Jerusalem

[abu afak]

STATEMENT BY IBN WARRAQ ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATROCITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ibn Warraq is the author of 'Why I Am Not A Muslim'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 1 of 2

Given the stupefying enormity of the acts of barbarism of 11 September, moral outrage is appropriate and justified, as are demands for punishment. But a civilized society cannot permit blind attacks on all those perceived as “Muslims” or Arabs. Not all Muslims or all Arabs are terrorists. Nor are they implicated in the horrendous events of Tuesday. Police protection for individual Muslims, mosques and other institutions must be increased.

However, to pretend that Islam has nothing to do with Terrorist Tuesday is to wilfully ignore the obvious and to forever misinterpret events. Without Islam the long-term strategy and individual acts of violence by Usama bin Laden and his followers make little sense. The West needs to understand them in order to be able to deal with them and avoid past mistakes. We are confronted with Islamic terrorists and must take seriously the Islamic component. Westerners in general, and Americans in particular, do not understand the passionate, religious, and anti-western convictions of Islamic terrorists. These God-intoxicated fanatics blindly throw away their lives in return for the Paradise of Seventy Two Virgins offered Muslim martyrs killed in the Holy War against all infidels.

Jihad is “a religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of the Prophet Muhammad [the Prophet]. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Qur’an and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam and repelling evil from Muslims”[1].

The world is divided into two spheres, Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. The latter, the Land of Warfare, is a country belonging to infidels which has not been subdued by Islam. The Dar al-Harb becomes the Dar-al Islam, the Land of Islam, upon the promulgation of the edicts of Islam. Thus the totalitarian nature of Islam is nowhere more apparent than in the concept of Jihad, the Holy War, whose ultimate aim is to conquer the entire world and submit it to the one true faith, to the law of Allah. To Islam alone has been granted the truth: there is no possibility of salvation outside it. Muslims must fight and kill in the name of Allah.

We read (IX. 5-6):“Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them”;

IV.76: “Those who believe fight in the cause of God”;

VIII.39-42: “Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God’s.”

Those who die fighting for the only true religion, Islam, will be amply rewarded in the life to come:

IV.74: “Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God’s path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward.”

What should we make with these further unfortunate verses from the Qur’an:

*Torment to Non-believers->IV.56
*Only Islam Acceptable-> III.85
* No friends from outsiders->III.118
*No friends with Jews, christians->V. 51
* No friends with non believers->IV.144, III.28
* No friends with parents/siblings if not believers->IX.23
* Fight non-believers->IX.123 * Kill non-believers->IV.89
*Anti Jewish verses->V.82
* God a "plotter"->VIII.30
*Killing Idolators->IX.5
* Idolators are unclean just because they are idolator->IX.28
* Forcing non-believers to pay tax->IX.29
* The Torment of Hell->XLIV.43-58
* All except Muslims/Jews/Christians/Sabeans will go to hell->II.62, V.69
* Cast terror in the hearts, smite the neck and cut fingertips of unbelievers->VIII.12
* Smite the neck of unbelievers->XLVII.4
* Severe Punishment for atheists->X.4 ; V.10 ; V.86
* Severe Punishment for non-believers->XXII.19-22 ; LXXII.23, XCVIII.6
*Punishing non-believers of Hereafter->XVII.10
* Punishing for rejecting faith->III.91
* Non believers go to hell->IV.140 ; VII.36 * Partial Believers go to hell too->IV.150-1
* Sadistic punishments->LVI.42-43
* Punishment for apostates->XVI.106 ; III.86-88 ; III.90 ; IV.137.
* Threat of punishement for not going to war->IX.38-39, XLVIII.16
*God making someone more sinful so he can be punished more->III178
*Intentionally preventing unbelievers from knowing the truth->VI.25 ; VI.110
* Intentionally preventing unbelievers from Understanding Quran->XVII.45-46
* It is God who causes people to err and He punishes them for that->XVII.97
* God could guide, if he chose to, but did not->VI.35
* Intentionally misguiding those whom he pleases to->XIV.4
* Willfully misguiding some->XVI.93
* God causes human to err->IV.143 ; VII.178
* God deceiving humans->IV.142

It is surely time for us who live in the West and enjoy freedom of expression to examine unflinchingly and unapologetically the tenets of these fanatics, including the Qur’an which divinely sanctions violence. We should unapologetically examine the life of the Prophet, who was not above political assassinations, and who was responsible for the massacre of the Jews.

[abu afak]

STATEMENT BY IBN WARRAQ ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATROCITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ibn Warraq is the author of 'Why I Am Not A Muslim'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 2 of 2

“Ah, but you are confusing Islam with Islamic fundamentalism. The Real Islam has nothing to do with violence,” apologists of Islam argue.

There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. There is no difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism: at most there is a difference of degree but not of kind. All the tenets of Islamic fundamentalism are derived from the Qur’an, the Sunna, and the Hadith – Islamic fundamentalism is a totalitarian construct derived by Muslim jurists from the fundamental and defining texts of Islam. The fundamentalists, with greater logic and coherence than so-called moderate or liberal Muslims, have made Islam the basis of a radical utopian ideology that aims to replace capitalism and democracy as the reigning world system. Islamism accounts for the anti-American hatred to be found in places far from the Arab-Israeli conflict, like Nigeria and Afghanistan, demonstrating that the Middle East conflict cannot legitimately be used to explain this phenomenon called Islamism. A Palestinian involved in the WTC bombings would be seen as a martyr to the Palestinian cause, but even more as a martyr to Islam.

“Ah, but Islamic fundamentalism is like any other kind of fundamentalism, one must not demonise it. It is the result of political, social grievances. It must be explained in terms of economics and not religion,” continue the apologists of Islam.

There are enormous differences between Islamic fundamentalism and any other kind of modern fundamentalism. It is true that Hindu, Jewish, and Christian fundamentalists have been responsible for acts of violence, but these have been confined to particular countries and regions. Islamic fundamentalism has global aspirations: the submission of the entire world to the all-embracing Shari’a, Islamic Law, a fascist system of dictates designed to control every single act of all individuals. Nor do Hindus or Jews seek to convert the world to their religion. Christians do indulge in proselytism but no longer use acts of violence or international terrorism to achieve their aims.

Only Islam treats non-believers as inferior beings who are expendable in the drive to world hegemony. Islam justifies any means to achieve the end of establishing an Islamic world.

Islamic fundamentalists recruit among Muslim populations, they appeal to Islamic religious symbols, and they motivate their recruits with Islamic doctrine derived from the Qur’an. Economic poverty alone cannot explain the phenomenon of Islamism. Poverty in Brazil or Mexico has not resulted in Christian fundamentalist acts of international terror. Islamists are against what they see as western materialism itself. Their choice is clear: Islam or jahiliyya. The latter term is redefined to mean modern-style jahiliyya of modern, democratic, industrialised societies of Europe and America, where man is under the dominion of man rather than Allah. They totally reject the values of the West, which they feel are poisoning Islamic culture. So, it is not just a question of economics, but of an entirely different worldview, which they wish to impose on the whole world. Sayyid Qutb, the very influential Egyptian Muslim thinker, said that “dominion should be reverted to Allah alone, namely to Islam, that holistic system He conferred upon men. An all-out offensive, a jihad, should be waged against modernity so that this moral rearmament could take place. The ultimate objective is to re-establish the Kingdom of Allah upon earth...”[2]

It is surely time for moderate Muslims to stand up and be counted. I should like to see them do three things:

All moderate Muslims should unequivocally denounce this barbarism, should condemn it for what it is: the butchery of innocent people,
2. All moderate Muslim citizens of the United States should proclaim their Americanness, their patriotism, and their solidarity with the families of the victims. They should show their pride in their country by giving blood and other aid to victims and their families.

3. All moderate Muslims should take this opportunity to examine the tenets of their faith; should look at the Qur’an, recognize its role in the instigation of religious violence, and see it for what it is, a problematical human document reflecting 7th or perhaps 8th Century values which the West has largely outgrown.

While it should not be too difficult for moderate Muslims to accept the need to denounce the violence of Terrorist Tuesday, I am not at all optimistic about their courage or willingness to proclaim their love for their chosen country, the USA, or examine the Qur’an critically.

Too many Muslims are taught from an early age that their first allegiance is to Islam. They are exhorted in sermons in mosques, and in books by such Muslim intellectuals as Dr Siddiqui of the Muslim Institute in London, that if the laws of the land conflict with any of the tenets of Islam, then they must break the laws of the infidels, and only follow the Law of God, the Shari’a, Islamic Law.

It is a remarkable fact that at the time of the Gulf War, a high proportion of Muslims living in the West supported Saddam Hussein. In the aftermath of the WTC terror, it is now clear from reports in the media that many Muslims, even those living in the West, see these acts of barbarism as acts of heroism; they give their unequivocal support to their hero, Usama bin Laden.

Few Muslims have shown themselves capable of scrutinising their sacred text rationally. Indeed any criticism of their religious tenets is taken as an insult to their faith, for which so many Muslims seem ready to kill (as in the Rushdie affair or the Taslima Nasreen affair). Muslims seem to be unaware that the research of western scholars concerning the existence of figures such as Abraham, Isaac and Joseph or the authorship of the Pentateuch applies directly to their belief system. Furthermore, it is surely totally irrational to continue to believe that the Qur’an is the word of God when the slightest amount of rational thought will reveal that the Qur’an contains words and passages addressed to God (e.g. VI.104; VI.114; XVII.1; XXVII.91; LXXXI.15-29; lxxxiv.16-19; etc.); or that it is full of historical errors and inconsistencies.

Respect for other cultures, for other values than our own, is a hallmark of a civilised society. But Multiculturalism is based on some fundamental misconceptions. First, there is the erroneous and sentimental belief that all cultures, deep down, have the same values; or, at least, if different, are equally worthy of respect. But the truth is that not all cultures have the same values, and not all values are worthy of respect. There is nothing sacrosanct about customs or cultural traditions: they can change under criticism. After all, the secularist values of the West are not much more than two hundred years old.

If these other values are destructive of our own cherished values, are we not justified in fighting them both by intellectual means, that is by reason and argument, and criticism, and by legal means, by making sure the laws and constitution of the country are respected by all? It becomes a duty to defend those values that we would live by. But here western intellectuals have sadly failed in defending western values, such as rationalism, social pluralism, human rights, the rule of law, representative government, individualism (in the sense that every individual counts, and no individual should be sacrificed for some utopian future collective end), freedom of expression, freedom of and from religion, the rights of minorities, and so on..

Instead, the so-called experts on Islam in western universities, in the media, in the churches and even in government bureaus have become apologists for Islam. They bear some responsibility for creating an atmosphere little short of intellectual terrorism where any criticism of Islam is denounced as fascism, racism, or “orientalism.” They bear some responsibility for lulling the public into thinking that “The Islamic Threat ” is a myth. It is our duty to fight this intellectual terrorism. It is our duty to defend the values of liberal democracy.

One hopes that the U.S. government will not now act in such a way that more innocent lives are lost, albeit on the other side of the globe. One hopes that even now there is a legal way out in international courts of law. The situation is far more delicate and complex than a simple battle between good and evil, the solution is not to beat hell out of all Arabs and Muslims but neither is it to pretend that Islam had nothing to do with it, for that would be to bury one’s head in the Sands of Araby.


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

[1] T.Hughes, Dictionary of Islam, entry “Jihad”

[2] E.Sivan, Radical Islam, New haven, 1985, p.25.


secularIslam.org

[IlyaFurman]

wow Ive never seen a worst article in my life, facts distored, and changed, and its one non scholar person opinion.

whats the point?

[unbiased]

Umm...how was that a proof?

Your premise is incomplete, so your conclusion is wrong...

To prove that Islam does support terrorism, you need to provide quotes from the Islamic texts that state that civilians should be targeted and killed.

Otherwise what you posted is just a bunch of prejudicial hate...

It is not enough to show that Islam states that people who do not worship Islam will be killed...the new testament says the same thing about non-christians...that does not mean it is promoting the murder of civilians.

Please provide any complete quote from Islamic texts that state that it is ok to intentionally target civilians, then you will have your proof.

Look all you want...you won't find it.
Islam does not support terrorism. Islamic terrorists are sinning against their religion. It is quite clear.

Unbiased

Originally posted by abu afak
STATEMENT BY IBN WARRAQ ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATROCITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ibn Warraq is the author of 'Why I Am Not A Muslim'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 1 of 2

Given the stupefying enormity of the acts of barbarism of 11 September, moral outrage is appropriate and justified, as are demands for punishment. But a civilized society cannot permit blind attacks on all those perceived as “Muslims” or Arabs. Not all Muslims or all Arabs are terrorists. Nor are they implicated in the horrendous events of Tuesday. Police protection for individual Muslims, mosques and other institutions must be increased.

