Islam's Threat to the West

[L@mplighterM]

*

[Belgium@EU]

Just a bunch of extremists who wrote this article. I wouldn't pay that much attention to it.

The problem with extremists is that they think that what stands in the Bible or the Koran should be interpreted literally. You've got Muslim, but also Jewis extremists. After all, the Holy land, has nothing to do with fighting for a small piece of desert, it's about 'A' (not THE) holy land, where everybody can leave in peace (paradise after death). The fact that Jesus lived in Israel was only coincidence.

[ardahan]

It is always dangerous to lean about a philosophy by morally bancrupt interpretors .
The Nazis used such means to defame Judaism and Goebbels was a master in distorting the truth by taking Talmud lines out of the context, out of historical significance and backround to present Jews as "the venom of the world".
This is still a mean used by anti-Semits to defame Judaism.
in this aspect how sad that the old Nazi methods are now successfully applied to other belief systems and that this will obviously continue: today it is islam, tomorrow it may be Hinduism, what remains is hate, bigotry, intolerance.
For those who prefer to look at results and do not care about reasons, prefer to swallow pseudo-evidence , than look at the root of todays problems , such articles are nothing but pure redemption and they will achieve their main goal by continuing one reason for the situation today: rejection of the East by the West.
Why is the formerly much more advanced Muslim world that backward today and how does it come that the former backward Western (=Christian World) is such advanced?
There are a lot of reasons, but two main reasons can be workd out:
a) Leaving the predominant philosophy of rationalism in the Muslim world in favour of irrationality spread into the Muslim world after the first millenium when Sufi traditions became state ideology.
b) Imperialism and their exploition and later rejection of the East/Islam.
So a part of todays problem was a creation of the West itself, just as it should be reminded that the creature Bin Laden was a creature of the US first, who later got out of controle and bite the hand of his own master.


Coming to the intentional errors of the article:

="War against the unbeliever is as central a doctrine and practice of Islam as the Virgin birth, the Trinity and Christ’s resurrection are central to Christianity,”=

How fastly is it forgotten that the crusades were a main doctrine within the Catholic church and that hate towards the two "cursed" nations (Turks and Jews) still exist subliminantly as a form of prejudice?

=The Koran includes such wording as defining war as "a religious obligation for the faithful” … =


Wrong , it is obvious that this line alludes to the word "jihad" , which originally means to struggle with onself. Islam is much more bastardised today than any religion due to the irrational sufi traditions still shaping the Islamic world; a struggle with onself was artificially extended to a war against the "unfaithful".


="fight and slay the pagans,” meaning non-Muslims …=

This is simply a lie. The verse is taken out of the context . Pagan or not : only in case of war should pagans be killed, children, women and non-combatants are still excluded. I want to remind that moses executed all Midianites , women and children included (virgins excepted only) and that the Middle East some thousand years ago was not a place where human rights were hold above all scales. This should not be extended until today, extending it means supporting Bin Laden mentality and their actions by giving them a religious "justification", they do not have. A pagan is a pagan is nnot a non-Muslim. The archaic term "pagan" was used for idolators and not monotheists like Christians and Jews. Proof: the Koran forbids strictly marriage with idolators but allows marriage of Muslims with Christians and Jews. Both are considered as fellow monotheists .


= "the punishment of those who wage war against God and his Apostle.”=

I think this is hardly to be taken as something to proof that Islam is evil: every nation, people etc. against which war is waged, fight against their enemies and kil them. This is nothing but disgusting human nature , not an invention of "evil Islam".


=The apostle Mohammed said, ‘Kill any Jew that falls into your power.’ Thereupon Muhayyisa leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him.” =


a) Hadith are rejected by every non political scholar and are a mean
aa) contradicting the Koran
bb) man made and therefore a source of falsification
cc) contradicting again the koranic verse that Muslims can marry among non -Muslims: a Muslim who marries a Jewish woman get´s her "under his controle" in a patriarchaic society. This means that he had to kill his wife according to the hadith , which does not make any distinguish among jews.

