Don't confuse terrorism with Islam, says EU

[ShimonG]

A bit long. So, posting the link. Rather informative blog.


http://mbplee.blogspot.com/2007/07/u...-study-by.html

UNDERSTANDING ISLAM-A Brief Study-by mbplee aka elle

[andak01]

Why don't you add this to the Moon God thread that's already in RC. Does it occur to any of you Bozos that there are people who proudly do worship the moon? Why would we, unbeknownst to ourselves do something that we publicly revile? Christianity took on habits of pre-Christian faiths. Why isn't anyone accusing them of worshipping Christmas trees or Easter Bunnys? Please refer to us as sand niggers or towel heads, or something less offensive than moon worshippers.

[ShimonG]

As long as said bozos dont go around the world on a killing spree inspired by the virulent anti-semitism of islam, i really dont give a $hit.

Its when these moon worshipping bozos start wearing suicide belts that it becomes relevant to me.

[bararallu]

I realize that. I've seen her interviewed and I even agree with a couple of things she says. But she is the wrong one to say it. She is no scholar and I don't even find her particularly knowledgeable. People that are more knowledgeable are not going to find leadership in her.

You have a point. Yet there is some reason to listen to her. She is a Lesbian, and Muslim. She bring a distinct perspective on things. She is also fairly open minded (and raised in the West) and has never, please correct me if I'm wrong, declared herself to be an expert on Islam. And you agreed that she isn't an apostate. She speaks to people as herself. In her trip to Israel, she wasn't 100% pro Israel either, but many Israelis respect her precisely for that, that she has a brain on her shoulders and is willing to look at things objectively, not only in partisan terms. Her opinion is actually more interesting to me personally than even some one rather well versed in Islam like Ibn Warraq. Who also does not demonify Muslims either, even though he points out his issues with certain aspects of Islam. There are authorities on Islam that also support her point of view on many areas, like Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi.

You think...

As I stated up front, I'm not very familiar with Darwish, and you seem to be correct in her over-broad paintbrush. Do you have similar quotes for Manji and Hirsi?

I don't deny Ali Hirsi or Noni Darwash the right to speak.

I'm sure they wouldn't particularly care if you did , but it's good to know that you can tolerate some criticism.

But the fact that their negative descriptions of extremists are taken by a good deal of the public to stand for us all is dangerous.

Ditto for any political angled speech. The Jews especially have been victims of this, since... well since before the founding of the United States for certain.

I've seen four sisters in the past year remove their hijabs out of fear.

And yet some are also heavily intimidated into wearing them. Sometimes even by people outside of their family, like those fellows did in that Texas University recently (and called it "satire").

Even if you're flat out against the hijab,

which I'm not.

it isn't very American to promote fear as a means of squelching religious expression.

100%.

Any one of those women would return to wearing it of their own choice if they weren't afraid of being accosted, and even afraid for their children.

There are so many law suites filed these days that I'd be surprised that we dont know about nearly all the incidents that have taken place. The fact that these incidents are being passed through the hands of CAIR is another issue all together... I dont BTW want to discuss that, merely mention it.

It's a very, very, very profitable business.

Theres no business like...

The worse things you say about Islam, the more editions your book goes through and the more talk shows pick you up.

I don't know the Quran seems to be selling pretty well, and it doesn't say 1 bad thing against Islam. Although I highly doubt that the best selling book by Spencer or Ali or Bostom or the rest of them, in fact all those book sales put together wouldn't amount to a significant percent of the pure anti-Semitic propaganda being sold in Arab market places and other places in Muslim countries. Things like the Protocols, the International Jew, Mein Kaumph, and Dave Dukes incredibly suave prose sell top 5 or top 10, and have been for decades. Not to compare things now....

[andak01]

You have a point. Yet there is some reason to listen to her. She is a Lesbian, and Muslim. She bring a distinct perspective on things. She is also fairly open minded (and raised in the West) and has never, please correct me if I'm wrong, declared herself to be an expert on Islam. And you agreed that she isn't an apostate.