However, to pretend that Islam has nothing to do with Terrorist Tuesday is to wilfully ignore the obvious and to forever misinterpret events. Without Islam the long-term strategy and individual acts of violence by Usama bin Laden and his followers make little sense. The West needs to understand them in order to be able to deal with them and avoid past mistakes. We are confronted with Islamic terrorists and must take seriously the Islamic component. Westerners in general, and Americans in particular, do not understand the passionate, religious, and anti-western convictions of Islamic terrorists. These God-intoxicated fanatics blindly throw away their lives in return for the Paradise of Seventy Two Virgins offered Muslim martyrs killed in the Holy War against all infidels.

Jihad is “a religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of the Prophet Muhammad [the Prophet]. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Qur’an and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam and repelling evil from Muslims”[1].

The world is divided into two spheres, Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. The latter, the Land of Warfare, is a country belonging to infidels which has not been subdued by Islam. The Dar al-Harb becomes the Dar-al Islam, the Land of Islam, upon the promulgation of the edicts of Islam. Thus the totalitarian nature of Islam is nowhere more apparent than in the concept of Jihad, the Holy War, whose ultimate aim is to conquer the entire world and submit it to the one true faith, to the law of Allah. To Islam alone has been granted the truth: there is no possibility of salvation outside it. Muslims must fight and kill in the name of Allah.

We read (IX. 5-6):“Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them”;

IV.76: “Those who believe fight in the cause of God”;

VIII.39-42: “Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God’s.”

Those who die fighting for the only true religion, Islam, will be amply rewarded in the life to come:

IV.74: “Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God’s path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward.”

What should we make with these further unfortunate verses from the Qur’an:

*Torment to Non-believers->IV.56
*Only Islam Acceptable-> III.85
* No friends from outsiders->III.118
*No friends with Jews, christians->V. 51
* No friends with non believers->IV.144, III.28
* No friends with parents/siblings if not believers->IX.23
* Fight non-believers->IX.123 * Kill non-believers->IV.89
*Anti Jewish verses->V.82
* God a "plotter"->VIII.30
*Killing Idolators->IX.5
* Idolators are unclean just because they are idolator->IX.28
* Forcing non-believers to pay tax->IX.29
* The Torment of Hell->XLIV.43-58
* All except Muslims/Jews/Christians/Sabeans will go to hell->II.62, V.69
* Cast terror in the hearts, smite the neck and cut fingertips of unbelievers->VIII.12
* Smite the neck of unbelievers->XLVII.4
* Severe Punishment for atheists->X.4 ; V.10 ; V.86
* Severe Punishment for non-believers->XXII.19-22 ; LXXII.23, XCVIII.6
*Punishing non-believers of Hereafter->XVII.10
* Punishing for rejecting faith->III.91
* Non believers go to hell->IV.140 ; VII.36 * Partial Believers go to hell too->IV.150-1
* Sadistic punishments->LVI.42-43
* Punishment for apostates->XVI.106 ; III.86-88 ; III.90 ; IV.137.
* Threat of punishement for not going to war->IX.38-39, XLVIII.16
*God making someone more sinful so he can be punished more->III178
*Intentionally preventing unbelievers from knowing the truth->VI.25 ; VI.110
* Intentionally preventing unbelievers from Understanding Quran->XVII.45-46
* It is God who causes people to err and He punishes them for that->XVII.97
* God could guide, if he chose to, but did not->VI.35
* Intentionally misguiding those whom he pleases to->XIV.4
* Willfully misguiding some->XVI.93
* God causes human to err->IV.143 ; VII.178
* God deceiving humans->IV.142

It is surely time for us who live in the West and enjoy freedom of expression to examine unflinchingly and unapologetically the tenets of these fanatics, including the Qur’an which divinely sanctions violence. We should unapologetically examine the life of the Prophet, who was not above political assassinations, and who was responsible for the massacre of the Jews.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
wow Ive never seen a worst article in my life, facts distored, and changed, and its one non scholar person opinion.

whats the point?


Funny Ilya, I put up a long 2 part post and you say facts are distorted and changed ....... and yet

YOU CAN'T POINT TO ONE..
(and even if you could it would be just 1 from Dozens from a Former Muslim who understands the religion quite well... certainly better than you)

Ilya, Do you just like to put up posts in bunches?

Please take a few moments next time to put some meat on your meager bone.. answers like "No", "it's Distorted", and/or "Zionist site", are INadequate.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by unbiased


It is not enough to show that Islam states that people who do not worship Islam will be killed...the new testament says the same thing about non-christians...that does not mean it is promoting the murder of civilians.

unbiased, reread what you just wrote, You have proved that you are determined to defend Islam no matter what.

Let's assume that Jewish, Christian, and Islamic holy scriptures all say those who do not worship their specific religion will be killed. Judaism and Christianity have evolved through the efforts of Maimonides and Aquinas, and the Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightment. Only tiny sects within Judaism and Christianity believe that what was written thousands of years ago must be taken literally and followed to the letter.

Contrast that to Islam. The only "true" Islam is 7th century Islam. There are very, very few Muslims who even believe in separation of church and state. There are hoards of Islamic leaders, however, who denounce any Muslim who tries to modernize Islam. In fact, they issue death threats against them.

Instead of hiding behind abstractions, look at today's Muslim countries and today's Judeo-Christian nations. Can you honestly claim that Muslims have the same attachment to democracy, to individual freedom, and even to life? Can you honestly say that the Muslim world is as honest, fair-minded, and tolerant as the Judeo-Christian world?

Unless you are determined to wear blinders, you cannot help but see that Muslim countries stand out for their use of the most brutal and disproportionate punishments. Beheading adulterers, chopping off the hands of thieves, stoning to death out-of-wedlock mothers, and blowing up "settlers" are examples of barbarism from the Dark Ages.

Islam is in desparate need of modernization. Because a large minority of Muslims perpetrate, support, and celebrate mass murder. No unbiased, you can't compare the Inquisition to today's Islam, because you would be comparing Christianity of 500 years ago to Islam of today.

It isn't up to us to provide a "quote" that proves Islam requires terrorism. It is up to you to provide evidence that the majority of Muslim leaders understand that killing civilian women, children, and elderly on purpose is profound evil, and are working to stop it rather than erecting elaborate lies to excuse it.

[unbiased]

Hi Ibrodsky,

No offense...but what the heck are you talking about?

Why is any of that up to me?

The original post stated that he was providing some logial proof that Islam supports terrorism.
If one defines terrorism as the murder of civilians, then clearly since the quo'ran specifically says that muslims should not intentionally target civilians, it is clearly opposed to terrorism.

I don't have to prove anything about any muslim. I have no responsibility towards them. If they want to go against their religion and support terrorism - they will burn in hell according to their own religion - it is not up to me to prove anything.

Why do you think it is up to me to provide any evidence that muslim leaders are not promoting terrorism?
I really don't care - their religion tells them it is a sin to support terrorism, yet some still do it. What is your point?
I don't defend terrorism, all I am doing is pointing out that Islam the religion does not support terrorism either.

I did not make a logical proof saying "muslims do not support terrorism" or "muslim nations do not support terrorism". Clearly many do - that I why I made the proof to demonstrate how they were sinning against their religion.

Unbiased


Originally posted by ibrodsky

It isn't up to us to provide a "quote" that proves Islam requires terrorism. It is up to you to provide evidence that the majority of Muslim leaders understand that killing civilian women, children, and elderly on purpose is profound evil, and are working to stop it rather than erecting elaborate lies to excuse it.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by unbiased
Hi Ibrodsky,

No offense...but what the heck are you talking about?

...I did not make a logical proof saying "muslims do not support terrorism" or "muslim nations do not support terrorism". Clearly many do - that I why I made the proof to demonstrate how they were sinning against their religion.

Unbiased

Well, it's great that you defend the paper version of Islam. The rest of us have to deal with Islam as interpreted by Muslims in today's real world.

There are quotes that suggest Islam prohibits terrorism. There are also quotes that suggest it supports terrorism. You admit as much when you say "It is not enough to show that Islam states that people who do not worship Islam will be killed."

If that isn't enough, what is? Are you serious???

I know of no other religion in which the concept of "jihad" plays such a central role. I know of no other religion in which people can act on intolerant statements made hundreds of years ago and meet so little resistance from their co-religionists.

[unbiased]

Listen Ibrodsky,

1)Don't you hear all the time, some crazy terrorist like osama saying some psychotic thing like "with the help of allah we will kill americans and jews and other civilians that support them"?

Or people saying "allah is great" as they blow up 2 year old children?

Or "allah said that we should kill all jews whether they are civilians or not"?

hhhmmm?

They do it all the time!
So they and their victims start to think that Islam condones the killing of civilians.
It DOES NOT - period. A true muslim is supposed to follow all the teachings of their religion. If it says somewhere "do not kill women and children" or do not intentionally kill civilians - then it does not matter what the rest says, if you do what it tells you not do to, then you are a sinner.

2) just because a religion says that non-believers will be killed that does NOT have to mean that the people of the religion have the right to go out and kill civilians - why do you think they are the same? You are thinking with as little thought as the terrorists, and those who support them.
-The new testament says that people who don't believe in jesus as the savior will burn in hell - does that mean that christianity promotes terrorism? Of course not. It is not any different with Islam. The difference is that alot of muslims abuse their religion and or don't understand what they are reading, and for some reason feel that Islam says it is ok to kill civilians.
It does NOT. Islam does not say such a thing - it is the muslims that are acting evil, it is not the religion that is promoting terrorism.
Most of the quotes about killing non-muslims in the quo'ran are implying that it is up to allah to do that at judgement day, NOT that it is up to some psychopath to tape explosives to his chest and blow up a bus filled with school children.

3) Islam does not support terrorism, but ignorant Muslims do.
There within lies the problem, and it is not up to me to solve them.
If they can be taught the truth about the teachings of their religion, then we will all be better off.
If you blame their religion for the action of those who trangress their religion, then you are indeed fighting a war against Islam, and NOT the war against terrorism.
There is a difference.
The war against terrorism is about stopping psychopaths who abuse Islam, and sin against their scriptures in order to blow up civilians. It is not about misunderstanding Islam and blaming the religion for the action of some of its crazy, evil, sinful followers.

4) jihad does not just mean war...it is sorta the everyday battle with life that muslims are to face as they try to worship islam faithfully.
And just so you know, it is a sin for an individual, like crazy osama, to declare a jihad against a foreign people - he is once again transgressing the teachings of Islam.

Are you understanding my point?

Unbiased

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Well, it's great that you defend the paper version of Islam. The rest of us have to deal with Islam as interpreted by Muslims in today's real world.

There are quotes that suggest Islam prohibits terrorism. There are also quotes that suggest it supports terrorism. You admit as much when you say "It is not enough to show that Islam states that people who do not worship Islam will be killed."

If that isn't enough, what is? Are you serious???

I know of no other religion in which the concept of "jihad" plays such a central role. I know of no other religion in which people can act on intolerant statements made hundreds of years ago and meet so little resistance from their co-religionists.

[Blueprint]

So they and their victims start to think that Islam condones the killing of civilians.
It DOES NOT - period

But did you not just say that it is "not enough to point out that Islam states that non-believers should be killed", or something along that line? Now, since you said it was "not enough", and not "false", I am assuming this is true.

Now, the last time I checked, there were billions of non-Muslims. And many of these people are civilians. Now, if something condones the killing of every non-Muslims, and many of these people are civilians, is it not condoning the killing of civlians?

[abu afak]

Originally posted by Blueprint
But did you not just say that it is "not enough to point out that Islam states that non-believers should be killed", or something along that line? Now, since you said it was "not enough", and not "false", I am assuming this is true.

Now, the last time I checked, there were billions of non-Muslims. And many of these people are civilians. Now, if something condones the killing of every non-Muslims, and many of these people are civilians, is it not condoning the killing of civlians?

The Koran Contradicts itself Many Times in Many Regards.

The Koran Says: Sura 9:5 [Infidels and conversion]: "Kill those who join other gods with God [polytheists/Christians] wherever you shall find them; and seize them, besiege them ... ... And many other such passages as the 2 Dozen listed in Warraq's essay.
It speaks of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb (peace in those lands that are completeley islamic, and War in those that are not)

Look at the World. Non-Muslims, especially Christians, are being killed By Muslims Just because they Are Christian across the whole Globe. (Millions in North Africa ie Sudan/Nigeria etc etc To the MidEast where Christians are an endangered specie (Israel is Just a Tiny spot on the 'Islamic Frontline'), to Asia where fun is just starting, with only a many Thousands dead.. Indeed, I can barely think of a place where Islam touches another religion where there Isn't War.. Hell, we just interrupted the Afghans killing Each other..
and
150,000 are dead in Algerian intra-Islamic fighting...