I agree: Islamic terror is one of the greatest trouble sources in the world.
But the examples of Chechnya and Bosnia show that Islamic terror is not the source of "trouble" alone. It is more than significant that the world prefered to close it´s eyes to this but that it is targetting now on a religious group of 1.5 billion people, which is NOT homogen in their versions of Islam.
It is significant that greater troubles like WWI (Christianity was made a tool within this imperilaist war too), WWII and the Jewish Holocaust ( we should consider that hitler took Lutheran protestantism as an inspiration for the destruction of the Jewish nation in "Mein Kampf" suddenly became the "victim" of a wide spread Western "Amnesia". If a philosophy is made a tool for violation , it is not the guilt of the philosophy but of the individual who misuses it.
We should be objective in our judgement concerning Judaism, Christianity and even Islam.
That a destruction of 1.5 billion Muslims is not possible , there is one way only to stop the abuse of Islam and it is not rejection and smearing of it, which has the contra effect, but to support enlightement and secularist movements within the Muslim world.
A "Clash of Civilisation" scenario from the West means more rejection, more humiliation for the East and therefore more radical activity from that place.
The world can only become a better place, if Islam is banned into privacy and taken out of public life, just as it happened in the Christian world too and rescued it from abuse of Christianity for the political purposes of some leaders without any scruples or human decency.

regards

[Moon]

Originally posted by Belgium@EU
You've got Muslim, but also Jewis extremists.
You've got water in the sea, but also in deserts...

[ibrodsky]

While I agree that religions are subject to interpretation, and "Freedom Congress" may be too sweeping in its condemnation, I think it is unwise to completely dismiss some concerns.

One thing we need to come to grips with is that most (though not all) of the terrorism in the world today is committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. Militant Islam appears to be more than just a tiny group of extremists. A recent poll showed that a very large minority of Muslims feel the WTC attack was justified.

My point is that while Islam may not require followers to be terrorists, Muslims leaders seem to spend more time deflecting criticism than trying to energize good Muslims to oppose terrorism.

To wit, if the best they can come up with is "Of course, we condemn terrorist attacks, but you have to understand they are a desperate response to..." then one has to face the fact that there is a rather significant tolerance for terrorist crimes within current day Islam.

If Islam abhors terrorism, than Muslims should do more to stop others who claim to be Muslims from committing such crimes.

What if the majority of Islamic leaders said something like this: "While we feel that Palestinians have a just cause, we cannot support their use of unjust means. Therefore, we must withhold our support for the Palestinians until they stop killing innocent civilians"?

Two conclusions seem warranted:

1. Islam rejects many key Western norms such as the idea that religion's sphere of influence should be limited to spiritual matters (hence, they do not believe in separation of church and state, which in the West is believed to be the cornerstone to a free and open society).

2. Islam is apparently not sufficiently clear that terrorism is immoral. More Muslim clerics and commentators need to speak out against (rather than for) terrorism.

[ardahan]

=One thing we need to come to grips with is that most (though not all) of the terrorism in the world today is committed by Muslims in the name of Islam.=

We know that there are still important non-Muslim terror groups around the world but it is true that the most radical and dangerous ones are "Islamic". We have to take into consideration that almost all terror groups used to be "leftist" or at least named themselves leftist (even if their concerns were ultra national in some cases, if not racist) from the seventies to the nineties. With the (unfortunately) break down of the socialist ideology, those groups lost their ideological backround. "Islamic" terror replaced their place. I again want to remind that America and many European nations like Germany , France Belgium either created (so did the USA in the case of Bin Laden) or supported Islamic terror. Every single German knows that certain universities are the "castles" of Islamic terror, but nothing happens , the so called "Kaplan" group declared their "caliphate" and Islamic nation in the heart of Cologne. This group received for years Al Qaida money and it was known to German Verfassungsschutz, but again nothing happened.
The increase of terror from the Islamic world was predictable but instead of suffocating it in the root some Western nations tried to use it for their purposes. I think this is a significant thing to take into consideration, it is even significant that there is still silence about all the state terror committed to Muslims by "Christian" or non-Christian states: Chechnya, Bosnia, China etc.


=Militant Islam appears to be more than just a tiny group of extremists. A recent poll showed that a very large minority of Muslims feel the WTC attack was justified.=