Let me give an analogy. First month rabbinical student openly admits to being gay and goes around giving interviews saying that some of the Orthodox practices such as circumcision are quaint and unnessesary, but he really loves Judaism as much as his lover. You might not object to that guy, but what about being told almost daily that he is the example you should follow, or else...

She speaks to people as herself. In her trip to Israel, she wasn't 100% pro Israel either, but many Israelis respect her precisely for that, that she has a brain on her shoulders and is willing to look at things objectively, not only in partisan terms. Her opinion is actually more interesting to me personally than even some one rather well versed in Islam like Ibn Warraq.

Ibn Warraq is not that well versed. He's a plagerist who has cobbled together the screeds of others who dedicated their lives to studying Islam with an eye towards destroying it. I'd love to see him come up against a real scholar.

Who also does not demonify Muslims either, even though he points out his issues with certain aspects of Islam. There are authorities on Islam that also support her point of view on many areas, like Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi.

As I stated up front, I'm not very familiar with Darwish, and you seem to be correct in her over-broad paintbrush. Do you have similar quotes for Manji and Hirsi?

I wouldn't expect to see that from Manji. And again with Hirsi. Everything she says happened somewhere and those are real issues. Just that it didn't happen to her. She took every bad stereotype and made it into one story, her autobiography. I'm surprised she didn't throw in that she was a victim of honor killing. I'm less angry at her than at the press for lapping it up so unquestioningly.

I'm sure they wouldn't particularly care if you did , but it's good to know that you can tolerate some criticism.

You don't think I'd still be here if I couldn't.

And yet some are also heavily intimidated into wearing them. Sometimes even by people outside of their family, like those fellows did in that Texas University recently (and called it "satire").

I must have missed that. Throw me a link.

[andak01]

There are authorities on Islam that also support her point of view on many areas, like Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi.

Is there any fundamental reason which prohibits Muslims from recognizing Israel as a friendly State?

I agree with him and say wholeheartedly no. I accept his interpretation of the Quran as well.

Here's the conundrum.

MUSLIMS MUST RECOGNIZE THE STATE OF ISRAEL AS A JEWISH STATE.

If Israel is the way they describe themselves to be, they will be a secular, democratic state. However, a secular democratic state is NOT a Jewish state. It is a secular, democratic one. To be a Jewish state, you can't be secular, and unless you can maintain an overwhelming demographic, you can't be democratic either. If you want a truly Jewish state, then Kahane was right. You've got to go in that direction and mercilessly achieve your demographic, at the same time enforcing hallachic law.

In that case, making demands for secular democracies at the cost of regiem change which in turn comes after invasion or infiltration is more than a bit hypocritical. If Israel was to take that stand with an understanding that there can be other theocracies in the world, that would be acceptable, but I can't see the US remaining an ally in that event, and perhaps we wouldn't have to.

On the other hand, if Israel was to accept full secular democracy, then they could continue to push for secularism in the world, with the almost certain knowledge that their Jewish nature would be democratically voted out of office at some future date. Israel might look something like Turkey, but I imagine there would be a lot of dissatisfaction for a long time.



http://www.templemount.org/quranland.html

[scattergood]

Some months ago, when I had more time, I was able to discover Muslim women's rights groups in almost every Muslim country. That's the sort of thing I heavily support. These women were quoting the Quran and Sunna to show the hypocrisy of the present interpretations of Sharia.
You and I are on the same page regarding this.


Good. Because IMO there isn't going to be much progress any other way. Tauting Noni Darwash or Hirsi Ali or Irshad Manji as the future of Islam is like saying Madalyn Murray O'Hair is the future of Christianity. There are on the other hand women and men with a moderate view of Islam that doesn't conflict with the Quran and Sunna or require them to apostate to demonstrate it. Historically women scholars have taught both women and men since the first days of Islam.

