to stay in the room because their purpose was to rid the country of Americans and Europeans.

Abu Hashem, 45, Muslim, an Iraqi-American engineer (also called “Mike” in some accounts): The terrorists demanded his residency card, which documented his religion (Muslim) and nationality (American). That combination provoked an argument between two terrorists. “He’s an American, we should shoot him,” said one. “We don’t shoot Muslims,” replied the other. The two went back and forth until the latter decided it: “Don’t be afraid. We won’t kill Muslims, even if you are an American.” With this decision, the terrorists turned polite, even apologizing for breaking into Abu Hashem’s home, searching it, and leaving blood stains on his carpet.

Abdul Salam al-Hakawati, 38, Muslim, a Lebanese corporate financial officer:
He and his family hid upstairs in their house after hearing gunfire. Downstairs, they heard the terrorists break in and rummage around before one apparently noticed framed Koranic verses on the wall and announced to the others, “This is a Muslim house.” When a heavily armed terrorist came upstairs, Al-Hakawati confirmed his identity by greeting the assailant with “Assalamu ‘Alaykum,” the Muslim greeting.

Nizar Hajazeen, Christian, a Jordanian software businessmen: He hid with another Jordanian in a room but they opened the door when two armed young men banged violently on it. The terrorists asked the identity of the Jordanians, Arab or Westerners. “We’re Arab,” came the response. Each was then asked, “A Christian or a Muslim?” Both claimed to be Muslims and showed a Koran as proof.

Taking care to kill only non-Muslims appears to be in response to widespread Saudi criticism of Islamist terrorism directed against Muslims; Saudis seem to agree that murder is a tool suitably directed only against non-Muslims, as two quotes suggest:

Abdelaziz Raikhan, a maintenance man for the Saudi security forces, responded to the suicide bombing of a police headquarters in Riyadh that killed 5 people and wounded 148 on April 21, accusing the perpetrators of being “mentally ill. … There’s not one American in this entire area. Not one! What kind of jihad is this?”

Mohsen al-Awaji, a Saudi lawyer, suggests that terrorists should be encouraged by the authorities to go to the many “occupied territories that require resistance,” such as in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Palestinian Authority, and Chechnya. “If someone decides to go, we wish him luck. He’s going to die anyway, so let him die there while achieving something, not die here and kill innocents with him.”

Nor is this the first time Islamists have specifically targeted infidels. In Malaysia in 2000, for example, jihadists purposefully killed two non-Muslim hostages and spared two others, both Muslims.

In Pakistan in 2002, a police chief noted killers “took a good fifteen minutes in segregating the Christians and making sure that each one of their targets gets the most horrific death.”
The murderers separated Christians from Muslims by requiring each hostage to recite a verse from the Koran. Those who could not were shot.

In all these cases, non-Muslims facing jihadists could have saved themselves by passing as Muslims....."

http://www.americandaily.com/article/774

[andak01]

The solution is not pretending to be Muslim, but simply quoting a verse from the Quran. Which verse? Why the very one that Christians claim endorses the above behavior! The "sword surah" to quote the missionary's term. Here's how it usually gets quoted.

...fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them...

And here is how it actually reads.

9:5
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Yes, they could accept Islam, but there is a second avenue to being spared- simply requesting asylum.

9:6
If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

So according to the Quran itself, merely requesting asylum would be sufficient for any non-Muslim's life to be spared.

[arthadude]

Sure thing. Those Jihadists are just a bunch of merciful softies... :rolleyes:

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by andak01
So according to the Quran itself, merely requesting asylum would be sufficient for any non-Muslim's life to be spared.
Well Gollllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllleeeeeeeeeeeee.. .....why didn't we ever think of it before? All we have to do is repeat the magic phrase and muslims will cease their slaughter.