Yes, it is quite possible that this is indeed so, but looking at results does not change anything. The reasons for such human reaction have to be focused on. Why do (by far not all but) many Muslims support or agree to terror attacks , although it is according to their religion sinful and forbidden to commit suicide on one hand and killing non-combatants, women and children on the other? I tried to explain it in my former post but again if it was not understood. The Islamic world was very much advanced until the year 1100 and managed to transform a lawless desert society to leaders in science , medicine, arts, while the Christian West was living in almost complete darkness and backwardness. How did it come that the roles changed , that poverty, illiteracy, backwardness is almost associated with Islam, while the West overcame all her problems and succeeded to prosper and develop? Islamic philosophy was shaped by pure rationalism until 1100 . The Islamic scriptures were widely known among the people and eevrybody knew what the Koran had to say. After this date Sufi streams became state ideologies. Sufism drifts away from rationality, it is irrational and contains aspects which expose an antipathy on Koranic teachings, more on science and logic. Sufism brought those strict clerical institutions into Islam and made Islam a matter of un-Islamic interpretations like "Enel Hak" ("God is Man and Man is God"). Koran was taken under the monopoly of clergy and so the decline within the Islamic world started. Today we have millions and millions of illterate, irrational, backward and poor Muslims on the world. While Christinaity which was some centuries ago on the same position as Islam is today got through a reformation and this opened all doors to a movement of enlightement , a great part of the Islamic world never managed their way back to enlightement again. Imperialism made the situation worse: if we have a closer glance on almost all Islamic countries they have almost all the same thing in common: they were somehow exploited by imperialism. A chance to develop can never emerge if one is somebody elses slave. Comming to the poll: in order to make Samuel Huntigton pay some more books, those attempts to prove a non sensical "Clash of Civilisation " theory, one should not unnecessarily play with fire,. May God indeed help us, in case the civilisations really clash.


=My point is that while Islam may not require followers to be terrorists, Muslims leaders seem to spend more time deflecting criticism than trying to energize good Muslims to oppose terrorism.=

Now we are at an improtant link of the root of evil: Islamic clergy.
You pointed at the head of the snake and expect her to preach peace? Muslims MUST get rid off of these "leaders" and I assume that you mean clerics with this.

=To wit, if the best they can come up with is "Of course, we condemn terrorist attacks, but you have to understand they are a desperate response to..." then one has to face the fact that there is a rather significant tolerance for terrorist crimes within current day Islam. =


Yes this "but" is almost a crime. Whatever, whoever and for which purposes ever terrorism is committed, it is a crime against the whole of humanity and it has no justification, neither in Islam, nor anywhere else. The problem is that most of the Muslims do not know their religion or their holy book. It is an other fact that most of the Muslim countries are significantly poor and underdeveloped. poor people are open to religion, if somebody has nothing to hope in this world , all hopes are spend on a better life after life. This is it what is misused. While we see rarely arguments out of the koran to justify terrorist crimes (there are simply none) Hadith are invented, fabricated etc. to present a "justifying basis". This is why no serious scholar takes Hadith into account and more reject them. Hadith have the worth of zero, they cannot set law and are sources which the koran rejects, by declaring itself as the only valid Islamic source. If Muslims were enlightened and their situation became better all those problems would vanish into the air. We should not forget that we are dealing with masses which are party living in the 12. century.


=If Islam abhors terrorism, than Muslims should do more to stop others who claim to be Muslims from committing such crimes.=

Why should drunken Fahd do anything to stop terrorism as long it fits brilliantly into his agenda?
The truth is that there are three major spehres within the Muslim world:
a) the Arabian sphere
b) the Persian sphere
c) the Turkish sphere

Unfortunately do the greatest parts of the Muslim world belong to the Arabian or the Persian sphere. When Turkey started to focus on the West even places like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Muslims in India and Afghanistan , which to secularise was Atatürk´s greatest dream got lost to the other two spheres.
In case Turkey as a country with influential potential on Islamic countries propagates anti-terrorism and explains those parts of the world that it is Islam itelf which outlaws terror, this country becomes a target of "islamic" defamation and subject to terror threats. I do not think that it is a coincidence that Bin Laden extended his "jihad" on Turkey too and hold her equal to Israel and America and that people like Karzai tried everything to refuse entrance to Turkish soldiers in Afghanistan, because this is a threat to change the situation there.
So as long as enllightement and secularisation does not reach the masses and they are illiterate, there is less to hope but if the seeds of secularisation are spread radical changes could take place. In case of PA it is more complex: one one hand do countries like France do exactly the same as those clerics do. German FDP politican Mölleman supported suicide attacks by saying that he had done the same , if he was subjected to the same treatment as the PA ´s are and this not only in his country but (let me quote) "even in the country of the agressor".
Terror is terror , it has no race, no religion , no ethnicity and at least does it have a justification. I hope that in the planned peace conference this summer things will radically change for Palestinians and Israelis and that finally peace will be established.