Eritrea/Ethiopea

2 million Christians killed in Sudan and 4 million displaced by the Muslim north

Nigeria, a mini Sudan

Egypt, the persecution of the Copts

Also more Islamic violence in Chad, Kenya and the latest the Ivory Coast... Mauritania too..

Of Course Hundreds of Thousands of Kurds have been killed or Cleansed by Iraq, Turkey, Syrian and Iran by their own Islamic Brothers. (that's another Topic I will post on here... What about the KURDS, the worlds largest Ethnic group without a state, with it's own language and culture, UNlike the Palestinians)

India/Pak/Kashmir?

Of course the Balkans/Kosovo... Armenia/Azerbijan ... Chechnya, Ingushetia . ..

This Listing is getting Silly... Why doesn't someone who really thinks Islam is Peaceful tell me where they AREN'T Fighting...

Seems Ibn Warraq's experienced reading of the Koran is the same one Today's Muslims ARE reading... NOT unbiased's one..

Also, Please see my Posts initiating other strings:

"Killing Christians" (Just because they are Christian and NOT isolated events), and ...
"Of Course the great Majority of Muslims are peaceful, blah blah " .. But at the very least the vast majority looks the other way.

And is Osama's butchery condemned or seen as 'unIslamic' by the Majority of Arabs/Muslims??? NO

Even in 'moderate' Indonesia they couldn't arrest Abu Bakar Bashir (Jemaah Islamiyah/ Bali Bombings) for fear of Unrest or even civil war...

Now 'unbiased', far be it from you to tell today's Genocidal Moslems and their Majority of Condoners how to read the Koran.

Ibn Warraq is correct.

[unbiased]

Killed by allah on judgement day....not by anyone else...

Killed by jesus on judgement day...not by anyone else...

same thing.

shesh!

Unbiased

Originally posted by Blueprint
But did you not just say that it is "not enough to point out that Islam states that non-believers should be killed", or something along that line? Now, since you said it was "not enough", and not "false", I am assuming this is true.

Now, the last time I checked, there were billions of non-Muslims. And many of these people are civilians. Now, if something condones the killing of every non-Muslims, and many of these people are civilians, is it not condoning the killing of civlians?

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by unbiased
Killed by allah on judgement day....not by anyone else...

Killed by jesus on judgement day...not by anyone else...

same thing.

shesh!

Unbiased

So in that case it's just fine and dandy?

Today, only a small minority of Christians believe such nonsense. Most live in the modern world and understand that religion is based on faith. And Judaism rejects, outright, the notion that all non-Jews are damned.

Unfortunately, much of the Islamic world still lives in the 7th century. They reject universal principles which they see as merely western customs such as separation of church and state, religious tolerance, freedom of speech, and governments founded on democracy, separation of powers, and due process.

To wit, it should come as no surprise that many of today's Muslims feel that in putting non-Muslims to the sword they are merely speeding up the process of doing what Allah has aready proclaimed must happen.

I noticed a thread at ummah.com in which Moslems basically said that Allah forgives all sins except one: ascribing a partner (Messiah) to him. It does not take a genius to see that this leads to the conclusion that Christians and Jews are all lost souls who must be punished. While it may be a sin to kill them now, at least it is a forgivable sin -- unlike the sin they commit of ascribing a partner to God which, according to their religion, can never be forgiven.

Sorry, unbiased, but some of us simply don't accept the idea that believers in other religions (or no religion, for that matter) deserve to be persecuted -- whether now or later. And it's clear that many Muslims feel Islam justifies persecuting them now, and very few others are convinced it is their duty to fight them.

The bottom line: your interpretation of Islam doesn't really matter. It's how Muslims interpret their religion that counts.

[Ezra]

Originally posted by unbiased
Listen Ibrodsky,

1)Don't you hear all the time, some crazy terrorist like osama saying some psychotic thing like "with the help of allah we will kill americans and jews and other civilians that support them"?

Or people saying "allah is great" as they blow up 2 year old children?

Or "allah said that we should kill all jews whether they are civilians or not"?

hhhmmm?

They do it all the time!
So they and their victims start to think that Islam condones the killing of civilians.
It DOES NOT - period. A true muslim is supposed to follow all the teachings of their religion. If it says somewhere "do not kill women and children" or do not intentionally kill civilians - then it does not matter what the rest says, if you do what it tells you not do to, then you are a sinner.

2) just because a religion says that non-believers will be killed that does NOT have to mean that the people of the religion have the right to go out and kill civilians - why do you think they are the same? You are thinking with as little thought as the terrorists, and those who support them.
-The new testament says that people who don't believe in jesus as the savior will burn in hell - does that mean that christianity promotes terrorism? Of course not. It is not any different with Islam. The difference is that alot of muslims abuse their religion and or don't understand what they are reading, and for some reason feel that Islam says it is ok to kill civilians.
It does NOT. Islam does not say such a thing - it is the muslims that are acting evil, it is not the religion that is promoting terrorism.
Most of the quotes about killing non-muslims in the quo'ran are implying that it is up to allah to do that at judgement day, NOT that it is up to some psychopath to tape explosives to his chest and blow up a bus filled with school children.

3) Islam does not support terrorism, but ignorant Muslims do.
There within lies the problem, and it is not up to me to solve them.
If they can be taught the truth about the teachings of their religion, then we will all be better off.
If you blame their religion for the action of those who trangress their religion, then you are indeed fighting a war against Islam, and NOT the war against terrorism.
There is a difference.
The war against terrorism is about stopping psychopaths who abuse Islam, and sin against their scriptures in order to blow up civilians. It is not about misunderstanding Islam and blaming the religion for the action of some of its crazy, evil, sinful followers.

4) jihad does not just mean war...it is sorta the everyday battle with life that muslims are to face as they try to worship islam faithfully.
And just so you know, it is a sin for an individual, like crazy osama, to declare a jihad against a foreign people - he is once again transgressing the teachings of Islam.

Are you understanding my point?

Unbiased

Ok ok, Osama Bin Laden is a bad guy.

So why did "normal" Muslims cheered in the street for the 9/11 events?
Why is Osama Bin Laden considered hero among 99% of Muslims?
If Koraan prohibits killing innocent why all Islamic authorities agreed that suicide bombing is ok?
If Osama Bin Laden doesn't represent the majority of Muslims, why is all Muslims praising him in all their chat forums?

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by Ezra
So why did "normal" Muslims cheered in the street for the 9/11 events?
Why is Osama Bin Laden considered hero among 99% of Muslims?
If Koraan prohibits killing innocent why all Islamic authorities agreed that suicide bombing is ok?
If Osama Bin Laden doesn't represent the majority of Muslims, why is all Muslims praising him in all their chat forums?

THOSE GUYS THAT CELEBTRATE ARE STUPID, ABOUT 400 MUSLIMS DIED IN WTC, DID YOU KNOW THAT OR CHOOSE TO IGNORE THAT???

DO YOU KNOW OSAMA IS PRAISED BY ALL OF EUROPE AND LATIN AMERICA AND ASIA, even in non muslim countries.

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by abu afak
Funny Ilya, I put up a long 2 part post and you say facts are distorted and changed ....... and yet



its not worth it.

IS THIS GUY A SCHOLAR OR ANYTHING??? the only reason you like it is cause hes a FORMER MUSLIM, does that give him any autority on ISLAM or anything? NOPE

although it might seem to you like it is.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
its not worth it.

IS THIS GUY A SCHOLAR OR ANYTHING??? the only reason you like it is cause hes a FORMER MUSLIM, does that give him any autority on ISLAM or anything? NOPE

although it might seem to you like it is.

And uh... Ilya... Stlll Not a single fact rebutted.

Ilya you're a Joke.... a poster who has a comment on everything, but substance on nothing.

[IlyaFurman]

What facts do you want rebutted, I will rebut those "facts" tommorow.

And not Muslims but Islam, Muslims cause a lot of crime these days, I want to rebute anything on Islam not muslims.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
What facts do you want rebutted, I will rebut those "facts" tommorow.

And not Muslims but Islam, Muslims cause a lot of crime these days, I want to rebute anything on Islam not muslims.

""...What facts do you want rebutted, I will rebut those "facts" tommorow..."""

BWAAAAAA HAHG HAHG HAHG !!!

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by abu afak

BWAAAAAA HAHG HAHG HAHG !!!

Hmmm, what is that some kind of "fact", I really cant rebute that? :rolleyes:

[abu afak]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
Hmmm, what is that some kind of "fact", I really cant rebute that? :rolleyes:

First you say "what 'facts" and Then you say I'll rebutt them Tomorrow (rebutt what? the facts you said 1 second ago didn't exist!) .. LOL you Moron... Please Don't respond until you do

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by abu afak
First you say "what 'facts" and Then you say I'll rebutt them Tomorrow (rebutt what? the facts you said 1 second ago didn't exist!) .. LOL you Moron... Please Don't respond until you do

No I guess you clearly cant read, I said show me the facts you want me to rebutt (cause I cant find any) and I will rebute them tomow, since Im going away rite now. :rolleyes:

[abu afak]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
What facts do you want rebutted, I will rebut those "facts" tommorow.

And not Muslims but Islam, Muslims cause a lot of crime these days, I want to rebute anything on Islam not muslims.

BWAAAAAAAAAAA HAH HAH HAH!

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by abu afak
BWAAAAAAAAAAA HAH HAH HAH! :rolleyes:

[abu afak]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
:rolleyes:

Ilya are you postingt just to see your words?

You aren't saying anything

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by abu afak
Ilya are you postingt just to see your words?

You aren't saying anything :rolleyes: :confused:

[abu afak]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
:rolleyes: :confused:

I appeal to the Moderator (or a psychiatrist) to speak to Ilya.

He's lost it.

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by abu afak
I appeal to the Moderator (or a psychiatrist) to speak to Ilya.

He's lost it.



I guess Abu you lost it, what is that below?? lol

Originally posted by abu afak

BWAAAAAA HAHG HAHG HAHG !!!

[abu afak]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
:rolleyes: :confused:

?????????????? Moderator Please!

[abu afak]

Like I was saying On Islam and Terrorism ... They Condone it at the very least. Check photo in link.. This isn't 'logical proof' it's LIVING proof... from 'moderate' Indonesia no less:

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

Laughing bomber on parade
By Darren Goodsir and Wayne Miller in Denpasar
November 14 2002




Bizarre scene...Bali bombing suspect Amrozi waves to the press during an interview with the Indonesian national police chief Da i Bahktiar. Photo: Kate Geraghty


The confessed Bali bomber, Amrozi, was paraded before the media yesterday as he joked and laughed with Indonesia's national police chief during a public interrogation.

At one point, the Javanese mechanic pointed to Western journalists and said in Indonesian: "Those are the sorts of people that I wanted to kill."

In bizarre scenes at Denpasar police headquarters, a room full of police and reporters erupted with laughter at Amrozi's remark.

Indonesia's national police chief General Da'i Bachtiar - after a 50-minute taped interview with Amrozi in full view of reporters - said the 40-year-old had admitted to other bombings in Indonesia.

But Amrozi had told the general he was not an Islamic extremist; rather, he was a juvenile delinquent who had been led astray.

However, he had professed to being influenced by Abu Bakar Bashir, the alleged spiritual leader of the banned terrorist group, Jemaah Islamiah.

At 3pm local time (6pm in Sydney), General Bachtiar - surrounded by his top brass - had strode purposefully across a courtyard and into a glass-walled room.

Amrozi, who is alleged to have confessed to a central role in the bombing, was led into the room moments later, handcuffed but looking relaxed. One handcuff was removed and he sat on a chrome chair at a wooden table opposite the nation's top-ranking policeman.

Amrozi, dressed in a blue T-shirt, red-and-blue striped shorts and black slippers, occasionally turned to the media and smiled broadly. Most of what he said was inaudible to reporters. But the locals translated his wisecrack about the Western reporters.

The only police officer in the room who looked ill at ease with the incredible stage act was police General Made Pastika, who has headed the investigation since the October 12 bombing that killed almost 200 people.

As General Bachtiar and Bachtiar carried on, both told jokes and smiled at each other. Immediately after the public interrogation, Amrozi was led away and General Bachtiar strolled to a media conference to give a blow-by-blow account of their conversation.

Only part of the tape was played. An interpreter said "he would like to apologise to his family, his brothers, little brothers, nephews and niece and also his parents and other relatives. He did not intend to get his family into this".

"It is only the involvement of Amrozi - me, myself - as well as my younger brother, Ali Imron."

Amrozi had said his family did not need to run from the police.

"That is all that I have to say. This is from me, Amrozi."

General Bachtiari said the investigation had been carried out "according to the processes available ... There are no fabrications nor engineering".

Amrozi had said Idris, one of the suspects portrayed in police sketches, had given him the funds to buy the Bali bomb ingredients - and vehicles. Between 47 and 50 million rupiah had been spent on orchestrating the explosions.