As for the Salafis, they concentrate more on the concept of Tawheed, which is about the oneness of Allah. It's a beautiful concept, but it isn't everything Islam is about. As a former Christian, they remind me of Baptists in their austerity and their iconoclasm (and I should add in their mixing politics with religion). It should be recalled that the origins of the word fundamentalism is a militant Christian group.

Fundamentalism is a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching. (The Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary) Further, fundamentalism is a usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism. (The American Heritage Dictionary)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism

You again, show your totally slimey way of discussing things through selective quotation. The above quote attempts to show fundamentalism as a primarily Christian idea, and thus not associated with Islam. But if one actually looks at your source, your source discusses a more complete view of the idea which contradicts your implications:

1) This Wikipedia article is listed as having its neutrality disputed.

2) This Wikipedia article is listed as having not met their own quality standards.

3) A link off this article to fundamentailism in Wikionary lists fundamentalism as (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fundamentalism):

(religion) The tendency to reduce a religion to its most fundamental tenets, based on strict interpretation of core texts.
(finance) The belief that fundamental financial quantities are the best predictor of the price of an instrument.
The beliefs held by those in this movement.
Strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles.


4) There are further sections and links to different articles within this article on Christian, Jewish, Morman, Islamic, and non-Abrahamic religions. In other words, there is a distinction between 'fundamentalism' in the various religions, enough to create separate articles on them.

5) You INTENTIONALLY removed the text <Islamic fundamentalism> <political fundamentalism> from the quotation. It is found both in the original Wiki article and in the definition found in the mirriam-webster.com website (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...fundamentalism)

So, as always it seems, your own sources are the source of your own undoing. You post from disputed and substandard sources, and if we ignore that, the source itself disputes your source.

[ShimonG]

CORRECTION: This post should be read as Islam, mohammad (in the singular) and Taqqiya


Found a passage on a blog that i thought would be educational here in light of scatter's efforts.


Role playing as the victim:

When placed under scrutiny or criminal investigation, (even when there is overwhelming, irrefutable evidence of guilt or complicity), the taqiyya-tactician will quickly attempt to counter the allegation by resorting to the claim that it is, in fact, the accused who are the 'the victims'. Victims of Islamophobia, racism, religious discrimination and intolerance. Currently, this is the most commonly encountered form of distraction and 'outwitting'…..

Defence by offence.

A direct question requiring a simple "YES" or "NO" reply is rarely forthcoming and is usually deflected by responding with a tangentially irrelevant rejoinder or, in an attempt to neutralise the original question, counter-challenging with another question such as “are you in favour of killing children in Iraq?”…..


They appear to follow a well prepared script as they repeat "Islam is tolerant and peace loving”. In instances where they find themselves presented with, and cornered by, undeniable evidence that murderous radicals are indeed guilty as charged the spokesman will then fall back on the old chestnut that the culprits are only a “small minority” and not “true Muslims” anyway. Islamic spokeswomen use taqiyya when making the somewhat Orwellian claim that wearing the hijab, niqab, burqa etc. is “liberating” and “empowering”,.....


Now, who have we seen display such behavior on this forum before, hmmmm...........

The indisputable truth is that there has been no “hijacking” of Islam. Islamic extremists can, and do, find ample inspiration, justification and encouragement for their violent ideology in the Quran and Hadith.

[scattergood]

Found a passage on a blog that i thought would be educational here in light of scatter's efforts.


Role playing as the victim:

When placed under scrutiny or criminal investigation, (even when there is overwhelming, irrefutable evidence of guilt or complicity), the taqiyya-tactician will quickly attempt to counter the allegation by resorting to the claim that it is, in fact, the accused who are the 'the victims'. Victims of Islamophobia, racism, religious discrimination and intolerance. Currently, this is the most commonly encountered form of distraction and 'outwitting'…..

Defence by offence.