=Two conclusions seem warranted:
1. Islam rejects many key Western norms such as the idea that religion's sphere of influence should be limited to spiritual matters (hence, they do not believe in separation of church and state, which in the West is believed to be the cornerstone to a free and open society).=


One moment this is a generalisisng and untrue observation: we should not forget that Christianity had a major influence on state policies , befoere states were secularised. Christianity´s power was removed from state issues. It is wrong to say that Islam is not "compatible" with secularism : former USSR republics with Muslim population are all secular as far as I know, Bosnia is secular. Don´t misunderstand but those nations are by far "more secular" than Israel where religious laws still play a big role.

=2. Islam is apparently not sufficiently clear that terrorism is immoral. More Muslim clerics and commentators need to speak out against (rather than for) terrorism.=

As long as you let speak out "clerics" and "commentators" you will always have the feeling that "Islam" does not sufficiently condemn terror, simply because you take un-Islamic people (Islam is against clergy) as authorities on Islam. There are no "authorities " in Islam, Islam is a very individual religion, even if the last 1000 years perverted it in a sheep psychology smelling ideology. The day those clerics will all be silenced and scientist speak as it is wanted in Islam, every single Muslim will condemn terror with all their means.

regards

[L@mplighterM]

Bold posted by ardahan:

As long as you let speak out "clerics" and "commentators" you will always have the feeling that "Islam" does not sufficiently condemn terror, simply because you take un-Islamic people (Islam is against clergy) as authorities on Islam. There are no "authorities " in Islam, Islam is a very individual religion, even if the last 1000 years perverted it in a sheep psychology smelling ideology. The day those clerics will all be silenced and scientist speak as it is wanted in Islam, every single Muslim will condemn terror with all their means.

regards


I certainly don’t see Islam as an individual religion. How can you say that considering the overall status off women?

Do you mean that it’s an individual religion for males and an individual religion for females?

Further I for one don’t believe the day will ever come when every single Muslim will condemn terrorism.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by Belgium@EU
Just a bunch of extremists who wrote this article. I wouldn't pay that much attention to it.



Then do not pay much attention to it.

[ardahan]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM

I certainly don’t see Islam as an individual religion. How can you say that considering the overall status off women?
Do you mean that it’s an individual religion for males and an individual religion for females?
Further I for one don’t believe the day will ever come when every single Muslim will condemn terrorism.


See you started your sentence with "I don´t see...", this indicates an individual view, which has objectively not to be true or right.
You claim that Islam was not an individual religion, which further implies that you have missed to reflect on a point I made in my last post: three major versions of Islam exist:
a) Arab
b) Persian
c) Turkish

In case of the Arab version individuality plays a minor role and it is focused on the mass, so the Arab influenced sphere focuses on the mass too.
The Persian version of Islam once focused on the individual, but this view is abandoned right now and the mass focus began, so did ihe same in there sphere of influence.
The Turkish version of Islam, which is differed in ertain aspects from the official Ottoman version of Islam , focused on the individual. In todays republican Turkey religion is completly individual.
All these three spheres are Muslim, but their thoughts on individuality differs. The Koran speaks of personal responsibility , so that despite the principle that all Muslims are brothers (all Christians are somehwre brothers too, as all Jews are somewhere brothers, the concept of solidarity inside a group is not necessarily bad), every single muslim will be hold personally responsible for personal deeds. A religion which focuses originally on personal responsibility cannot tolerate clergy which decides for a whole group and restricts them in their free will and action.
Mass psychology destroys personal responsibility, so it is anti-Islamic in the core. You are stillentitled about your opinion but it is rather your opinion than something having a basis in pure Islam.

Please elaborate what you mean with the status of women? If the Koran as the sole source of Islam appeals to the "believers" it appeals to both, male and female. Both are equally responsible for their personal deeds.
I admit that many many bad translations of the Koran are existing and that nobody makes the effort to correct them , because some people profit from mistranslations, mainly in the Islamic world itself. I would say that the status of women and man is relatively equal in Islam. Some males perverted the status of women and degraded them to 2. class human beings, but this is not Islamic; just to give an example:
I was arguing on a Malay forum with Malay Muslims about the necessity of a head scarf in Islam and it´s place in the Koran. Although I presented exact translations, made by world wide acknowledged scholars they refused to accept that the koran NEVER spoke about covering the heads or faces of women.
Strange: because all admitted that the Koran did not speak about head coverings , that such a thing was never and nowhere mentioned in the whole Koran, but they regarded it as a nevertheless as a requirement of Islam, because it was added in brackets into translations. Imagine words and codes how to behave are added into Koran translations, which is nothing but attempts to sorrupt the Koran. please keep this example in your head, when you speak about "koranic commandments" without comparing to the original and for this you need Arab skills, if you have them how nice, if not then it requires catiousness just as it requires to understand the Torah, the Talmud etc. People study in order to understand these sources, because it is obviously not that easy.