On October 6, Amrozi had travelled to Bali, meeting the alleged mastermind, Hudama, also known as Imam Samudra. Also present at the first rendevous in Denpasar had been Idris, a man called Umar and another man he had never met before, also known as Umar.

Several times, Amrozi had asked Hudama what had happened to the bomb parts he had assembled. Hudama had replied: "That is none of your business any more."

Before General Bachtiar, on a table, lay an arsenal of weapons and ammunition seized on Tuesday from bush near Amrozi's village of Tenggulun.

General Bachtiar said Amrozi had been relaxed during his week-long detention. "He is healthy and has been fasting."

[Leon Uris]

This is the FIRST time on the forum that I have seen such a statement. I think the powers that be have come to realize that there is no such thing as a moderate Islam. Yes, there may be moderate muslims who are such inherently decent human beings that even a retrograde and bloodthirsty faith like islam could not affect them. But by and large, all muslims completely believe in killing innocents in the name of islam, as the koran mandates, even when the non-muslims may be as harmless as buddhist monks living on alms.

I hope that such honesty continues to be the hall-mark of this forum. We, in India, and even in the US, continue to subscribe to this absurd "peaceful islam" notion that is an inherent contradiction.

http://www.israelforum.com/dynamix/page.pl?sn=119



The concept of slaughtering the infidel is a basic tenet of Islam, as prescribed in the Quran.

[Mediocrates]

Yes the one thing that Arafat's Murder, Inc. has managed to do is finally drive away that one segment of the Israeli population who might be counted on to work with him for so called peace. What PLOistan is facing now is one big radicalized Israel.

[Blueprint]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
THOSE GUYS THAT CELEBTRATE ARE STUPID, ABOUT 400 MUSLIMS DIED IN WTC, DID YOU KNOW THAT OR CHOOSE TO IGNORE THAT???

Since 400 Muslims died in the WTC attacks, that somehow negates that millions of them celebrated it? I don't get it.

[Blueprint]

IS THIS GUY A SCHOLAR OR ANYTHING???

Are you a scholar? If not, why should we listen to you? So, your basically saying your opinion counts none, right?

I thought so.

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by Blueprint
Are you a scholar? If not, why should we listen to you? So, your basically saying your opinion counts none, right?

I thought so.

I dont suppose im a scholar but I contribute, I am my friend own a website about how christianity tricks jews into christianity, link should be in my sig.

And I help run a art expo, solely based on jewish people and jewish subjects in works of art. Our main attractions are -

Ex - "nahash the ammonite threatening the jews at jabesh", the orginal is in a paris musem, but we have the copy at the expo, where a christian knight is threating and poking fun at old jewish rabbis

and spoils from the temple of jerusalem

http://rubens.anu.edu.au/htdocs/surveys/charlotte/0001/000128A.JPG
http://rubens.anu.edu.au/htdocs/surveys/charlotte/0001/000129B.JPG

this scence depicts jews being tortured and hung and killed, we have copies of painting like that and similar to that, to show history.

I might not be a scholar, but I know that sometimes we sound like the people we hate the most, I know alot of muslims, and they have helped me and my family in times of need, so I really dont like the sterotyping of ANY race religion or creed.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by Blueprint
Since 400 Muslims died in the WTC attacks, that somehow negates that millions of them celebrated it? I don't get it.

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

[reason]

We read (IX. 5-6):“Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them”;

IV.76: “Those who believe fight in the cause of God”;

VIII.39-42: “Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God’s.”

Those who die fighting for the only true religion, Islam, will be amply rewarded in the life to come:

IV.74: “Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God’s path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward.”

What should we make with these further unfortunate verses from the Qur’an:

*Torment to Non-believers->IV.56
*Only Islam Acceptable-> III.85
* No friends from outsiders->III.118
*No friends with Jews, christians->V. 51
* No friends with non believers->IV.144, III.28
* No friends with parents/siblings if not believers->IX.23
* Fight non-believers->IX.123 * Kill non-believers->IV.89
*Anti Jewish verses->V.82
* God a "plotter"->VIII.30
*Killing Idolators->IX.5
* Idolators are unclean just because they are idolator->IX.28
* Forcing non-believers to pay tax->IX.29
* The Torment of Hell->XLIV.43-58
* All except Muslims/Jews/Christians/Sabeans will go to hell->II.62, V.69
* Cast terror in the hearts, smite the neck and cut fingertips of unbelievers->VIII.12
* Smite the neck of unbelievers->XLVII.4
* Severe Punishment for atheists->X.4 ; V.10 ; V.86
* Severe Punishment for non-believers->XXII.19-22 ; LXXII.23, XCVIII.6
*Punishing non-believers of Hereafter->XVII.10
* Punishing for rejecting faith->III.91
* Non believers go to hell->IV.140 ; VII.36 * Partial Believers go to hell too->IV.150-1
* Sadistic punishments->LVI.42-43
* Punishment for apostates->XVI.106 ; III.86-88 ; III.90 ; IV.137.
* Threat of punishement for not going to war->IX.38-39, XLVIII.16
*God making someone more sinful so he can be punished more->III178
*Intentionally preventing unbelievers from knowing the truth->VI.25 ; VI.110
* Intentionally preventing unbelievers from Understanding Quran->XVII.45-46
* It is God who causes people to err and He punishes them for that->XVII.97
* God could guide, if he chose to, but did not->VI.35
* Intentionally misguiding those whom he pleases to->XIV.4
* Willfully misguiding some->XVI.93
* God causes human to err->IV.143 ; VII.178
* God deceiving humans->IV.142

Im gonna try and reply to every single verse this guy quotes.

This is [9:5] Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful. So 9:6 is talking about those who refuse to make peace.

[4:75] Why should you not fight in the cause of GOD when weak men, women, and children are imploring: "Our Lord, deliver us from this community whose people are oppressive, and be You our Lord and Master." So 4:76, 4:74 are taken out of context (funny the author quotes 4:74 and 4:76 but dosnt even mention 4:75!!!) . So the three verses put togther mean, Fight those non believers who are oppresive and fight for tyranny.

This is [8:39] You shall fight them to ward off oppression, and to practice your religion devoted to GOD alone. If they refrain from aggression, then GOD is fully Seer of everything they do .So 8:39 -8:42 is talking about those who transgress.Further proof that Islam is non violent.

This is [4:56] Surely, those who disbelieve in our revelations, we will condemn them to the hellfire. Whenever their skins are burnt, we will give them new skins. Thus, they will suffer continuously. GOD is Almighty, Most Wise. The Bible and the Torah are revelations.

[3:85] Anyone who accepts other than Submission as his religion, it will not be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter, he will be with the losers. Submission to god , jews and christians believe in god. Now we start to see a pattern here, the author is a bigot.

[3:118] O you who believe, do not befriend outsiders who never cease to wish you harm; they even wish to see you suffer. Hatred flows out of their mouths and what they hide in their chests is far worse. We thus clarify the revelations for you, if you understand. And who in his right mind wants to befriend strangers who want to cause him harm?


[5:51] O you who believe, do not take certain Jews and Christians as allies; these are allies of one another. Those among you who ally themselves with these belong with them. GOD does not guide the transgressors *5:51 Relations with other people are governed by the basic rule in 5:57 & 60:8-9. The Jews and Christians who cannot be friends are specifically mentioned in 5:57; they are the ones who mock and ridicule the believers, or attack them.

[4:144] O you who believe, you shall not ally yourselves with the disbelievers, instead of the believers. Do you wish to provide GOD with a clear proof against you? And this is bad because? Dont make allies with non believers instead of the believers, but it dosnt say dont take allies with non-believers!(note the author says friends, which is a lie in the first place) same thing goes for 3:28.

[9:23] O you who believe, do not ally yourselves even with your parents and your siblings, if they prefer disbelieving over believing. Those among you who ally themselves with them are transgressing. This verse is talking to the people at the time of the prophet because[9:20] Those who believe, and emigrate, and strive in the cause of GOD with their money and their lives, are far greater in rank in the sight of GOD. These are the winners. Note the emigrate or higra the time when Mohamed and his followers went to medina to escape prosecution from those Parents and Siblings.

[9:123] O you who believe, you shall fight the disbelievers who attack you - let them find you stern - and know that GOD is with the righteous. The verse is self explainatory "who attack you".The author has forsaken any scholastic integrity he might have had when he wrote this article.

[8:30] The disbelievers plot and scheme to neutralize you, or kill you, or banish you. However, they plot and scheme, but so does GOD. GOD is the best schemer. The verse is for the prophet, and god is a schemer and that is bad why?

[9:5] Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful. How is this bad!!! This is the most tolerance I have seen.

[9:28] O you who believe, the idol worshipers are polluted; they shall not be permitted to approach the Sacred Masjid after this year. If you fear loss of income, GOD will shower you with His provisions, in accordance with His will. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise. And? Muslims believe Idolers have polluted souls and shouldnt come close to their Sacred mosques.

The rest of the verses I have replied to in a reply to l@mplighter who also used many of these verses. In conclusion, These verses have all been distorted and taken out of context. The author is a lying bigot with no integrity whatsoever.

[abu afak]

................Im gonna try and reply to every single verse this guy quotes. ""

This is [9:5] Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful. So 9:6 is talking about those who refuse to make peace............
AND WHO MIGHT THAT BE .. JEWS, CHRISTIANS, AND HINDUS, THEY ARE FIGHTING EVERYWHERE ISLAM EXISTS?

[4:75] Why should you not fight in the cause of GOD when weak men, women, and children are imploring: "Our Lord, deliver us from this community whose people are oppressive, and be You our Lord and Master." So 4:76, 4:74 are taken out of context (funny the author quotes 4:74 and 4:76 but dosnt even mention 4:75!!!) . So the three verses put togther mean, Fight those non believers who are oppresive and fight for tyranny.........
YOU MEAN EVERYONE THEY THEY WANT TO SAY IS TYRANNICAL... IN FACT TYRANNY IS A SPECIALTY BY ISLAMIC GOVERMENTS TO THEIR MINORITY SUBJECTS

This is [8:39] You shall fight them to ward off oppression, and to practice your religion devoted to GOD alone. If they refrain from aggression, then GOD is fully Seer of everything they do .So 8:39 -8:42 is talking about those who transgress.Further proof that Islam is non violent....
LOOK AT THE WORLD FOR PROOF ISLAM >>IS<< VIOLENT

This is [4:56] Surely, those who disbelieve in our revelations, we will condemn them to the hellfire. Whenever their skins are burnt, we will give them new skins. Thus, they will suffer continuously. GOD is Almighty, Most Wise. The Bible and the Torah are revelations. ...........
HOW DOES THE BIBLE AND TORAH BEING REVELATIONS CHANGE THIS ISLAMIC ONE'S INTENT?

[3:85] Anyone who accepts other than Submission as his religion, it will not be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter, he will be with the losers. Submission to god , jews and christians believe in god. Now we start to see a pattern here, the author is a bigot......
REALLY? LETS ISSUE A FATWA AND DEATH THREAT ON HIM TOO... LIKE RUSHDIE AND FALWELL

[3:118] O you who believe, do not befriend outsiders who never cease to wish you harm; they even wish to see you suffer. Hatred flows out of their mouths and what they hide in their chests is far worse. We thus clarify the revelations for you, if you understand. And who in his right mind wants to befriend strangers who want to cause him harm?
....
JUST UNFRIENDLY, NO BIG DEAL COMPARED TO THE DEATH VERSES

[5:51] O you who believe, do not take certain Jews and Christians as allies; these are allies of one another. Those among you who ally themselves with these belong with them. GOD does not guide the transgressors *5:51 Relations with other people are governed by the basic rule in 5:57 & 60:8-9. The Jews and Christians who cannot be friends are specifically mentioned in 5:57; they are the ones who mock and ridicule the believers, or attack them. ...................................
THE VERSE PITS JEWS AND CHRISTIANS WHO ARE ALLIES "OF ONE ANOTHER" AGAINST ISLAM... BAD READING "reason"

[4:144] O you who believe, you shall not ally yourselves with the disbelievers, instead of the believers. Do you wish to provide GOD with a clear proof against you? And this is bad because? Dont make allies with non believers instead of the believers, but it dosnt say dont take allies with non-believers!(note the author says friends, which is a lie in the first place) same thing goes for 3:28. ....
JUST MORE ALIENATING KORAN

[9:23] O you who believe, do not ally yourselves even with your parents and your siblings, if they prefer disbelieving over believing. Those among you who ally themselves with them are transgressing. This verse is talking to the people at the time of the prophet because[9:20] Those who believe, and emigrate, and strive in the cause of GOD with their money and their lives, are far greater in rank in the sight of GOD. These are the winners. Note the emigrate or higra the time when Mohamed and his followers went to medina to escape prosecution from those Parents and Siblings........
WE ALL KNOW THE UNFORTUNATE VIOLENT BEGINNINGS OF ISLAM

[9:123] O you who believe, you shall fight the disbelievers who attack you - let them find you stern - and know that GOD is with the righteous. The verse is self explainatory "who attack you".The author has forsaken any scholastic integrity he might have had when he wrote this article......
YOU MADE NO VALID CRITICISM IF WARRAQ HERE

[8:30] The disbelievers plot and scheme to neutralize you, or kill you, or banish you. However, they plot and scheme, but so does GOD. GOD is the best schemer. The verse is for the prophet, and god is a schemer and that is bad why? ......
THIS VERSE SAYS NONBELIEVERS ARE PLOTTING TO KILL BELIEVERS, ANOTHER HOSTILE PROCLAMATION

[9:5] Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful. How is this bad!!! This is the most tolerance I have seen......,.
FOR THE KORAN IT ISN'T BAD MAYBE... BUT I'D SAY "KILL THE IDOL WORSHIPPERS" ISN'T GOOD, WOULD YOU?