[andak01]

I seriously doubt it. My point was, the Quran doesn't condone this type of behavior. Of course the actual tenets of Islam don't figure large with either the Islamist or the Islamophobes. Each group picks whatever facets of Islam suit their own political agendas. Ironically, the actions of each group amplify those of the other. Everytime an Islamist says that there is a jihad against the west, there is an Islamophobe who sees that statement as justification for invading Muslims. And every Muslim killed in such invasions acts as a recruitment for the Islamists, who use that as an excuse to kill Christians and others. It's like an ugly snowball effect.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by andak01
9:5
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Yes, they could accept Islam, but there is a second avenue to being spared- simply requesting asylum.

9:6
If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge. So apparently if you give them asylum and they do not convert, refer to the "slay them" part. No Christian or Jew of any conviction is going to convert, thus you can justify slaying them all. Yes, now I think I understand!

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by andak01
I seriously doubt it. My point was, the Quran doesn't condone this type of behavior. Of course the actual tenets of Islam don't figure large with either the Islamist or the Islamophobes. Each group picks whatever facets of Islam suit their own political agendas. Ironically, the actions of each group amplify those of the other. Everytime an Islamist says that there is a jihad against the west, there is an Islamophobe who sees that statement as justification for invading Muslims. And every Muslim killed in such invasions acts as a recruitment for the Islamists, who use that as an excuse to kill Christians and others. It's like an ugly snowball effect.
The thing that bothers most of us about the murder and mayhem being perpetrated in the name of islam (in addition to our normal nausea with the fact that it happens at all) is that there is no significant outrage among muslims concerning these people. Poll after poll shows widespread support among muslims for bin laden and his ilk. Repeatedly you have been advised that many people could come to an understanding with islam should muslims ever find it in themselves to stridently oppose the barbaric slaughter which is becoming synonymous with their religion. I myself will be very happy to publically acknowledge such an effort should it ever occur.

By the way, your circular theory of just how conflict is generated between muslims and everybody else is erroneous. Nobody slaughters so indiscriminately and with so little reason as do the savages who do it in the name of allah. To allow them to carry on without doing anything about it just because you and yours threaten to recruit more killers is a suggestion unworthy of of a serious minded person.

[Braxamillius]

I can't wait until Allah* is dead.






*by "Allah" I mean the void that muslims swarm around and call "god"

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Braxamillius
*by "Allah" I mean the void that muslims swarm around and call "god"
Pathetic, isn't it (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=9471)! :( :rolleyes:

[auracrisis]

Is it just a natural human reaction to subconcious be against Jews and Christians? Is it just natural that the media ignores the pains and sufferings of the two? Is the world naturally under the control of evil? Why do people hate Jews and Christians? Since I have become Christian i have observed that people around me have become more hateful or criticizing of myself without even recognizing they are doing so. Just a random event or happening? I think not. Does the word Satan ever ring a bell in acts of hate and unexplainable violence against a particular group?

[Revkha]

Free societies promote education. Education that allows its citizens to pursue many avenues of thoughts. Thoughts that may even be alien to the society or alien to democracy. While those of us fortunate enough to live in these open societies can make measured decisions based on careful study and analysis, people in closed societies are prevented through censorship from having the necessary information to distinguish between reality and unrealistic religious indoctrination.

Islam has a fanatic hold on members in these closed societies. They hear the glory of the past of Islam and they seek to return Islam to this glory. In Kabbalah we are taught to look forward. In spite of all that has happened through the centuries to our Jewish nation, we still continue to look forward. Islam looks back to its glorious past and wants to return to it.

Through the centuries we Jews turned to education as a means to improve ourselves and to try to improve our lot in life while fundamentalist Islam has turned to the sword thinking that it will solve all the perceived ills of society.

Although our Jewish numbers are small compared to Islam, perhaps it is a good thing because we were forced to find a more successful path. Most of us (Jews) are living in democratic societies although anti-Semitism still prevails. Islam has a long, rocky road ahead of it. If the Muslim moderates do not speak up in loud voices against the violence instigated in the name of Allah, the non-Muslim world will continue to believe that Islam is a violent arrogant religion. The silence of the Islamic moderates is deafening and revealing.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Revkha
If the Muslim moderates do not speak up in loud voices against the violence instigated in the name of Allah, the non-Muslim world will continue to believe that Islam is a violent arrogant religion.
I am more and more inclined every day to conclude that Islam is a religion with violent and arrogant precepts and that those calling themselves moderates either are not or are deviating from the mainline interpretation.

