Islam as a system

[noname]

ISLAM AS A SYSTEM

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.

Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components.
Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called "religious rights."
When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to "the reasonable" Muslim demands for their
"religious rights," they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007).

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

United States -- Muslim 1.0%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1%-2%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply.

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris -- car burnings, etc.). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam -- Mohammed cartoons).

Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of "Dar-es-Salaam" -- the Islamic House of Peace -- there's supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 99.9%

Of course, that's not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

"Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel". -- Leon Uris, "The Haj"

It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate.

[wildcat]

nice theory, I like it.

[Abaddon]

How's this crap any different than The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

[noname]

How's this crap any different than The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

I don't know enough about the protocols of Zion, but if is similar, there you go.

[Abaddon]

Also...


After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

I'm not sure why the vast majority of these nations are listed, aside from 'look, a lot of countries, scary'. Only two or so have actually perpetrated state-run genocide and/or ethnic cleansing (Turkey and Iraq, neither incidents had much if anything to do with Islam). Two of those listed aren't even sovereign nations, which makes 'state run' genocide a bit of a problem.

[epictetus]

Some parts I agree with some are grossly distorted. Halal food being one.How is that different with the fact that the majority of foods are kosher certified, even though jews are a very small percentage of the population? Did every company went kosher for the hell of it or was it a request to do so?
And as far as I know Albania didn't have unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels. my 2 cents

[Mu-Meson]

Also...
I'm not sure why the vast majority of these nations are listed, aside from 'look, a lot of countries, scary'. Only two or so have actually perpetrated state-run genocide and/or ethnic cleansing (Turkey and Iraq, neither incidents had much if anything to do with Islam). Two of those listed aren't even sovereign nations, which makes 'state run' genocide a bit of a problem.

I think you missed a few. Syria & Hama (genocide), Egypt & Coptic Christians, Palestine & Jews, Gaza & the Gazan Christians (all to varying degrees ethnic cleansing).
That said, I think the first 3 or so groupings of nations are pretty realistic in illustrating the situation.


Did every company went kosher for the hell of it or was it a request to do so?
I think most of the kosher food out there is probably either made by Jewish companies, or just branded kosher because it is anyway, and why not try for the largest potential market.

[Loki77]

What percent of the US is Islam?





Is Barack Obama a Muslim?

[Abaddon]

I think you missed a few. Syria & Hama (genocide), Egypt & Coptic Christians, Palestine & Jews, Gaza & the Gazan Christians (all to varying degrees ethnic cleansing).


Um...no? :cantbeli:

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

It's all a vast conspiracy by western media to distort and slander Islam so that people will support the policies of George W. Bush.

Or that least that's what my Arab friends tell me when I talk to them about this stuff.

[eskachig]

Some parts I agree with some are grossly distorted. Halal food being one.How is that different with the fact that the majority of foods are kosher certified, even though jews are a very small percentage of the population? Did every company went kosher for the hell of it or was it a request to do so?My Muslim coworker mostly eats kosher food because their requirements are even stricter for most things. Kinda funny.

[Bro Jangles]

dont get me wrong i agree with most of this, it it feels as if islam is being equated to a viral infection.

[quote=epictetus;3414953How is that different with the fact that the majority of foods are kosher certified, even though jews are a very small percentage of the population? Did every company went kosher for the hell of it or was it a request to do so?
[/quote]

because the zionist puppet masters control the food distribution.

[epictetus]

^^^ I knew it!!!
On a more serious note the hatred and the intolerance are major factors, food isnt. And the tax on infidels was a few hundred years ago at the time of the Otoman Empire. Take it up with the turksp-)

[Bro Jangles]

^^^ I knew it!!!
On a more serious note the hatred and the intolerance are major factors, food isnt. And the tax on infidels was a few hundred years ago at the time of the Otoman Empire. Take it up with the turksp-)
its the clerics preaching to the uneducated who life has F**ked. as the germans learned, when life is in the sh*ter youll listen to anyone with a plan.