[9:28] O you who believe, the idol worshipers are polluted; they shall not be permitted to approach the Sacred Masjid after this year. If you fear loss of income, GOD will shower you with His provisions, in accordance with His will. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise. And? Muslims believe Idolers have polluted souls and shouldnt come close to their Sacred mosques.....
GREAT STUFF: 'OTHER PEOPLE, WHO ARE APPARENTLY FILTH, HAVE POLLUTED THEIR SOULS.


THAT'S IT?

I'D SAY, IN FACT, WARRAQ'S INTERPRETATION BETTER REFLECTS WHAT ISLAM >IS< DOING TODAY. FROM NORTH AFRICA TO ASIA------- WHERE THERE'S ISLAM, THERE'S WAR.

[reason]

Originally posted by abu afak
................Im gonna try and reply to every single verse this guy quotes. ""

This is [9:5] Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful. So 9:6 is talking about those who refuse to make peace............
AND WHO MIGHT THAT BE .. JEWS, CHRISTIANS, AND HINDUS, THEY ARE FIGHTING EVERYWHERE ISLAM EXISTS?

[4:75] Why should you not fight in the cause of GOD when weak men, women, and children are imploring: "Our Lord, deliver us from this community whose people are oppressive, and be You our Lord and Master." So 4:76, 4:74 are taken out of context (funny the author quotes 4:74 and 4:76 but dosnt even mention 4:75!!!) . So the three verses put togther mean, Fight those non believers who are oppresive and fight for tyranny.........
YOU MEAN EVERYONE THEY THEY WANT TO SAY IS TYRANNICAL... IN FACT TYRANNY IS A SPECIALTY BY ISLAMIC GOVERMENTS TO THEIR MINORITY SUBJECTS

This is [8:39] You shall fight them to ward off oppression, and to practice your religion devoted to GOD alone. If they refrain from aggression, then GOD is fully Seer of everything they do .So 8:39 -8:42 is talking about those who transgress.Further proof that Islam is non violent....
LOOK AT THE WORLD FOR PROOF ISLAM >>IS<< VIOLENT

This is [4:56] Surely, those who disbelieve in our revelations, we will condemn them to the hellfire. Whenever their skins are burnt, we will give them new skins. Thus, they will suffer continuously. GOD is Almighty, Most Wise. The Bible and the Torah are revelations. ...........
HOW DOES THE BIBLE AND TORAH BEING REVELATIONS CHANGE THIS ISLAMIC ONE'S INTENT?

[3:85] Anyone who accepts other than Submission as his religion, it will not be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter, he will be with the losers. Submission to god , jews and christians believe in god. Now we start to see a pattern here, the author is a bigot......
REALLY? LETS ISSUE A FATWA AND DEATH THREAT ON HIM TOO... LIKE RUSHDIE AND FALWELL

[3:118] O you who believe, do not befriend outsiders who never cease to wish you harm; they even wish to see you suffer. Hatred flows out of their mouths and what they hide in their chests is far worse. We thus clarify the revelations for you, if you understand. And who in his right mind wants to befriend strangers who want to cause him harm?
....
JUST UNFRIENDLY, NO BIG DEAL COMPARED TO THE DEATH VERSES

[5:51] O you who believe, do not take certain Jews and Christians as allies; these are allies of one another. Those among you who ally themselves with these belong with them. GOD does not guide the transgressors *5:51 Relations with other people are governed by the basic rule in 5:57 & 60:8-9. The Jews and Christians who cannot be friends are specifically mentioned in 5:57; they are the ones who mock and ridicule the believers, or attack them. ...................................
THE VERSE PITS JEWS AND CHRISTIANS WHO ARE ALLIES "OF ONE ANOTHER" AGAINST ISLAM... BAD READING "reason"

[4:144] O you who believe, you shall not ally yourselves with the disbelievers, instead of the believers. Do you wish to provide GOD with a clear proof against you? And this is bad because? Dont make allies with non believers instead of the believers, but it dosnt say dont take allies with non-believers!(note the author says friends, which is a lie in the first place) same thing goes for 3:28. ....
JUST MORE ALIENATING KORAN

[9:23] O you who believe, do not ally yourselves even with your parents and your siblings, if they prefer disbelieving over believing. Those among you who ally themselves with them are transgressing. This verse is talking to the people at the time of the prophet because[9:20] Those who believe, and emigrate, and strive in the cause of GOD with their money and their lives, are far greater in rank in the sight of GOD. These are the winners. Note the emigrate or higra the time when Mohamed and his followers went to medina to escape prosecution from those Parents and Siblings........
WE ALL KNOW THE UNFORTUNATE VIOLENT BEGINNINGS OF ISLAM

[9:123] O you who believe, you shall fight the disbelievers who attack you - let them find you stern - and know that GOD is with the righteous. The verse is self explainatory "who attack you".The author has forsaken any scholastic integrity he might have had when he wrote this article......
YOU MADE NO VALID CRITICISM IF WARRAQ HERE

[8:30] The disbelievers plot and scheme to neutralize you, or kill you, or banish you. However, they plot and scheme, but so does GOD. GOD is the best schemer. The verse is for the prophet, and god is a schemer and that is bad why? ......
THIS VERSE SAYS NONBELIEVERS ARE PLOTTING TO KILL BELIEVERS, ANOTHER HOSTILE PROCLAMATION

[9:5] Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful. How is this bad!!! This is the most tolerance I have seen......,.
FOR THE KORAN IT ISN'T BAD MAYBE... BUT I'D SAY "KILL THE IDOL WORSHIPPERS" ISN'T GOOD, WOULD YOU?

[9:28] O you who believe, the idol worshipers are polluted; they shall not be permitted to approach the Sacred Masjid after this year. If you fear loss of income, GOD will shower you with His provisions, in accordance with His will. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise. And? Muslims believe Idolers have polluted souls and shouldnt come close to their Sacred mosques.....
GREAT STUFF: 'OTHER PEOPLE, WHO ARE APPARENTLY FILTH, HAVE POLLUTED THEIR SOULS.


THAT'S IT?

I'D SAY, IN FACT, WARRAQ'S INTERPRETATION BETTER REFLECTS WHAT ISLAM >IS< DOING TODAY. FROM NORTH AFRICA TO ASIA------- WHERE THERE'S ISLAM, THERE'S WAR.


In all your post not in one instance have you refuted my claim that Islam is a peaceful religion all you did was try and prove that muslims are violent. You wrote this "I'D SAY, IN FACT, WARRAQ'S INTERPRETATION BETTER REFLECTS WHAT ISLAM >IS< DOING TODAY" notice that you added TODAY so you must agree that Islam wasnt always like that, thus it is enough to say that you also agree that Islam as a religion is not violent.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by reason
In all your post not in one instance have you refuted my claim that Islam is a peaceful religion all you did was try and prove that muslims are violent. You wrote this "I'D SAY, IN FACT, WARRAQ'S INTERPRETATION BETTER REFLECTS WHAT ISLAM >IS< DOING TODAY" notice that you added TODAY so you must agree that Islam wasnt always like that, thus it is enough to say that you also agree that Islam as a religion is not violent.

Yes, it wasn't always like that... It was often WORSE... like the first 100 years, for Instance.

[reason]

Originally posted by abu afak
Yes, it wasn't always like that... It was often WORSE... like the first 100 years, for Instance.

Islam is a peaceful religion whether you believe it or not. I provided the interpretations of these verses, and you have not refuted them, and tried to blame Muslims faults on Islam.All you try to do is show that the verses are incorrect because some Muslims chose not to follow them.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by reason
Islam is a peaceful religion whether you believe it or not. I provided the interpretations of these verses, and you have not refuted them, and tried to blame Muslims faults on Islam.All you try to do is show that the verses are incorrect because some Muslims chose not to follow them.

I did refute and I also refuted your premise that now isn't the only time Islam was Extremely Violent (ie the first 100 years even more so)

[cerulean]

Interesting article at The New Republic. There is a free registration required to see it.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021118&s=foer111802

THE LIFE OF A LIBERAL MUSLIM.
Moral Hazard
by Franklin Foer
Post date: 11.12.02
Issue date: 11.18.02

The death threats began shortly after September 11, 2001. Every few days, for about four months, Khaled Abou El Fadl would receive an angry, anonymous phone call at either his San Fernando Valley home or his UCLA office. In his e-mail inbox, he found ominous messages from obscured sources with warnings such as, "You know what we're capable of." At first, the pudgy, 39-year-old professor of Islamic jurisprudence dismissed the calls as harmless outbursts at a tense moment. But, as the fall of 2001 progressed, Abou El Fadl began suspecting that the threats were more serious than he had initially assumed. Twice in November, he noticed a van that inexplicably lingered outside of his relatively isolated home but then disappeared after he called the police. A few months later, he found the windows of his family's SUV smashed at a crowded movie theater parking lot. Neither the radio nor the cash in the car had been stolen; no other vehicle in the lot had been touched.

When he brought these incidents to the attention of police, they requested--and he granted--permission to tap his home phone. UCLA installed a red panic button next to his desk, ensuring that campus cops could respond within minutes to any crisis in his office. The FBI even assigned an agent to track down his tormenters. (To date, they have not been found.) All of this might sound like the prelude to a textbook hate crime, but the Abou El Fadl case has a twist: The callers weren't angry white men accusing him of terrorist sympathies; they were fellow Muslim Americans accusing him of selling out the faith.

On September 14, 2001, Abou El Fadl had published an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times. Many Muslim Americans had condemned the week's attacks as un-Islamic. But Abou El Fadl felt this response amounted to an evasion. The attacks, he worried, didn't represent a deviation from mainstream Islam; they reflected a crisis at the core of the faith, the logical conclusion of "a puritanical and ethically oblivious form of Islam [that] has predominated since the 1970s." Centuries of Islamic intellectual development had been destroyed by the "rampant apologetics" of Muslim thinkers, which had "produced a culture that eschews self-critical and introspective insight and embraces projection of blame and a fantasy-like level of confidence and arrogance."
...

[reason]

Originally posted by abu afak
I did refute and I also refuted your premise that now isn't the only time Islam was Extremely Violent (ie the first 100 years even more so)

You didnt refute anything. You just stated your unfounded ignorant opinion on why these verses are incorrect because some muslims refuse to abide by them. You dont seem to have anything further to add, so I will be ignoring you until you come up with something more logical.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by reason
You didnt refute anything. You just stated your unfounded ignorant opinion on why these verses are incorrect because some muslims refuse to abide by them. You dont seem to have anything further to add, so I will be ignoring you until you come up with something more logical.

I refuted what was your mere opinion/Apologist-view with mine... As to whose is right??? I again ask you to look at the world today..

Where there is Islam there is War. .. no getting around it.

[reason]

Originally posted by abu afak
I refuted what was your mere opinion/Apologist-view with mine... As to whose is right??? I again ask you to look at the world today..

Where there is Islam there is War. .. no getting around it.


Well actually this could be said the other way around. Where ever there is judasim there is war :). Granted they might be the aggressors or not but that statment still holds true.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by reason
Well actually this could be said the other way around. Where ever there is judasim there is war :). Granted they might be the aggressors or not but that statment still holds true.

Really? ... Are Jews in the USA (the world's largest Jewish population) Fighting with Christians????? ..

Answer? No!

Only Islam is killing wherever it in the world it touches another religion.

[Mediocrates]

That's probably an extreme statement but I will add this: Islam is not conciliatory. It is either preeminent or it is striving to be so. At least from the perspective of the opinion leaders and prime movers who have something to say, radicalism is merely a tool for preeminence. I'm not sure if the reverse is true, it could be.

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by abu afak
Really? ... Are Jews in the USA (the world's largest Jewish population) Fighting with Christians????? ..

Answer? No!

Only Islam is killing wherever it in the world it touches another religion.

Let me put it around for you, there are just as many muslims as jews in the US are the muslims fighting the christians in the US?