A direct question requiring a simple "YES" or "NO" reply is rarely forthcoming and is usually deflected by responding with a tangentially irrelevant rejoinder or, in an attempt to neutralise the original question, counter-challenging with another question such as “are you in favour of killing children in Iraq?”…..


They appear to follow a well prepared script as they repeat "Islam is tolerant and peace loving”. In instances where they find themselves presented with, and cornered by, undeniable evidence that murderous radicals are indeed guilty as charged the spokesman will then fall back on the old chestnut that the culprits are only a “small minority” and not “true Muslims” anyway. Islamic spokeswomen use taqiyya when making the somewhat Orwellian claim that wearing the hijab, niqab, burqa etc. is “liberating” and “empowering”,.....


Now, who have we seen display such behavior on this forum before, hmmmm...........

The indisputable truth is that there has been no “hijacking” of Islam. Islamic extremists can, and do, find ample inspiration, justification and encouragement for their violent ideology in the Quran and Hadith.

Please provide a link. The same ideas about sourcing and linking apply to all. Also, in the title you mention a word, mohammeds, that others on this forum asked not to be referred to as. Thanks.

[bararallu]

Let me give an analogy. First month rabbinical student openly admits to being gay and goes around giving interviews saying that some of the Orthodox practices such as circumcision are quaint and unnecessary, but he really loves Judaism as much as his lover. You might not object to that guy, but what about being told almost daily that he is the example you should follow, or else...

This is not a legitimate comparison.. Manji is not a candidate for any degree in Islam, first of all. Nor is there a comparable problem in the Jewish sovereign state about the prosecution of Homosexuals experienced in nearly the whole of the Muslim world. haven't you heard Iran doesn't have any . She, further, is upfront with her self disposition, from the get go actually, and her audience is not Muslims for the most part as far as I can tell, but 1. some duplicitous Muslim "representative" organizations and 2. a small but significant non Muslim population that are interested in what she has to say as opposed to say Hirsi Ali, and certainly as you point out- Darwish.

Ibn Warraq is not that well versed. He's a plagiarist who has cobbled together the screeds of others who dedicated their lives to studying Islam with an eye towards destroying it. I'd love to see him come up against a real scholar.

He seems rather versed to me. And from my limited exposure, he has come across self espoused real scholars. And who's to say what a real scholar of Islam is anyway? what bar are we using here? Also, he's not a in-your-face confrontational kind of person, which some of his frothing in the mouth opponents are obviously. Nor has he declared a death sentence on any of his adversaries, in juxtaposition to the words of those adversaries. If Parsi shows up I'm sure he'll provide you with endless links regarding that . I don't have time to go to Faithfreedom and do searches on the topic.. you may want to.

I wouldn't expect to see that from Manji. And again with Hirsi. Everything she says happened somewhere and those are real issues. Just that it didn't happen to her. She took every bad stereotype and made it into one story, her autobiography. I'm surprised she didn't throw in that she was a victim of honor killing. I'm less angry at her than at the press for lapping it up so unquestioningly.

The problem is there is fear in some of these peoples lives that they live in the so called west but over time their actual western rights are being eroded with Sharia like extensions provided to some extremely radical, not to mention, conservative Muslim communities, in the West. You are against her possible exaggerations, she is against her possible erosion of human and other rights. It's in the eye of the beholder who's 1. more paranoid, and 2. more accepting of diversity.

You don't think I'd still be here if I couldn't.

Where would you go Ummah Forums?

I must have missed that. Throw me a link.

Sure.

[andak01]

Please provide a link. The same ideas about sourcing and linking apply to all. Also, in the title you mention a word, mohammeds, that others on this forum asked not to be referred to as. Thanks.

No. Thanks anyway. [deleted for unseemliness] is quite appropriate. It's better than I expect even.

[bararallu]

[B]
Here's the conundrum.

MUSLIMS MUST RECOGNIZE THE STATE OF ISRAEL AS A JEWISH STATE.