[Abaddon]

^^^ I knew it!!!
On a more serious note the hatred and the intolerance are major factors, food isnt. And the tax on infidels was a few hundred years ago at the time of the Otoman Empire. Take it up with the turksp-)

And now the Turks are buddy buddy with Israel...it all comes full circle. :)

[Kilgor]

dont get me wrong i agree with most of this, it it feels as if islam is being equated to a viral infection.

.

No more so than any other religion.

[Bro Jangles]

No more so than any other religion.
at this point in history, no other religon is as physically dangerous as islam. you may not agree with Christianity, but baptist arnt strapin them selves with C4, and the vaticans not developing nuclear weapons.

[Kilgor]

at this point in history, no other religon is as physically dangerous as islam. you may not agree with Christianity, but baptist arnt strapin them selves with C4, and the vaticans not developing nuclear weapons.

No disagreement there.

All religious go through a period of "difficultly" and it looks like Islam's turn now.

[Bro Jangles]

im waiting for the scientologist turn, then were f**ked.

[Abaddon]

im waiting for the scientologist turn, then were f**ked.

Granted there's only like 50,000 of them, as opposed to over a billion.

[Bro Jangles]

Granted there's only like 50,000 of them, as opposed to over a billion.
wouldnt it suck if the whole alien thing turned out to be true?............cant derail thread........

[Aryan_Singh]

And now the Turks are buddy buddy with Israel...it all comes full circle. :)

Turks dont have anyother way.

[Aryan_Singh]

As the population of Muslims increased the voilence spread with it.

[Calanen]

Megaraptor;3414983']It's all a vast conspiracy by western media to distort and slander Islam so that people will support the policies of George W. Bush.

Or that least that's what my Arab friends tell me when I talk to them about this stuff.

The biggest group of people who distort and slander Islam are certain muslims themselves, such as Al Quada, Hizbollah, Hamas, the Islamic State of Iraq - collectively, the 'misunderstanders'. It is these people who do far more to damage any good impression the West might have of this faith, and not anything George Bush has done.

Muslims need to focus a bit more on cleaning their own house, rather than getting upset whenever Westerners notice Islamic terrorism.

The other problem for the image of Islam is the prickly nature of certain of its followers, the only group in society that can be counted on to burn cars and riot at the drop of a hat. The further difficulty is the constant whining about discrimination from certian members of the muslim community, while at the same time preaching entrenched intolerance for people of the Jewish faith, and indeed, the kuffir.

If Islam wants to improve its reputation, it needs to improve the way its followers behave. Not keep blaming the West for remarking on their poor behaviour.

[Abaddon]

The other problem for the image of Islam is the prickly nature of certain of its followers, the only group in society that can be counted on to burn cars and riot at the drop of a hat.

Maybe in your country. Muslims have never rioted in the United States, but plenty of other people have...poor African-Americans in LA, Detroit Red Wings fans, College students, etc. etc. ;)

[Calanen]

Maybe in your country. We've got plenty of minorities over here that like to do that.

Maybe you do..but so what? Muslims tend not to riot in the USA, because they would be smashed big time if they did.

The one constant around the world, is the ability of the islamic mob to have a car swarm. Or a riot about things as significant as mohammed cartoons, teddy bears named mohammed or soccer balls of blasphemy.

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/4602/carswarmle5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/6663/palcarswarm08un4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Abaddon]

Maybe you do..but so what? Muslims tend not to riot in the USA, because they would be smashed big time if they did.

The one constant around the world, is the ability of the islamic mob to have a car swarm. Or a riot about things as significant as mohammed cartoons, teddy bears named mohammed or soccer balls of blasphemy.

You could probably count the number of times there have been major riots by Muslims in the past decade on one hand, bar Palestine.

There has likely been more damage caused by rioting hockey fans than rioting muslims, but hockey fans don't make for interesting news.

[orko_8]

Honestly, this Peter Hammond guy's "theory" is one of the greatest bullsh.ts I have ever come across.