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by abu afak
Where there is Islam there is War. .. no getting around it.

Where there is DIFFERENCE there is war!

Do you know that the most deaths caused by terrorism is in latin america??? nope you would not know that, in latin america about 70 people a day die of terrorism.

In India different etnic groups are killing each other everyday.

In SriLanka the tamils are fighting of other sri lankans

In Ireland Protestants and Catholics are killing each other in the dozens.

Name me one country that doesnt have terrorsim, forget about Islamic terrorism but other kinds of terrorism, every country has killing of others.

In the US race is the main issue and during civil rights time blacks were killing whites and vice verse.

DIFFERNECES BREED HATE, and the biggest division between people these days is not race or ethinicity its RELIGION.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
Let me put it around for you, there are just as many muslims as jews in the US are the muslims fighting the christians in the US?

Ever heard of the World Trade Center? 1993, AND 9/11

Or more recently busts, Upstate NY, Detroit, and Portland Oregon.

Unbelievable.

[IlyaFurman]

and before you ask me to back up my claims that there is more terrorism in latin america and other regions here is a stats graph made by the CIA

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/2453.htm

And dont think its minor terrorism in latin america heres an article

Report says violent deaths in Colombia average 71 per day

BOGOTA, Colombia (Reuters) -- War-ravaged Colombia is shaken by an average of 71 violent deaths and four "terrorist" attacks a day as its four-decade internal conflict intensifies, according to an official report on criminal activity in 2000.

The police study said 25,660 people died violent deaths this year -- a five percent rise on the 1999 tally of 24,358.

There were 205 mass killings -- a 22 percent
increase over 1999 -- in which 1,226 people died.
The number of victims was almost a third higher
than last year.


http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/colombia/average.htm


Mid east and islamic terrorism is tame compare to this, BUT NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT IT, cause its not important to us and its not shown on tv.

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by abu afak
Ever heard of the World Trade Center? 1993, AND 9/11

Or more recently busts, Upstate NY, Detroit, and Portland Oregon.

Unbelievable.

well they werent american, most were here on student visas, and many were german foreign exchange students.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
well they werent american, most were here on student visas, and many were german foreign exchange students.

They WERE American, born and raised, virtually all. The Lackawana, NY Yemeni Americans 100% islamic TRAITORS

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by abu afak
They WERE American, born and raised, virtually all. The Lackawana, NY Yemeni Americans 100% islamic TRAITORS

well they are not terrorists, they might have wanted to be terrorists but they didnt commit any terroristic activities.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
well they are not terrorists, they might have wanted to be terrorists but they didnt commit any terroristic activities.

OOPs Ilya you're Already Backtracking... LOL ...

So That's two wrong already ..

'Mulsims aren't fighting in the US' ... WRONG

"They weren't Americans they were exchange students".. WRONG AGAIN !!
"""Lackawanna has been shaken by the arrests of five men -- all U.S. born -- who federal authorities say aided the terrorists who planned the Sept. 11 attacks."""" http://www.reporter-news.com/1998/2002/terror/terror_Lackawann915.html

They didn't commit any terrorist acts because they were caught first but as you can see may have aided the 9/11 Bombers Already..

Another LOL series of WRONG posts from Ilya. Ilya stick to Chemical Engineering (hope you graduate bimbo) and swimming ... You're a dope

[cerulean]

Colombia's killings are terrible - no argument there. However, bad as it is, Algeria is far worse off - there have been over 120,000 murders related to Islamic fundamentalism since 1992.

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by abu afak
OOPs Ilya you're Already Backtracking... LOL ...

So That's two wrong already ..

'Mulsims aren't fighting in the US' ... WRONG

"They weren't Americans they were exchange students".. WRONG AGAIN !!
"""Lackawanna has been shaken by the arrests of five men -- all U.S. born -- who federal authorities say aided the terrorists who planned the Sept. 11 attacks."""" http://www.reporter-news.com/1998/2002/terror/terror_Lackawann915.html

They didn't commit any terrorist acts because they were caught first but as you can see may have aided the 9/11 Bombers Already..

Another LOL series of WRONG posts from Ilya. Ilya stick to Chemical Engineering (hope you graduate bimbo) and swimming ... You're a dope

First of all im not gonna stoop down to your level, saying "stick to chemical engineering and swimming" doesnt really bother me. I dont need personal attacks to prove my point.

Muslims are not fighting Americans, Al Queda is. There are about 6 to 10 million Muslims in the US, and they sure havent done anything have they, if they all were fighting then we would have trouble. So im not wrong in that AT ALL.

The 9/11 hijackers, many came with student visas, Im right again.

I never denied the lackwana suspects were citizens, in fact they are, but they didnt commit any terrorist activities, so I wouldnt call them terrorists, cause they dont fit the term. They are terrorist suspects.

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by cerulean
Colombia's killings are terrible - no argument there. However, bad as it is, Algeria is far worse off - there have been over 120,000 murders related to Islamic fundamentalism since 1992.

But cerulean remember in Algeria ithe moderates are fighting the extermists, I remeber in one instance that they had a democratic election, and if they did the extermist party would win so they called of the election, there is a fight within the muslim world extremist vs moderates, I hope modeartes win, but right now the extremists have the upper hand.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman


I never denied the lackwana suspects were citizens, in fact they are, but they didnt commit any terrorist activities, so I wouldnt call them terrorists, cause they dont fit the term. They are terrorist suspects.

YES YOU DID!:

Ilya ""well they werent american, most were here on student visas, and many were german foreign exchange students.""

Great stuff! all wrong... The Ilya Legend continues ..

You better start going for charm or intelligence... you won't do it on looks

http://www.lehigh.edu/~inchm/people/class2003/furman.jpg

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by abu afak
Ilya ""well they werent american, most were here on student visas, and many were german foreign exchange students.""

Great stuff! all wrong... The Ilya Legend continues ..

You better start going for charm or intelligence... you won't do it on looks

http://www.lehigh.edu/~inchm/people/class2003/furman.jpg

HaHa, I graducated a while back. I have never swum in my life or majored in chemical engineering. Good Job.

And this

Ilya ""well they werent american, most were here on student visas, and many were german foreign exchange students.""

Is 100% correct.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
Let me put it around for you, there are just as many muslims as jews in the US are the muslims fighting the christians in the US?

Ever heard of the World Trade Center? 1993, AND 9/11

Or more recently busts, Upstate NY, Detroit, and Portland Oregon.

Unbelievable.

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by abu afak
Ever heard of the World Trade Center? 1993, AND 9/11

Or more recently busts, Upstate NY, Detroit, and Portland Oregon.

Unbelievable.

Thats Al Queda isnt it? :confused:

[abu afak]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
well they werent american, most were here on student visas, and many were german foreign exchange students. Originally posted by IlyaFurman


[i]I never denied the lackwana suspects were citizens, in fact they are, but they didnt commit any terrorist activities, so I wouldnt call them terrorists, cause they dont fit the term. They are terrorist suspects. [/B] Originally posted by IlyaFurman

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

This is classic Stuff Kid... Psychiatrist please!

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
well they werent american, most were here on student visas, and many were german foreign exchange students.

This was about the 9/11 Hijackers. LOL


Originally posted by IlyaFurman
I never denied the lackwana suspects were citizens, in fact they are, but they didnt commit any terrorist activities, so I wouldnt call them terrorists, cause they dont fit the term. They are terrorist suspects.

And this was about the lackwana suspects.


:confused: :rolleyes:

[unbiased]

Hi ibrodsky,

Good points.

I am of the belief that a divine being is "all knowing" AND "all loving".
Neither christian/catholic nor muslim texts ascribe to that sentiment...both say accept their messiah or die.

The difference is that as you said, most christians/catholics see their religion as suggestions which can be adapted to modern life, whereas most muslims see their text as perfection that cannot and will not ever change, and should be followed exactly.

It does not change the fact that Islam denounces people who target civilians - regardless of all the other hateful language - it clearly denounces targeting civilians of any religion.
Don't forget that fact.

Now, many muslims readily ignore that fact and do support targeting civilians - that does not make the religion any worse - it just makes the followers worse.

And you are 100% correct - my interpretation does NOT matter - it is how the muslims interpret their religion (correct or not) that matters.

But why are you so opposed to people showing them the true way of their religion?
Are you opposed to people pointing out to them that their religion states that civilians should not be targeted?

Talk to you later,
Unbiased


Originally posted by ibrodsky


The bottom line: your interpretation of Islam doesn't really matter. It's how Muslims interpret their religion that counts.

[unbiased]

Ezra,

1) ALL Islamic authorities do NOT agree that suicide bombing is ok.
You are making that up.
Even arafat has publically denounced them.
Most muslim nations condemned the attack on the world trade center.
Do some support it, sure - there are crazies in every group.

Ezra, you ask me these questions as if what I said were not true.
There is no IF the quo'ran states not to target civilians - it SPECIFIALLY states that - very clear.

So IF muslims ignore that - well...they will have to answer for their sins according to their religion.

And I never said that there were not alot of crazy people who support osama and cheer when children are murdered in cold blood...all I did was state what the religion states - nothing more.
If Muslims want to sin, that is up to them - I don't answer for them.

Unbiased



Originally posted by Ezra
Ok ok, Osama Bin Laden is a bad guy.

So why did "normal" Muslims cheered in the street for the 9/11 events?
Why is Osama Bin Laden considered hero among 99% of Muslims?
If Koraan prohibits killing innocent why all Islamic authorities agreed that suicide bombing is ok?
If Osama Bin Laden doesn't represent the majority of Muslims, why is all Muslims praising him in all their chat forums?

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by unbiased

But why are you so opposed to people showing them the true way of their religion?
Are you opposed to people pointing out to them that their religion states that civilians should not be targeted?


I never said I was opposed to anyone showing Moslems that their religion prohibits terrorism.

My point is that it is not clear to many Muslims that Islam absolutely prohibits terrorism, and this is why so many Muslims don't accept your argument.

Islam apparently contains some contradictions: it is wrong to harm innocent civilians, but those who don't accept Islam will go to Hell, and the only unpardonable sin for a Moslem is to ascribe a "partner" to Allah.

Thus, the prohibition against killing civilians is somewhat fragile, and if a Muslim can convince him/herself that the intended victims are not really "innocent civilians," then anything goes.

Many Palestnian mass murderers, for example, believe that all Jews in an around Israel are guilty and are legitimate targets. I suppose the mentality of the Sbarro Pizza shop bomber was "These 3-year Jews will grow up to be full-fledged "occupiers" so killing them now before they grow up is just part of Jihad."

[unbiased]

Hi ibrodsky,

Again, good points.

But the prohibition against murdering civilians is not fragile except in the minds of the ignorant and the evil.

The Islamic texts clearly state in multiple sections that civilians are not to be targeted.
There is nothing that states that a muslim should go out and take it upon himself to murder a civilian - it does not exist.

Don't the americans have laws that state that murderers can be murdered for their crime?
Now, unless I am mistaken just because there are laws that say the government can execute a criminal, does not give anyone else the right to go up and murder the person who is about to get executed, right?
It is the same thing.

The problem is that there are a number of ignorant and hateful Muslims who will ignore their religion and kill 3 year old children supposedly in the name of their religion.
They are transgressors of their religion.

Yes, the particularly evil ones do try to say that everyone associated with a particular government is a combatant and is not a civilian...but once again they are transgressing their religion. Their text even say that they cannot kill the servants of the combatants because they are not themselves combatants - even though they are directly assisting the combatant enemy.

I agree, the many muslims do not realize that their religion states that their terrorism is a sin.
They need to learn - unfortunately there seems to be a paucity of teachers....

Unbiased




Originally posted by ibrodsky
I never said I was opposed to anyone showing Moslems that their religion prohibits terrorism.

My point is that it is not clear to many Muslims that Islam absolutely prohibits terrorism, and this is why so many Muslims don't accept your argument.

Islam apparently contains some contradictions: it is wrong to harm innocent civilians, but those who don't accept Islam will go to Hell, and the only unpardonable sin for a Moslem is to ascribe a "partner" to Allah.

Thus, the prohibition against killing civilians is somewhat fragile, and if a Muslim can convince him/herself that the intended victims are not really "innocent civilians," then anything goes.

Many Palestnian mass murderers, for example, believe that all Jews in an around Israel are guilty and are legitimate targets. I suppose the mentality of the Sbarro Pizza shop bomber was "These 3-year Jews will grow up to be full-fledged "occupiers" so killing them now before they grow up is just part of Jihad."

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by unbiased


The Islamic texts clearly state in multiple sections that civilians are not to be targeted.
There is nothing that states that a muslim should go out and take it upon himself to murder a civilian - it does not exist.

But Islam does contain many statements about jihad. Claims that "jihad" refers to quitting smoking notwithstanding, it's understandable that many Muslims conclude that they are obligated to fight "infidels."