[Hierophant]

I seriously doubt it. My point was, the Quran doesn't condone this type of behavior. Of course the actual tenets of Islam don't figure large with either the Islamist or the Islamophobes. Each group picks whatever facets of Islam suit their own political agendas. Ironically, the actions of each group amplify those of the other. Everytime an Islamist says that there is a jihad against the west, there is an Islamophobe who sees that statement as justification for invading Muslims. And every Muslim killed in such invasions acts as a recruitment for the Islamists, who use that as an excuse to kill Christians and others. It's like an ugly snowball effect.

perhaps you could comment on this, please?




According to Muhammad?s sacralized biography by Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad himself sanctioned the massacre of the Qurayza, a vanquished Jewish tribe. He appointed an "arbiter" who soon rendered this concise verdict: the men were to be put to death, the women and children sold into slavery, the spoils to be divided among the Muslims. Muhammad ratified this judgment stating that it was a decree of God pronounced from above the Seven Heavens. Thus some 600 to 900 men from the Qurayza were lead on Muhammad?s order to the Market of Medina. Trenches were dug and the men were beheaded, and their decapitated corpses buried in the trenches while Muhammad watched in attendance. Women and children were sold into slavery, a number of them being distributed as gifts among Muhammad?s companions, and Muhammad chose one of the Qurayza women (Rayhana) for himself. The Qurayza?s property and other possessions (including weapons) were also divided up as additional "booty" among the Muslims, to support further jihad campaigns.

The classical Muslim jurist al-Mawardi (a Shafi?ite jurist, d. 1058) from Baghdad was a seminal, prolific scholar who lived during the so-called Islamic "Golden Age" of the Abbasid-Baghdadian Caliphate. He wrote the following, based on widely accepted interpretations of the Qur'an and Sunna (i.e., the recorded words and deeds of Muhammad), regarding infidel prisoners of jihad campaigns:

?As for the captives, the amir [ruler] has the choice of taking the most beneficial action of four possibilities: the first to put them to death by cutting their necks; the second, to enslave them and apply the laws of slavery regarding their sale and manumission; the third, to ransom them in exchange for goods or prisoners; and fourth, to show favor to them and pardon them. Allah, may he be exalted, says, 'When you encounter those [infidels] who deny [the Truth=Islam] then strike [their] necks' (Qur'an sura 47, verse 4)?....Abu?l-Hasan al-Mawardi, al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah." [The Laws of Islamic Governance, trans. by Dr. Asadullah Yate, (London), Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd., 1996, p. 192. Emphasis added.]

Indeed such odious ?rules? were iterated by all four classical schools of Islamic jurisprudence, across the vast Muslim empire.

For centuries, from the Iberian peninsula to the Indian subcontinent, jihad campaigns waged by Muslim armies against infidel Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Buddhists and Hindus, were punctuated by massacres, including mass throat slittings and beheadings. During the period of ?enlightened? Muslim rule, the Christians of Iberian Toledo, who had first submitted to their Arab Muslim invaders in 711 or 712, revolted in 713. In the harsh Muslim reprisal that ensued, Toledo was pillaged, and all the Christian notables had their throats cut. On the Indian subcontinent, Babur (1483-1530), the founder of the Mughal Empire, who is revered as a paragon of Muslim tolerance by modern revisionist historians, recorded the following in his autobiographical ?Baburnama,? about infidel prisoners of a jihad campaign:

"Those who were brought in alive [having surrendered] were ordered beheaded, after which a tower of skulls was erected in the camp." [The Baburnama -Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor, translated and edited by Wheeler M. Thacktson, Oxford University Press,1996, p. 188. Emphasis added.]

[andak01]

perhaps you could comment on this, please?