I do not regard islam as a split personality religion, one part for females only and one part for males only.
Islam is as Judaism or Christinaity a religion for human beings, individuals, men , women, transsexuals, all included.


Maybe I exaggerated with "every single Muslim will condemn terror". There had been enough European communists who were as happy as many Muslims were ,when the savage 11. September attacks took place, but there were even some radical catholics who deeply rejoiced over it.
Yes to speak about every single individual was maybe wrong, but 99.8% will. Again you speak about your own belief in this matter and you are entitled to it, but hope is for human beings, and hoper dies the least. Why should the majority of Muslims not in case they get through an enlightement process, even Christians , who used to burn red haired women some centuries ago learned their lessons. History shows that it is not an as straight process as many believe it is, it is full of progress, declines and many many repeats....
I just want to put forth my last sentence in this post:
as long as the West arrogantly judges and humiliates the East, or call it Muslim world, they themselves will set a reason to radicalisise people.
The head of the big snake is not Afghan Ahmad, Mahmad, Aisha or Fatima the head of the big snake sits in the Middle east, his name is drunken Fahd the patriarch of international terror. Instead of searching for ways to humilite people by defaming a religion, point at the true guilty ones, put them to justice, if justice is something you are interested in. The German people did not only elect Hitler, they backed him with an incredible enthusiasm, neverthtless were the Nazi responsibles trialed, not every single German . This "Islam is this and that", is what keeps Fahd, Bin Laden and co. alive , this is their source to present the West to an illiterate, poor , hopeless audience as "evil enemies".

regards

[L@mplighterM]

I started a sentence with ‘I see’ on purpose because I’m an individual that sees it that way. I have no intention whatsoever of speaking for the masses. I’m not concerned with other’s views on Islam only my own. Admittedly my opinions aren’t etched in stone they can be changed with the right stimuli.

I don’t differentiate between an Islamic Fundamentalist from Arabia, Persia, Turkey or anywhere else in the world. An Islamic Fundamentalist is an Islamic Fundamentalist and that it etched in stone.

You chose to argue that the Koran dictates an equal status for males and the same status for women. I chose to not see it that way.

I chose to view the Koran as a blueprint for world domination and you don’t. Islamic Fundamentalists view the Koran as blueprint of world domination through the murder of Jews and non-believers.

There’s absolutely no way that you or anyone else could change my point of view on that matter it’s my law.

[ardahan]

I already made clear in one of my former posts that evrybody is entitled to his opinion, but I know enough definitions about the word "opinion" due to my studies of the law , to know that an opinion has neither to be true , nor to be right.
If you refuse to accept, if things are put right, then this is your individual choice and I do not see one single sentence of disrespect towards your individuilty that you somehow sound that upset, or is it only my imagination?
I spoke about different versions of Islam in general , when I spoke about the different spheres.
Maybe you can give me some names of Turkish islamic terror groups , who inaccordance to their 65 million fellow Turkish "fundamentalists" and their "fundamentalist" government (so your understanding) are terrorising the world.
You have the right to misunderstand me, to reject my ideas etc., but you have not the right to stuff words in my mouth , I even have not thought about.


regards

[thrud]

Originally posted by ardahan
I already made clear in one of my former posts that evrybody is entitled to his opinion, but I know enough definitions about the word "opinion" due to my studies of the law , to know that an opinion has neither to be true , nor to be right...
I am glad you have made that point clear, but I think there are going to be times when most Islamic societies will not agree with you. Most Islamic nations do not allow the freedom of religion and I think that is enough to show that many Islamic people do not agree with you.

Originally posted by ardahan
=The Koran includes such wording as defining war as "a religious obligation for the faithful??=


Wrong , it is obvious that this line alludes to the word "jihad" , which originally means to struggle with onself. Islam is much more bastardised today than any religion due to the irrational sufi traditions still shaping the Islamic world; a struggle with onself was artificially extended to a war against the "unfaithful"...I really found this remark amazing. Are you saying that either they are all wrong or that it might be possible they are misinterpreting what was said in scripture?

I believe in a spiritual war on the earth. A war for the hearts and minds of the children of G-d. I believe this is a proxy war on the earth between G-d and satan. We as believers are supposed to help people find the truth. I think that is what is meant by the Koran. There is supposed to be spiritual war for the hearts and minds of the people. Battle and war is allusionary.