Don't the americans have laws that state that murderers can be murdered for their crime?
Now, unless I am mistaken just because there are laws that say the government can execute a criminal, does not give anyone else the right to go up and murder the person who is about to get executed, right?
It is the same thing.

No unbiased, it is most definitely not the same type of transgression.

You are comparing an unauthorized person killing a person convicted by a jury based on evidence to terrorists randomly killing people they believe (with good reason, I might add) Islam has convicted en masse.

You seem like someone very interested in promoting fairness and understanding. This is why I am mystified that you seem to think it's OK for Islam to condemn non-Muslims but to expect Muslims to refrain from harming non-Muslims.

This aspect of Islam is despicable, just as the Christian belief that all non-Christians will go to Hell is despicable. Fortunately, very few Christians today believe such nonsense.

Islam needs to be modernized, and a big part of that is convincing Muslims that no, it's not clear that Allah considers Muslims to be the only good people on Earth and the rest of humanity to be condemned to Hell for eternity.

The problem is that there are a number of ignorant and hateful Muslims who will ignore their religion and kill 3 year old children supposedly in the name of their religion.
They are transgressors of their religion.

As I've said, that is at best only partly true. They are also taught that Christians and Jews have committed an unpardonable crime -- the only unpardonable crime -- of ascribing a "partner" to Allah.

Yes, the particularly evil ones do try to say that everyone associated with a particular government is a combatant and is not a civilian...but once again they are transgressing their religion. Their text even say that they cannot kill the servants of the combatants because they are not themselves combatants - even though they are directly assisting the combatant enemy.

I hate to break this news to you, but the holy writings of Islam and other religions contain contradictions. So what's important is not what ancient texts say, but how they are interpreted. Some Muslims choose to emphasize peace and interpret Islam in a modern way. But many Muslims choose to emphasize jihad and see that Islam (like Christianity) has a history of fighting and bloodletting.

You can't say Islam is inherently one or the other for several reasons. The most obvious is that like Judaism and Christianity it is based on ancient texts that contain material that has been mistranslated over time, that may have been corrupted (miscopied) over time, and that was written by humans who are prone to mistakes and contradictions.

The basic problem IMO is when a religion condemns everyone who is not a follower of that religion. This naturally leads to (at best) smugness and (at worst) hatred of other groups. Unless leading figures within a religion convince most followers that such an attitude is wrong, it is no surprise when evil results.

The only way to convince Muslims not to kill non-Muslims is to convince them that no religion is perfect, that no religion created over 1,000 years ago should be taken 100% literally, and that no people can any longer afford to believe that their religion will rule the world.

[unbiased]

Hi ibrodsky,

1)I don't think it "fair" that Islam calls for the death of non-muslims (on judgement day).
As I stated earilier I am one that believes a divine being to be "all loving" and "all knowing."

As I stated earlier, just because a religion condemns someone, that does not mean that you have to go out and kill them.
You have rebuked by analogy (about the criminal justice system and murdering a convicted murderer) but it is actually quite accurate.
The point being that just because a religion condemns someone, that is not a free ticket to mass murder their children.
The quo'ran even says that if in the last second of life that a person converts to Islam, that they will be saved.

Real muslims know that it is up to their divine being to make the decisions about who can and cannot be killed - unless that person is directly attacking them.

2) There is no contradiction in the quo'ran with regards to targeting civilians for murder. To be a contradiction there would need to be a statement that says civilians should be murdered. While there are generalized statements saying non-believers will be killed (on judgement day), there is no direct statement that civilians SHOULD be killed by muslims.

3) You sound like you are asking muslims to give up their faith, or to not follow their religion so devoutly - I would settle for them simply following their religion CORRECTLY - which (seemingly) not too many of them do. If they did that, then there would be no muslims performing terrorism.

Talk to you later,
Unbiased




Originally posted by ibrodsky
But Islam does contain many statements about jihad. Claims that "jihad" refers to quitting smoking notwithstanding, it's understandable that many Muslims conclude that they are obligated to fight "infidels."



No unbiased, it is most definitely not the same type of transgression.

You are comparing an unauthorized person killing a person convicted by a jury based on evidence to terrorists randomly killing people they believe (with good reason, I might add) Islam has convicted en masse.

You seem like someone very interested in promoting fairness and understanding. This is why I am mystified that you seem to think it's OK for Islam to condemn non-Muslims but to expect Muslims to refrain from harming non-Muslims.

This aspect of Islam is despicable, just as the Christian belief that all non-Christians will go to Hell is despicable. Fortunately, very few Christians today believe such nonsense.

Islam needs to be modernized, and a big part of that is convincing Muslims that no, it's not clear that Allah considers Muslims to be the only good people on Earth and the rest of humanity to be condemned to Hell for eternity.



As I've said, that is at best only partly true. They are also taught that Christians and Jews have committed an unpardonable crime -- the only unpardonable crime -- of ascribing a "partner" to Allah.



I hate to break this news to you, but the holy writings of Islam and other religions contain contradictions. So what's important is not what ancient texts say, but how they are interpreted. Some Muslims choose to emphasize peace and interpret Islam in a modern way. But many Muslims choose to emphasize jihad and see that Islam (like Christianity) has a history of fighting and bloodletting.

You can't say Islam is inherently one or the other for several reasons. The most obvious is that like Judaism and Christianity it is based on ancient texts that contain material that has been mistranslated over time, that may have been corrupted (miscopied) over time, and that was written by humans who are prone to mistakes and contradictions.

The basic problem IMO is when a religion condemns everyone who is not a follower of that religion. This naturally leads to (at best) smugness and (at worst) hatred of other groups. Unless leading figures within a religion convince most followers that such an attitude is wrong, it is no surprise when evil results.

The only way to convince Muslims not to kill non-Muslims is to convince them that no religion is perfect, that no religion created over 1,000 years ago should be taken 100% literally, and that no people can any longer afford to believe that their religion will rule the world.

[reason]

Islam does not contain contradictions about killing people. It clearly says that Jews and christians could go to heaven . I dont know where you got that from , but if you will provide some verses I would be happy to translate.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by unbiased
3) You sound like you are asking muslims to give up their faith, or to not follow their religion so devoutly - I would settle for them simply following their religion CORRECTLY - which (seemingly) not too many of them do. If they did that, then there would be no muslims performing terrorism.



In theory, you are correct.

In practice, there are several predominantly Muslim countries that support terrorism. The Taliban created "religious police" who drove 50% of the population off the street (women) and barred them from education and work (except in hospitals). The Taliban were supported by Pakistan, a country renowned for its religious schools. What little opposition to the Taliban existed in the Muslim world was mainly due to sectarianism.

I agree that showing Muslims their own religion opposes terrorism is a good thing -- if for no other reason than it promotes a more modern and civilized interpretation.

But given the many Muslims who interpret it differently, I'm not sure it is so cut and dry. Clearly the bad guys find what they believe is vindication for their actions in Islam.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
In theory, you are correct.

In practice, there are several predominantly Muslim countries that support terrorism. The Taliban created "religious police" who drove 50% of the population off the street (women) and barred them from education and work (except in hospitals). The Taliban were supported by Pakistan, a country renowned for its religious schools. What little opposition to the Taliban existed in the Muslim world was mainly due to sectarianism.
.

In regards Practice and observance, There's not a whole lot of difference between the Taliban and the Saudis.. and many of Pakistan's 'reknowned religous schools' were financed by the Saudis.

In fact, I feel a new string coming on... tomorrow... re the Saudis

[unbiased]

Hello,

Unfortunately I have come across a part of the muslim texts which may support your argument about Islam supporting terrorism:

"And if you punish (your enemy) , then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted." (An Nahl, 126)

AND

"And those who, when an oppressive wrong is done to them, they take revenge. The recompense for an evil is an evil the like thereof …… indeed, whosoever takes revenge after he has suffered wrong, for such there is no way (or blame) against them. The way (or blame) is only against those who oppress men and wrongly rebel in the earth, … ." (Ash Shûra, 39 – 42 )

AND

"Verily, we did send down the Torah …. The rabbis and the priests … (were) … entrusted (with) the protection of Allah's book. … . And we ordained therein for them 'life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal' ." (Al Mâídah, 44 – 45 [incomplete]) "

-------
So, if a muslim believes that the west is intentionally killing muslim civilians (say, perhaps like in iraq), than it would seem by these quotes that a muslim is then expected to punish the west by intentionally killing their civilians. This is the logic that osama is using.

This logic is clear and irrefutable, however, it then also opens up the discussion of the fact that it directly contradicts other parts of the muslim holy texts that specifically prohibit the intentional murder of civilians. Most muslims claim that the quo'ran is a perfect text with no contradictions ever...yet this seems to be a major one...one which make end up destroying the planet.

Unbiased



[i]Originally posted by abu afak
.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by unbiased
Hello,

Unfortunately I have come across a part of the muslim texts which may support your argument about Islam supporting terrorism:

...This logic is clear and irrefutable, however, it then also opens up the discussion of the fact that it directly contradicts other parts of the muslim holy texts that specifically prohibit the intentional murder of civilians. Most muslims claim that the quo'ran is a perfect text with no contradictions ever...yet this seems to be a major one...one which make end up destroying the planet.

Unbiased

Good work, unbiased.

However, your earlier statements were not all wrong. Islam is a religion and like all religions must be interpreted. The majority of Muslims do not follow Osama bin Laden.

So the real problem is that Islam must be modernized so that the vast majority of Muslims can be clear in their understanding that there is no room in Islam for terrorism.

As Daniel Pipes points out, Islamists are not what most people think. They are not recruited from the poorest Muslims -- they are recruited from the most privileged. And though they talk Islamic fundamentalism, they are fakes: before the WTC massacre several of the hijackers visited a string of sex clubs. I guess they were warming up for the 72 virgins...

What we have to do is convince the Muslim world that 1) religion is a personal choice and does not provide all answers for all possible questions, and 2) that it is time to modernize Islam to be compatible with human rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, democracy and separation of church and state, and due process with punishments that fit the crime.

In the meantime, we must fight and defeat terrorist mass murderers, leaving no doubt that their actions are evil, inexcusable for any reason, and not to be tolerated by civilized people.

[reason]

Originally posted by unbiased
Hello,

Unfortunately I have come across a part of the muslim texts which may support your argument about Islam supporting terrorism:

"And if you punish (your enemy) , then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted." (An Nahl, 126)

AND

"And those who, when an oppressive wrong is done to them, they take revenge. The recompense for an evil is an evil the like thereof …… indeed, whosoever takes revenge after he has suffered wrong, for such there is no way (or blame) against them. The way (or blame) is only against those who oppress men and wrongly rebel in the earth, … ." (Ash Shûra, 39 – 42 [incomplete])

AND

"Verily, we did send down the Torah …. The rabbis and the priests … (were) … entrusted (with) the protection of Allah's book. … . And we ordained therein for them 'life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal' ." (Al Mâídah, 44 – 45 [incomplete]) "

-------
So, if a muslim believes that the west is intentionally killing muslim civilians (say, perhaps like in iraq), than it would seem by these quotes that a muslim is then expected to punish the west by intentionally killing their civilians. This is the logic that osama is using.

This logic is clear and irrefutable, however, it then also opens up the discussion of the fact that it directly contradicts other parts of the muslim holy texts that specifically prohibit the intentional murder of civilians. Most muslims claim that the quo'ran is a perfect text with no contradictions ever...yet this seems to be a major one...one which make end up destroying the planet.

Unbiased

Unbiased it dissapoints me that you would take half the verse and leave the rest.

[16:124] The Sabbath was decreed only for those who ended up disputing it (Jews & Christians). Your Lord is the One who will judge them on the Day of Resurrection regarding their disputes.

[16:125] You shall invite to the path of your Lord with wisdom and kind enlightenment, and debate with them in the best possible manner. Your Lord knows best who has strayed from His path, and He knows best who are the guided ones.


[16:126] And if you punish, you shall inflict an equivalent punishment. But if you resort to patience (instead of revenge), it would be better for the patient ones.

[16:127] You shall resort to patience - and your patience is attainable only with GOD's help . Do not grieve over them, and do not be annoyed by their schemes.

I fail to see how this justifies terrorism

[42:39] When gross injustice befalls them, they stand up for their rights.

[42:40] Although the just requital for an injustice is an equivalent retribution, those who pardon and maintain righteousness are rewarded by GOD. He does not love the unjust.

[42:41] Certainly, those who stand up for their rights, when injustice befalls them, are not committing any error.

[42:42] The wrong ones are those who treat the people unjustly, and resort to aggression without provocation. These have incurred a painful retribution.

These are Alshura 30-42 I dont know where you got that verse.And how is this inciting terrorism?