First, if you are going to quote half of that story from that source, you should quote the other half. The Qurayza had a treaty with the Muslims. They not only broke the treaty, and they not only fought in a battle, but they also attempted to sway the other allies of the Muslims to fight against them. Some of the Qurayza joined with the Muslims. At least one was lauded as a hero. Also, the Muslim soldiers were mutilated by the enemy on the battlefield. The mutilation of four Americans recently caused the siege of Fallujah and the death of over 700.

Second, we don't worship Muhammad (SAW) or the words of Ibn Ishaq. We don't say that he never made a mistake, only that his intention was always pure towards Allah. There is evidence that this was a very difficult decision and that there were tears shed on both sides. We believe that his intention was to preserve and protect the Muslims, not to commit genocide.

Compare these lines.

He decided that all the able-bodied male persons belonging to the tribe should be killed, women and children taken prisoners and their wealth divided among the Muslim fighters.
-Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar) by Safi-ur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri


Joshua 008:024
And it came to pass, when Israel had made an end of slaying all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, in the wilderness wherein they chased them, and when they were all fallen on the edge of the sword, until they were consumed, that all the Israelites returned unto Ai, and smote it with the edge of the sword.

008:025
And so it was, that all that fell that day, [b]both of men and women, were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai.

I grew up singing "Joshua at the Battle of Jericho" and never was told that I was making a hero of a genocider.

Bottom line, if I take that historic incident and make it a cause for persecuting Jews today, you have a right to be offended. But if I say, the Qurayza were killed AT THAT TIME because Muhammad (SAW) believed that any other course would endanger the existance of the Muslims. You may choose not to believe my version of history or my beliefs, but at least know that I don't use it as a weapon against you. Muhammad (SAW) was a man and a military and government leader. Every military and government leader makes decisions everyday which may cost innocent people their lives. When Truman dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, he didn't spare the women, children or even the buildings of the city.

Like the great divide over End Time prophecies, squabbling over history is getting people killed and does nothing to assert our common love of God, of community, of charity for the poor, of family. We should all immerse ourselves and use up all our time towards our common goals instead of looking for ways of oppressing each other. Yes, that's idealistic. But nobody every crawled out of the mud without an ideal.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by andak01
...the Qurayza were killed AT THAT TIME because muhammad believed that any other course would endanger the existance of the Muslims.

As far as I've been able to ascertain, that is pretty much how islam views the west in our present times.




...squabbling over history is getting people killed and does nothing to assert our common love of God

Since you came to this board, one of your favored methods of making your point has been to ransack the historical record for any abominable behavior by Christians that might allow you excuse the present abominable behavior of muslims. Now you indicate that it is "squabbling over history" to consider occurrences in the past. Is this your new position? May we expect you to follow your own lead and refrain from any further justification of present day atrocities by ancient negative examples concerning non-muslims?

[Ahava]

Not to offend anyone, but the reasoning of andak sounds quite familiar to me, it's the reasoning of Muslims who call themselves "moderates". And although they have some points, they avoid the main point, they just seem to be unable to understand, or they are just in a state of denial.
There seems to be no point in asking Muslims to explain the terroristic behaviour of some of their fellow Muslims, and the legitimation for it in the Quran. They stick to their own interpretation, occassionally they come up with passages to show Christianity is at least as aggressive, and that is that. There is a big wall you can't come through. The core of the question is never answered. It's very frustrating. The core of the question remains the same: Islam is very clear in its words, it says to kill Jews. How can you be peaceful when you are a true Muslim? How can you say killing Jews is against Islam while it clearly states the opposite in the Hadiths?

[Mediocrates]

All sorts of religious tractates claim to direct others to all degrees of zealotry. That really shouldn't concern anyone. We don't stone people to death as it says in Leviticus yet we are accused of thinking that way. I don't feel any impetus to explain or reject that, do you?

No I think the problem is simpler than that. It's not about what religious tractates say, it's why it is so attractive to say it. It's about the political use of religious power & the justification it implies.

Any politician worth his salt in this election year will trot out innumerable images of mom & apple pie and puppy dogs, flags and cherubic strawberry blonde befreckled toddlers. You aren't against MOTHERHOOD, are you? I think it's like that.