Three examples:

1.
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of "Dar-es-Salaam" -- the Islamic House of Peace -- there's supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 99.9%So, the 0.01% difference divides Yemen and Turkey and the latter fails to be a country of "Dar-es-Salaam"??? So this theory is THAT ACCURATE? Unbelievabel.. Hillarious..

2. About IRan.. I bet the owner of this theory has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA about "Valayat-i Fakih" (don't know the exact English phonetic of the word) concept of Iranian Shiite belief. I bet he weill be more than surprised that Iranian and Iraqi Shia is way different from each other. I bet he does not know anything about the eternal rivaly betwen Sunnis and Shiite. Not to mention the political and social implications of Iranian Shiite doctrine which deserves tons of articles, books and studies. Even Turks do not have a 100% clear understanding of it after having HUNDREDS OF YEARS of interaction with Persia /Iran and countless wars.

3.
Bosnia -- Muslim 40%Abso-bloody-f.cking-lutely unbelieveable. I'm speechless. So, Bosnian Muslims are all responsible for all the bloodshed in the former Yugoslavia? They massaccred themselves, they systematically raped their own daughters, wives (I'm not implying there were no war-criminals among them).

This theory is the apex of stupidity.

Last but not least: I want to make myself clear: Radical Islam is a real threat to thw world, especially Muslim populated copuntries. Because it uses people's emotions, religious beliefs, anger, frustration, poverty and ignorance as main motives and turn them into hypnotized foot soldiers. Nothing is more dangeours than a brainwashed man with nothing to lose. Islamic extremism must be stopped; but not with moronic rubbish as this "theory" (in fact, using the word "theory" is an insult to all branches of science).

[KoTeMoRe]

Honestly, this Peter Hammond guy's "theory" is one of the greatest bullsh.ts I have ever come across.

Three examples:

1. So, the 0.01% difference divides Yemen and Turkey and the latter fails to be a country of "Dar-es-Salaam"??? So this theory is THAT ACCURATE? Unbelievabel.. Hillarious..

2. About IRan.. I bet the owner of this theory has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA about "Valayat-i Fakih" (don't know the exact English phonetic of the word) concept of Iranian Shiite belief. I bet he weill be more than surprised that Iranian and Iraqi Shia is way different from each other. I bet he does not know anything about the eternal rivaly betwen Sunnis and Shiite. Not to mention the political and social implications of Iranian Shiite doctrine which deserves tons of articles, books and studies. Even Turks do not have a 100% clear concept after having HUNDREDS OF YEARS of interaction with Persia /Iran and countless wars.

3. Abso-bloody-f.cking-lutely unbelieveable. I'm speechless. So, Bosnian Muslims are all responsible for all the bloodshed in the former Yugoslavia? They massaccred themselves, they systematically raped their own daughters, wives (I'm not implying there were no war-criminals among them).

This theory is the apex of stupidity.

Last but not least: I want to make myself clear: Radical Islam is a real threat to thw world, especially Muslim populated copuntries. Because it uses people's emotions, religious beliefs, anger, frustration, poverty and ignorance as main motives and turn them into hypnotized foot soldiers. Nothing is more dangeours than a brainwashed man with nothing to lose. Islamic extremism must be stopped; but not with moronic rubbish as this "theory" (in fact, using the word "theory" is an insult to all branches of science).

Don't take it that seriously, I mean 20 years ago it was communism, now Islam, next step will be religion stricto sensu, after that blue eyes, beards, DNA ...

Just let it pass. Radical [insert concept here] is a threat so don't waste your time, just have a nice day in Ankara (I bet you got some lavish weather up there) and carry on with your life.

[Abaddon]

My prediction...next it will be Radical Amish

[deli_dumrul]

I will be dammed the day I see a dumb **** not mention my country in a completely unrelated thread.

@orko_8

Bro, don't waste your time posting in these political threads... I know you have more important stuff to do. I am still waiting for the third part of your article on acig. p-)

[Calanen]

I bet he weill be more than surprised that Iranian and Iraqi Shia is way different from each other. I bet he does not know anything about the eternal rivaly betwen Sunnis and Shiite.