If Israel is the way they describe themselves to be, they will be a secular, democratic state. However, a secular democratic state is NOT a Jewish state. It is a secular, democratic one. To be a Jewish state, you can't be secular, and unless you can maintain an overwhelming demographic, you can't be democratic either. If you want a truly Jewish state, then Kahane was right. You've got to go in that direction and mercilessly achieve your demographic, at the same time enforcing hallachic law.

In that case, making demands for secular democracies at the cost of regiem change which in turn comes after invasion or infiltration is more than a bit hypocritical. If Israel was to take that stand with an understanding that there can be other theocracies in the world, that would be acceptable, but I can't see the US remaining an ally in that event, and perhaps we wouldn't have to.

On the other hand, if Israel was to accept full secular democracy, then they could continue to push for secularism in the world, with the almost certain knowledge that their Jewish nature would be democratically voted out of office at some future date. Israel might look something like Turkey, but I imagine there would be a lot of dissatisfaction for a long time.

Name me one democracy that isn't influenced buy the founding culture? How many Western (Christian) and certainly Muslim states took measures, at what ever time of their existence, to maintain an ethnic majority, of the founder population, and how many have not? Do you have any Sunday liquor laws in your area/country Andak? Do you have bank holidays associated with some Christian events? Does Japan grant citizenship to caucasians on a regular basis? Or even to other Asians? Does Italy and Korea repatriate persons with some genealogy that happens to be Italian or Korean, as opposed to say French and Mongolian? Do Arabs have a right to vote and hold assembly in Israel? Do those votes have and effect in bring people into the Knesset? Are there laws that curtail Arab Muslim reproduction, of free press, in Israel? Is Arabic forbidden as a spoken language in Israel?

Are even some of the rights afforded Arabs (or Arab speakers, or Muslims of what ever kind)... available to Egyptians? Syrians? That are afforded to Israeli Arabs? Can Moroccans vote out their king from existence? Can the Berbers in Morocco install their own Berber king? How many Palestinians are in the Jordanian army? Representatives in the Jordanian "parliament" vis-a-vis their % of the population? I'd ask myself these questions before I'd accept or reject any position on Zionism as practiced in Israel. I would also look at the rejectionist position and understand some of the rejection based on Islamic doctrine... namely the usurpation of Dar Al Islam by non Muslims... aside from the contrived, at least initially, nationalist (=Arabist) claims.

[ShimonG]

I hope the mods will see that this is a direct reply that answers this neanderthal-pig in EQUAL measure. if his posts stay, so should mine.

No. Thanks anyway. mohammads coming from ShimonG's bile dripping snout is quite appropriate. It's better than I expect even.

Ah yes, the old qoranic fixation with calling jews as apes and swine.

Well, moslem, yes my references to mohammad are entirely appropriate as is my reference to you as such. With your often latent evil filth that, despite your best efforts to mask it, often comes to fore is the far greater filth and evil. At least my bile dripping snout has not yet raped a lil girl or ordered the rape of jewish women or ordered the execution of a nursing mother or indulged in wide-spread rapine and plunder, plunging vast parts of the world in darkness. All these tasks have been accomplished by your mohammad whose religion/evil you follow and justify on this thread and elsewhere.

Heck compared to the depradations of mohammad and his hate filled snout, i am a veritable choir boy.

The evil in your filth that is islam and which drips out of your filth of a snout is the far greater danger to the world today.

[ShimonG]

Also, in the title you mention a word, mohammeds, that others on this forum asked not to be referred to as.

Its my equivalent to being accused of being a "neanderthal." Why is neanderthal ok and its islamic equivalent not OK.

Afterall, it is the neanderthal who should take offence at being called a m******d.

[ShimonG]

I believe this exchange between me and the islamic neanderthal started when i pointed out the obvious similarities between nazi ideology and islam, which is a perfectly valid comparison. In doing so, i did not point to any one person for ad hominems. That was started by the follower of mohammad - andak.