Now having said that I imagine that here is how it works. You create a community that shuns and rejects the outside world, rejects modern secular scepticism and demands blind obedience like any good fundamentalist soldier. You exclude and corral. Then you welcome all the faithful into your tent and you proceed to pitch them an unending stream of religiously tainted screeching hatefilled diatribes. You tell them that even listening to anything else is wrong.

Gee that sounds like a cult doesn't it?

And then you take all your newly programmed Islamobots and you aim them in some direction. Place hands over ears. Booom.

Islamonihilism plays to basic human ignorance and laziness and a need to be lead. Why is it unique? Well I don't think it is and I don't think its adherents are unique either. What is special about Islamonihilism is that it is

Well funded.
Well organized.
Doesn't have a recognizable tactical goal.
Doesn't have a timetable.
Isn't interested in 'success' any commonly understood way.
Doesn't follow geopolitical or geographic boundaries.
Is not about territory, statehood, self determination or any other western notion of political conflict.

And all of this vague squishiness about the Invincibilty of Islam plays very well into that forum because, like most other religions, it doesn't have a concrete project plan or timetable either. We can always ascribe a distant 'someday' to any purported goal of religion.

And that's what makes jihad appear heroic at its core. -"If not for me then for my children's children." That's what makes it so dangerous, not the religious underpinnings of why they do this act or that. It's dangerous because it is no less an artificially constructed cult-cause.

During the Middle Ages in Europe, when the great cathedrals were being erected, the two critical facts that stand out are 1) that no one working on them expected or needed to see their own work completed since the work took hundreds of years and 2) the basic architectural framework was consistently maintained over the course of centuries. What drove the process on was something almost sublime but really just a well organized plan that used relious iconography to subsume everyone's independence. It was not specifically related to what they heard in Church every week but it used that lexicon to keep everyone in line.

[andak01]

Is this your new position? May we expect you to follow your own lead and refrain from any further justification of present day atrocities by ancient negative examples concerning non-muslims?

I don't justify present day atrocites. You just keep saying that I do. Whenever I express my disgust, you simply ignore me. I was in this instance specifically saying that Muslims shouldn't use specific incidents in the past to generalize persecution of Jews. I suppose you missed that point.

How can you be peaceful when you are a true Muslim? How can you say killing Jews is against Islam while it clearly states the opposite in the Hadiths?
-Alhava


In the words of Bush Sr. "Watch and learn." Would you prefer if I come to the conclusion that this is not possible and come after you with a sword? If you tell me that I don't believe what I tell you that I do believe, that moderation is impossible and that the only alternative is apostacy and ultimately aetheism or death, then it is you who are being intolerant. I'm not asking you to become a moderate Muslim, only to recognize that such a thing is possible!

[MichaelC]

andak continues to pretend, no doubt for the sake of new posters on the board unfamiliar with the body of his work, that no one can remember what his postings here have been about.

He has constantly attacked America's war against terror and by his words demeaned all those who harbor justifiable suspicion about a religion whose adherents remain tellingly silent when asked to condemn those who slaughter infidels in the name of allah.

No fatwa has ever been issued against bin laden nor against any of his clones. You'd think that some "moderate" imam somewhere would recognize that obl is desecrating islam and be outraged about it. But no, there is only a great silence from islam on the matter because those in authority in islam support bin laden and his kind. They will not speak out against him.

One more time for the hard of hearing andak: a visible, vocal movement of "moderate" muslims taking to the streets and every other place they can be heard with the message that islam repudiates jihadism and condemns all acts of terror will change things.

Why not support the idea instead of ignoring it?

[Ahava]

In the words of Bush Sr. "Watch and learn." Would you prefer if I come to the conclusion that this is not possible and come after you with a sword? If you tell me that I don't believe what I tell you that I do believe, that moderation is impossible and that the only alternative is apostacy and ultimately aetheism or death, then it is you who are being intolerant. I'm not asking you to become a moderate Muslim, only to recognize that such a thing is possible!