I take what you say as additional support for my idea that Muhammed actually wanted his followers to go door to door just like the J Witnesses or us Latter-day Saints (Mormons to the people that hate us). I do not think he had in mind the concept of physically killing the enemies of G-d, but to convert them to the truth. I really think the Sufi-traditions have really turned to intent of Muhammed on its head.

Originally posted by ardahan
="fight and slay the pagans,?meaning non-Muslims ?

This is simply a lie. The verse is taken out of the context . Pagan or not : only in case of war should pagans be killed, children, women and non-combatants are still excluded. I want to remind that moses executed all Midianites , women and children included (virgins excepted only) and that the Middle East some thousand years ago was not a place where human rights were hold above all scales...Moses said he was commanded to do this. I believe this to be true. I also believe that if the Israelites had been done as was commanded of them, then the current problems would not exist.

I believe in prophets like Moses and the others in the old testament and that disobeidience is a risky act that has long term consequenses.

Originally posted by ardahan
I again want to remind that America and many European nations like Germany , France Belgium either created (so did the USA in the case of Bin Laden) or supported Islamic terror... Indeed, the US helped start bin Laden and that we have the right to take the jerk out too. For that reason and for being a threat to the peace and livihood of the people who live on this planet.

[ardahan]

Originally posted by thrud

I am glad you have made that point clear, but I think there are going to be times when most Islamic societies will not agree with you. Most Islamic nations do not allow the freedom of religion and I think that is enough to show that many Islamic people do not agree with you.

I already said that a major part of the Islamic world is in darkness, in illiteracy, poverty etc. the best grounds where fanaticm, blind followership and sheep mentality can flourish. In this case it was foolish to expect the majority to agree with me now, but these are all things which can change, if these people are given a chance, if enlightement and secularisation reaches them, if the sources of their religion become accessible for all (which can only happen if literacy is spread) and where people can judge with their own conscience instead of leatting others (clerics) judge for them.

Originally posted by thrud
I really found this remark amazing. Are you saying that either they are all wrong or that it might be possible they are misinterpreting what was said in scripture?


I say that there is an intentional misinterpretation within Muslim clergy, because they use Islam as a political tool for their purposes. The mean people are simply wrong , because they follow this, regard this as Islam but do not make the slightest effprts to use their own brain and to ask, if this is true or not.
look at what you say, it is summarising the situation:
"Most Islamic nations do not allow the freedom of religion ."
Islam is very strict when it comes to freedom of religion , churches, synagogues are all under the special and direct protection of God, Muslims are oblieged to protect them as much as they should protect their own holy sites, but what is widely (not in every case) practiced today? The contrary! Certain people intentionally contradict the Koran for their political agendas.
I think there are lessons to take from history: don´t you think that it is remarkable that many Jews who fled from the Inquisition, who were not allowed to enter any Christian country along the Mediterrane found save haven in a Muslim country? that Muslim fleets were send out to guide them in safety to the shore of that country? That furthermore the Sultan and caliphe (spiritual head of all Muslims) himself went to the shore to welcome those persecuted Jews? That one sentence he made
is very famous concerning this event:
"They call Ferdinand (king of spain) "wise", but he is not: he is making his country poor by expelling these people, and making my richer with their arrival."
I think that a multi-cultural society is something one can only benefit from, so did a Sultan think too 500 years ago , this is Islam and the proof that islam today is bastardised like no other religion.

Originally posted by thrud
I believe in a spiritual war on the earth. A war for the hearts and minds of the children of G-d. I believe this is a proxy war on the earth between G-d and satan. We as believers are supposed to help people find the truth. I think that is what is meant by the Koran. There is supposed to be spiritual war for the hearts and minds of the people. Battle and war is allusionary.?

That what is known today as "jihad", as blowing up innocent women, children , elderly was originally nothing but that what you describe: a spiritiual and therefore individual "war".
Every prayer starts in the name of God the merciful in whom the believer seeks 2refugee from Satan the seducer". I think this s quite significant. as it is in almost everything even jihad became the victiim of a moral prostituion: poeple who have not battled the own evilness inside of themselves , more who prepetrate evilness are crying for jihad and justify the greatest sins with it, just as killing the innocent. jihad today is a political tool, anybody who made the slightest research knows this. jihad can have a meaning of a real battle too, but ONLY in case it is a defensive battle. nobody can call a suiccide attack "defensive", when it is obvious that it is agression.
The real battle is very much limited to actual physical threats from a third party. The spiritual "battle2 continues and everybody himself is responsible to fight it innerly and to overcome the bad which is in all of us.