[5:44] We have sent down the Torah, containing guidance and light. Ruling in accordance with it were the Jewish prophets, as well as the rabbis and the priests, as dictated to them in GOD's scripture, and as witnessed by them. Therefore, do not reverence human beings; you shall reverence Me instead. And do not trade away My revelations for a cheap price. Those who do not rule in accordance with GOD's revelations are the disbelievers

[5:45] And we decreed for them in it that: the life for the life, the eye for the eye, the nose for the nose, the ear for the ear, the tooth for the tooth, and an equivalent injury for any injury. If one forfeits what is due to him as a charity, it will atone for his sins. Those who do not rule in accordance with GOD's revelations are the unjust.

And this incites terrorism HOW????

This religion is peaceful and please unbiased write the whole verse, beacuse even if you think its unrelated it always ties up in the end.

If you think these verses incite terrorism, then the jewish scriptures do too, because an eye for an eye is also in jewish scripture.

[Mediocrates]

'Eye for an eye' in the mish patim or civil code is generally interpreted to mean "let the punishment fit the crime" more or less. Remember that 'Vengence is mine, sayeth the Lord" that is, revenge is not ethically part of human behavior. At least that's what the mainstream thoughts on that are. I'm sure that crackpots see it differently.

[unbiased]

Hi reason,

Someone else actually pointed out those quotes to me...a muslim no less.

I took them on good faith that they were taken in the appropriate context, but it seems from what you are saying, that they were indeed taken out of context.

I never said that it incites terrorism.
All I said is that if somone lives by the "eye for an eye" principle and feels that their religion supports it, then one could easily use those words to justify killing civilians.
That is, in fact, exactly what osama is doing.

Unbiased

Originally posted by reason
Unbiased it dissapoints me that you would take half the verse and leave the rest.

[16:124] The Sabbath was decreed only for those who ended up disputing it (Jews & Christians). Your Lord is the One who will judge them on the Day of Resurrection regarding their disputes.

[16:125] You shall invite to the path of your Lord with wisdom and kind enlightenment, and debate with them in the best possible manner. Your Lord knows best who has strayed from His path, and He knows best who are the guided ones.


[16:126] And if you punish, you shall inflict an equivalent punishment. But if you resort to patience (instead of revenge), it would be better for the patient ones.

[16:127] You shall resort to patience - and your patience is attainable only with GOD's help . Do not grieve over them, and do not be annoyed by their schemes.

I fail to see how this justifies terrorism

[42:39] When gross injustice befalls them, they stand up for their rights.

[42:40] Although the just requital for an injustice is an equivalent retribution, those who pardon and maintain righteousness are rewarded by GOD. He does not love the unjust.

[42:41] Certainly, those who stand up for their rights, when injustice befalls them, are not committing any error.

[42:42] The wrong ones are those who treat the people unjustly, and resort to aggression without provocation. These have incurred a painful retribution.

These are Alshura 30-42 I dont know where you got that verse.And how is this inciting terrorism?

[5:44] We have sent down the Torah, containing guidance and light. Ruling in accordance with it were the Jewish prophets, as well as the rabbis and the priests, as dictated to them in GOD's scripture, and as witnessed by them. Therefore, do not reverence human beings; you shall reverence Me instead. And do not trade away My revelations for a cheap price. Those who do not rule in accordance with GOD's revelations are the disbelievers

[5:45] And we decreed for them in it that: the life for the life, the eye for the eye, the nose for the nose, the ear for the ear, the tooth for the tooth, and an equivalent injury for any injury. If one forfeits what is due to him as a charity, it will atone for his sins. Those who do not rule in accordance with GOD's revelations are the unjust.

And this incites terrorism HOW????

This religion is peaceful and please unbiased write the whole verse, beacuse even if you think its unrelated it always ties up in the end.

If you think these verses incite terrorism, then the jewish scriptures do too, because an eye for an eye is also in jewish scripture.

[Communication]

http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/dhimma.html

[Communication]

See also: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Jews_in_Arab_lands_(gen).html

[reason]

Originally posted by unbiased
Hi reason,

Someone else actually pointed out those quotes to me...a muslim no less.

I took them on good faith that they were taken in the appropriate context, but it seems from what you are saying, that they were indeed taken out of context.

I never said that it incites terrorism.
All I said is that if somone lives by the "eye for an eye" principle and feels that their religion supports it, then one could easily use those words to justify killing civilians.
That is, in fact, exactly what osama is doing.

Unbiased

Unbiased, killing civilians is not an eye for an eye. There is another verse that regulates punishment. I dont recall the exact words but it means that I cant exact my revenge on anybody else but the person who harmed me.

For example if a person killed my son, I CANT kill his son, but I can kill HIM. But patience is even better.

Killing civilians who have nothing to do with the situation is wrong, and that verse dosnt support killing them.

[Mediocrates]

Allow me to interrupt. The piece of the civil code or Mish Patim frequently quoted as an 'eye for an eye' has nothing to do with retribution or revenge.

Let me repeat that because it bears repeating. It has nothing to do with vengence. It has to do with notion that justice is nothing without equity. It means "making the punishment fit the crime" except without W. S. Gilbert's irony.

There is no dimension of human revenge or retribution to justice in Judaism. The only retribution in the Torah is divine, miraculous.

An "eye for an eye" means that if your dog kills my ox then your dog is forfeit or killed. If you damage my property then you must compensated me out of your property. But coupled very closely to this is the notion of mercy. One does not maim, cripple, ever. Not ever. And even black letter law for capital punishment in Torah is so restrictive so as to be practically useless as a punishment. The Torah shows us that the cohesion of the community is more important than the individual application of the civil code in the abstract. Since it could destroy a small community to have to enforce a death sentence it is almost never done. Moreover a convicted criminal can never be crippled, maimed or mutilated under the civil code because simply put, it's inhumanly barbaric.

That's basic Torah code from the Mish Patim. Anything else is a mistaken and derivative interpretation of it.

[andak01]

Clue me in a little. I know what the Torah is, but not the Mish Patim.

Americans don't maim anyone either. Instead they lock prisoners away from their families and their livelihood for years at a time where they are subject to rape and even murder. This humane system does such a complete job of rehabilitating that almost 1/3rd of Americans have experienced a theft. People live behind bars in the cities and are afraid to go out at night and all consumers pay the price for survellance cameras and guards. In fact, the punishment for theft in America falls largely on the shoulders of the victims. I myself have had my car stolen twice and my appartment burglarized. I also was hospitalized by an attack by a homeless person while I was living in New York. I have never met anyone ever who was a victim of crime in Saudi Arabia. One man, a pilgrim in Mecca left his suitcase in a public place. Due to the crowds and his schedule, he was unable to return for almost two days. It was untouched after having been passed by tens or even hundreds of thousands of other people. I have plenty bad to say about their form of Sharia, but if we go there expecting to find a country without hands, we find instead a country devoid of theft and victims of theft.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by andak01
Clue me in a little. I know what the Torah is, but not the Mish Patim.


That's the civil law. Much of it is articulated in the Torah, particularly in Deuteronomy. It has to do with the specific laws that apply to people and communities civilly instead of religious law.

Instead they lock prisoners away from their families and their livelihood for years at a time where they are subject to rape and even murder.

1 out of three, even more, is in jail for nonviolent drug charges. That to me is a crime.

People live behind bars in the cities and are afraid to go out at night and all consumers pay the price for survellance cameras and guards.

Go to the UK for intrusive surveillance. I think there's something like 5 million cameras in operation. But point taken.

I myself have had my car stolen twice and my appartment burglarized. I also was hospitalized by an attack by a homeless person while I was living in New York.

I'm sorry for that. I grew up in NYC and lived there 36 years including an 8 year stint in a neighborhood calls Hells Kitchen. I have seen my share of violent crime and its aftermath. I believe though that that is pretty much a fact of life in most large cities.

I have never met anyone ever who was a victim of crime in Saudi Arabia. One man, a pilgrim in Mecca left his suitcase in a public place. Due to the crowds and his schedule, he was unable to return for almost two days. It was untouched after having been passed by tens or even hundreds of thousands of other people.

"He made the trains run on time."

Seriously you could sleep on the sidewalks of Madrid during the time of Franco.

Similarly most drug violations in Maylasia are capital offences. Tends to keep the prison population down one way or the other.

This is a common complaint that the Arab world has against the west: degraded, lax, criminal and so on. We are transparent so it's easy to make that claim. The reverse is not so true. For example it's unknown what the absolute level of what I would call domestic violence is in the KSA.

[andak01]

Hell's Kitchen, I once rode in a taxi past someone who had just been gunned down on a busy street corner. We were glad to get Rudi in office.

Rudi by the way was also accused of strong armed tactics although he was no Franco.

My point in the previous post is that Sharia may be something that people here abhore, but it's not what you think it is. If you really require four witnesses to a crime like theft and distinguish between those who are stealing for food or to provide for their families and those who steal from greed, there aren't many people left being punished. But given that the punishment is so horrible, nobody wants to be punished in that way. Punishment in a vacuum where there is no effect is pure sadism. I have never yet seen an article that says in America that people are punished with rape and death. We just don't see it that way. But that is the final effect for some. The second advantage to punishing very few people is that there are less innocent people being punished. Every legal system will punish some innocent people. Look at what happened in Indiana (as I recall it was Indiana) with the recently overturned death sentences.

I'd like to be very clear on two points. First of all, I would never call for Sharia law here (not that anyone would listen). While the Islamic Sunnah enjoins us to struggle against oppression, it specifically states that we should follow any government that does not forbid us from prayer. If one wanted to say that that is the reason that a Saddam is allowed to stay in power, then one would also have to admit that we are clearly not a threat to the American Government (those of us who follow the Sunnah). Thus Sharia is not a requirement for Muslims except in those cases where a theocratic government has been established.

Second point, I don't believe that true Sharia is being practiced anywhere in the world. The human rights issues that are being touted as examples of Sharia's barbarity would not have existed in the time of Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

For example, a woman in Pakistan sentenced to stoning for rape.
Muhammad (S) in the only such case I could find had the rapist executed and only required the witness of the woman.

The woman sentenced to stoning in Nigeria.
They have never produced the required witnesses. Further, the man should be punished equal to the woman if they did. Further, the ruling class and the wealthy should have equal fear of punishment under the law as the poor. Even Jesus (SAW) in the book of Mathew asks the Pharisees who witnessed the woman committing adultry. This leads me to the conclusion that the crime of adultry is not at issue as much as the blatant disregard for societal norms. Committing a sex act in public, outside of marriage ammounts to treason in an Islamic state. The universal penalty for treason is death.

I haven't found even one case in history where there were the required four witnesses to insertion. Sheikh Wahhab himself (founder of the group known as Wahhabbis) required a woman to confess to him on three separate occasions before he allowed her to be stoned.

The so-called Zini laws of Pakistan are a remnant of the mix of Hindu and Islam invented by Akhbar the Mughal to maintain control over his people. We even find Pakistani Muslims killing each other for marrying outside of cast. These laws should be abolished immediately. There is a Muslim women's rights group in Malaysia that is protesting the present day interpretation of Sharia there. They have found upon researching the Sunnah that the original interpretation was much more favorable to women. I strongly believe that is the case.

[Communication]

"Jerusalem," my grandfather would say, weeping, weeping with his whole being. "Jerusalem," my Master would say, laughing, laughing with his whole being.

In a book whoose pages were torn and yellowed I had seen a drawing of an immensely high wall, before which a few melancholy worshippers stood praying. This is Jerusalem, I was told. From then on I was convinced the place could be found only in books-and that was where it should be sought.

Books of prayers, books of legends. Promises and memories. Long ago and next year. David and the Messiah. Great nostalgia, true expectation. Exile and homecoming. Point of departure and climax. Jewish history would not be Jewish- would not be at all- without this city, the most Jewish of all, the most universal as well.

The child in me loved it more than he loved his native town. I belonged to it, I roamed its alleys, I lost myself in its shadows. And my own mood reflected its successsive glories and desolation.

A custom: At meal's end one must make sure to remove the knife from the table before reciting the customary blessing evoking the Jew's yearning for Jerusalem. Why? Because the table symbolizes the alter from which all murdersous tools must be removed. And also, under the influence of longing and sorrow, the Jew might succumb to the impulse of plunging the knife into his heart, better not expose himself to such temptation.

A memory: During Passover, Shavuoth and Succoth, a Talmudic legend tells us, the pilgrims to the Temple never found space lacking. People converged there from every corner of the land, and "nobody protested that they were cramped," a miracle that never occurred at our rabbi's court, which was always packed. And did it really occur in Jerusalem? No, said the emancipated wits who did not believe in miracles. But then what? Did they dare contradict the Talmud? Not at all. Jerusalem too was overcrowded, stifling, they said, only...no one complained, no one protested. Their reasoning was poor; they failed to understand therein lay the miracle: the miracle of no complaining Jews.

Elie Wiesel, "A Jew Today"