I've repeatedly said that I do not doubt the fact you may be a "moderate" Muslim. If you say you are and that you want to live in peace with everyone including Jews, I have no reason to not believe that. And of course I'd want all Muslims to be, instead of coming after me with a sword or, as is today's prefered method, a bomb. I'm not intolerant of peaceful Muslims. I'm just saying I think that those moderate Muslims are in fact not totally following the Islam. They must be unaware of the passages (the ones so often mentioned now), or they do know that they exist but choose to ignore this. They (you) may believe in 'Allah' and they may believe Muhammad is the last prophet, but they can't believe that every word is from Allah and has to be obeyed. If they (you) did, they wouldn't be moderate anymore.

[timB]

I've repeatedly said that I do not doubt the fact you may be a "moderate" Muslim. If you say you are and that you want to live in peace with everyone including Jews, I have no reason to not believe that. And of course I'd want all Muslims to be, instead of coming after me with a sword or, as is today's prefered method, a bomb. I'm not intolerant of peaceful Muslims. I'm just saying I think that those moderate Muslims are in fact not totally following the Islam. They must be unaware of the passages (the ones so often mentioned now), or they do know that they exist but choose to ignore this. They (you) may believe in 'Allah' and they may believe Muhammad is the last prophet, but they can't believe that every word is from Allah and has to be obeyed. If they (you) did, they wouldn't be moderate anymore.

Could that not be said of any religion, though? There are sections in both the Torah and the New Testament that could, if taken literally, give ample justification for violence or intolerance. The key is that most people do not take them that way; yet they are still Jews and Christians. I don't see a significant distinction that can be made between this and varying interpretations of Islam.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Could that not be said of any religion, though? There are sections in both the Torah and the New Testament that could, if taken literally, give ample justification for violence or intolerance. The key is that most people do not take them that way; yet they are still Jews and Christians. I don't see a significant distinction that can be made between this and varying interpretations of Islam.
Just one difference.

Historically, in Judaism, offshoot variants that have deviated from the origins of Judaism (e.g., Saducees, Natinim, Reform, Conservative) are pronounced and even defined by Halacha - Jewish Law - as deviants with consequences including public condemnation and various other social aspects.

Furthermore, these lines of distinction between Jewish groups are normally well defined and accepted by all of the various groups defined. So if a Conservative Jews wants to accuse orthodox Jews of something (or vice versa) and claim that they are like that but not us, the ditinctions are clear for all to hear.

Now find such a distinction between moderate Moslems and the others. Yes, there are distinction between Sunnis and Shiites but no clear lines between the moderates within each group and the more fudamental varieties.

Not only that but we even have problems measure what percentage of Moslems count as moderate versus unmoderate. I have given up guessing.

There are exceptions, such as Sufi Moslems. Indeed they are a distinct group, uniquely named. Even here, however, how many Sufi protests have you seen in the last few years?

[andak01]

Now find such a distinction between moderate Moslems and the others. Yes, there are distinction between Sunnis and Shiites but no clear lines between the moderates within each group and the more fudamental varieties.

Not only that but we even have problems measure what percentage of Moslems count as moderate versus unmoderate. I have given up guessing.

There are exceptions, such as Sufi Moslems. Indeed they are a distinct group, uniquely named. Even here, however, how many Sufi protests have you seen in the last few years?

The Sufis are sometimes also Sunni and sometimes also Shiite. My own Imam claims to be Sufi, though there are some Sufis he would not emulate.

Ibn Taymiyah, whose teachings Sheikh Wahhab took up studied under Sufis, including more than one woman. The biggest bone of contention with him and with Wahhab was the worship of Saints. The Ottomans were great proponents of that, and during the civil war with Wahhab's followers around the time of the American revolution, many of those Kubas were destroyed. Note that the largest group of Sufis is still centered in Turkey. Note also that the most vocal theological attacks against Wahhabis are coming from Turkish sources.

In that sense, I see a parallel to the extremely iconoclastic early Protestants. Martin Luther was also against the worship of Saints and many monestaries and cathedrals were burnt and statues smashed by his followers.