Originally posted by thrud
I take what you say as additional support for my idea that Muhammed actually wanted his followers to go door to door just like the J Witnesses or us Latter-day Saints (Mormons to the people that hate us). I do not think he had in mind the concept of physically killing the enemies of G-d, but to convert them to the truth. I really think the Sufi-traditions have really turned to intent of Muhammed on its head.

I do not deny that Islam regards itself as a universal message and therefore wants to be spread, just as Christianity. Religion is something very personal, one´s conscience can accept it or not, so a conversion can only happen, if somebody choses to convert with a free will. This is why forced conversions are forbidden in Islam and religious tolerance is a cornerstone of it, but it is an undeniable fact that forced conversions took place:
The so called "Western Turks" were bloodily forced by Arabs to convert , although this is strictly forbidden in Islam, while the Eastern Turks , the so called Khazars chose voluntarily between the three Abrahamic faiths and accepted Judaism. I personally reject any idea of missionarism, and let it up to everybody elses concience in what to believe or what to reject. I would not intervene if a non-Muslim wanted to convert to Islam, as I would not intervene, if a Muslim wanted to convert to an other religion. again psysically killing the enmy can only take place in very restricted situation, if oneself is physically endangered and only in such case. But in todays modern world, means of negotiation should even avoid this. I do not know about Sufisms original intention, but it is the main factor of todays illiteracy, irrationality, and blind followership to some people. Saint cults etc. did not exist before Sufism, Sufism brought it up and gave man divine features, so today some clerics are regarded much more divine than the words of god himself in the koran. The sufi saint Mauwlana explicitly expressed in one of his works , the "Mesnevi" that this book was divine, (contained the word of God), people follow and swallow it like sheep.

Originally posted by thrud
Moses said he was commanded to do this. I believe this to be true. I also believe that if the Israelites had been done as was commanded of them, then the current problems would not exist.

I as a Muslim am obliged to believe in the Torah as a divine book too; from the point of a believer I have to believe in prophet Moses´case , the same as you do. But as a modern person and jurist , I even have some thoughts how to cathegorise this behaviour and prophet Mohammed´s behaviour from the legal point of view. At least is this argument the same Muslims take to justify the battles of Mohammed. I think that the modern individual of today stucks in this dilemma.
I agree on one thing: if we all followed God´s pure message , none of the current problems would exist. Alone following to the basics : the 10 commandments was enough to have a better world.

Originally posted by thrud
I believe in prophets like Moses and the others in the old testament and that disobeidience is a risky act that has long term consequenses..

I believe in Moses too, he was a great prophet for sure. Yes I guess religion is not mathematic, or we are still not able to the the mathematical logic of religion, but I think that we all should believe with a certain self awareness .
The first important thing is to know the message well and to study it sufficiently.

Originally posted by thrud
Indeed, the US helped start bin Laden and that we have the right to take the jerk out too. For that reason and for being a threat to the peace and livihood of the people who live on this planet.

I agree on that, bin Laden is a threat to the whole of humanity but your statement shows two things too:
a) Bin Laden is not = Islam
b) Bin Laden was a political creation , who got out of controle.
I always say: terror has no race, religion, ethnicity; it is a crime comitted on the whole of humanity. Whenever somebody makes the mistake to use or promote terror, he should be aware that one day the hand which feeds it, will be the victim .
So terro has to be outlawed completely from planet earth.

my regards

[Binyamin]

I say that there is an intentional misinterpretation within Muslim clergy, because they use Islam as a political tool for their purposes. The mean people are simply wrong , because they follow this, regard this as Islam but do not make the slightest effprts to use their own brain and to ask, if this is true or not.


All these three spheres are Muslim, but their thoughts on individuality differs. The Koran speaks of personal responsibility , so that despite the principle that all Muslims are brothers (all Christians are somehwre brothers too, as all Jews are somewhere brothers, the concept of solidarity inside a group is not necessarily bad), every single muslim will be hold personally responsible for personal deeds. A religion which focuses originally on personal responsibility cannot tolerate clergy which decides for a whole group and restricts them in their free will and action.

I did not read through all of your posts, but these quotes seem to be representative. You are defining Islam based on the Koran, which you say is different than what we see in practice.

If this is true, then many "muslims" are practicing a differernt religion, and not Islam. This may be correct, but it completely avoids the issues of Islam and the West. According to what you wrote, we should rephrase the discussion as "Ahmed-ism (form lack of a better term) and the west." Islam may be a peace-loving religion, but it is not practiced in most of the Arab world. They have a different religion, which is mistakenly called Islam. We should forget about Islam, and discuss this other religion, with its verson of Jihad, its views on women and clergy, and its world-wide following.

I am not familiar with the Koran and its commentaries, so I cannot comment on your explanations.

[savvy]

By Sandro Magister. Source L'espresso
The old continent's pro-Islamism comes from long ago. It stems from the special protection Muslim conquerors applied to "dhimmi" Jews and Christians

ROMA - In an essay on the war in Iraq titled, "The Rage, the Pride and the Doubt" – published March 13 in the United States in "The Wall Street Journal" and the following day in Italy in "Corriere della Sera" – Oriana Fallaci maintains a scandalous thesis:

"Europe is no longer Europe. It is a province of Islam, as Spain and Portugal were at the time of the Moors. It hosts almost 16 million Muslim immigrants and teems with mullahs, imams, mosques, burqas, chadors. It lodges thousands of Islamic terrorists whom governments don't know how to identify and control. People are afraid, and in waving the flag of pacifism – synonymous with anti-Americanism – they feel protected."

But this thesis is neither new nor isolated. It was proposed by Enzo Bettiza, a prominent journalist and international politics expert, in a chapter of his latest book, "Viaggio nell' ignoto. Il mondo dopo l'11 settembre" (Journey Into the Unknown. The World After September 11), published by Mondadori in October 2002.

And above all it finds support in the work of a renowned historian of Islam: Bat Ye'or – his pseudonym – was born in Egypt, is a British citizen and lives in Switzerland.

In a series of essays published in France and the United States, Bat Ye'or has reconstructed in terms updated by today's models the theory and practice – from its origins up to today – of Islamic jihad, or holy war, and above all of "dhimmitude," which is the condition assigned to Christians and Jews by Muslim teaching.

The Arabic word "dhimmi" is translated "protected." And this is what Oriana Fallaci holds: European Christians, in their pro-Islamism, seek protection. Indeed, they live as if they already feel themselves to be "dhimmi."

Enzo Bettiza adds that this feeling of dhimmitude is a trap contrived by the modern Islamist elite to conquer Europe and the world. It's a trap that is already working: Many Europeans, "willingly or not, consciously or not, have already for some time been contributing to their own metamorphosis into 'dhimmi.'"

Bettiza cites an essay by Bat Ye'or published in 2002 in the Paris-based magazine, "Commentaire," founded by disciples of Raymond Aron. The essay is titled, "Jews and Christians Under Islam. Dhimmitude and Marcionism." In it, the author shows how thirteen centuries of protection/submission imposed by Muslims on infidel populations has left a profound trace even in the way today's Europe relates to Islam.

Among the "services" performed by this "hidden dhimmitude" of Europe is a laxity in the face of Muslim immigration. There is Europe's tolerance of cultural separatism on its own territory. There is the concession of financial aid to Muslim governments fiercely hostile to the West. There is the slur against the State of Israel. There is the understanding for Palestinian and Islamist terrorism. There is the human shield offered by the Franciscans to Arab guerrillas taking refuge in the Bethlehem basilica. There is silence about centuries of Islamic jihad substituted by self-flagellation for the Crusades: "Evil is attributed to Jews and Christians for not striking at the susceptibility of the Muslim world, which rejects every criticism of its past conquests."

In short: "The ancient universe of dhimmitude, with its submission and servileness as pledges for survival, has been reconstructed in contemporary Europe."

Further, Bat Ye'or shows that there is also a theological dhimmitude at the roots of the pro-Islamism of many Christians who live in Arab countries. It's a dhimmitude that breathes new life into the teaching of Marcione, a second-century heretic who, to give maximum recognition to the loving God of the Gospel, denied any value to the Hebrew Scriptures, believed to be an expression of an unjust and cruel God.

Today, Marcionism lives again among Eastern Christians in the vision of a Jesus who is Arab-Palestinian and anti-Jewish, in line with the Islamic view of history.

Bettiza does not accept Bat Ye'or's conclusion that Europe is already fully stricken by "dhimmi syndrome." But he holds that this trend is a real danger.

Meanwhile, Oriana Fallaci declares that it's already happened. Whether this judgment is true or not, the fact remains that Europe's and America's current disagreement regarding war in Iraq is born also of an experience of dhimmitude that only the old continent has experienced. Pro-Islamic mimetism/opportunism as protection.