So eternal that Iran assists Syria? There might be rivalry, but Muslims still hate the infidels more than they hate each other.


Because it uses people's emotions, religious beliefs, anger, frustration, poverty and ignorance as main motives and turn them into hypnotized foot soldiers. Nothing is more dangeours than a brainwashed man with nothing to lose. Islamic extremism must be stopped; but not with moronic rubbish as this "theory" (in fact, using the word "theory" is an insult to all branches of science).

The difficulty is -what is 'radical' islam? Is radical islam just using IEDs and RPGs to destroy the West, while just subverting its beliefs and practices through infiltration is less radical?

There seem to be enough muslims believing in the jihad, either the armed one, or the stealth jihad to slowly takeover through population growth. The islamic religion has views and beliefs that are entirely opposite to western values and this is demonstrated by every islamic sovereign state on the planet.


emotions, religious beliefs, anger, frustration, poverty and ignorance

Anger poverty and ignorance - when the biggest pusher of Wahhabi Islam, is the one of the richest states on the planet - Saudi Arabia, that has spent $100 Billion on building mosques, charities and front groups throughout the Western world to push its view of Islam. Poverty - when Osam Bin Laden is worth billions. Ignorance - when the 9/11 bombers were nearly all Western educated graduate students? Ignorance when Osama Bin Laden's right hand man is a specialist Egyptian doctor?

Islam has no tolerance for anyone else, or anything else. Shari'a must be the law of the land, and must overrule infidel law. And if the infidels will not accept shari'a law, then it must be taken by force. That is islam. Whether people choose to follow that belief or not, is up to them. But that is what it says. And enough muslims follow this interpretation of Islam, so that it is a real problem for us infidels.

Now for me as a kuffir, I don't want muslim no go enclaves. I dont want mosques on every corner. I dont want a group of people brought into this country that want to take it over, get rid of democracy and install a medieval legal code. And I will fight to ensure that this does not happen..and also, to let the majority of people know what is going on and who wants this.

Forget all you know about religion, Islam is different. And until people understand how different, they wont know what a significant threat it poses to the entire free world.

[Abaddon]

There seem to be enough muslims believing in the jihad, either the armed one, or the stealth jihad to slowly takeover through population growth. The islamic religion has views and beliefs that are entirely opposite to western values and this is demonstrated by every islamic sovereign state on the planet.

Oh...my...god...Islam and Mormons are in cahoots!

Its amazing how similar this Islamophobia crap is to antisemitism. Same stuff, different religion. I want to see radical Islam destroyed, but I'm not going to fall victim to ignorant hatred and fear. What do you propose you do about the Muslim population in your country? Ethnic cleansing?

You despise them for their intolerance, and yet you are intolerant of their beliefs.

[Lefty]

I've heard this argument before somewhere...

Those damn Muslims (insert Jews, Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Irish, Catholics, Germans, Japanese) just pull TOO much wieght in these countries! Have you noticed how that place down the street has started selling Halil foods? (Kosher, Asian foods, Bratwurst, Tortillas). Geez, added to this they have all the Gangs! (Money, Babies, Power, Jobs). Also, did you here they are LOBBYING to government, our DEMOCRACY for what is BEST for THEM! The NERVE!

oooooooo...I know! Lets put them in camps.

This Islamophobia stuff gets no one anywhere, it's treading water in the sesspool of racism. No one seems to realize that there is a war within Islam as much as there is in with the West. Islam has no set standard of belief, no Pope like Catholicism, no overriding cultural connection. Wahhabism is a small, fringe portion of Islam, sure it's growing, but most religions are (funny how that correlates with rising population). There are three major schools of Sharia, and countless smaller trains of thought. Sufi Islam is barely similar in some of its practices to Sunni or Shia practices. Part of the reason this region is so conflicted is because there is no overriding identity besides tribal/family, and then religious practices imo.

To look at only Wahhabism and draw generalizations of all Islam, is like looking at West Virginia snake charmers, and calling all your friends and telling them about what wack-jobs the Christians are. The West is simply another casualty of Islam's evolution, possibly even a reformation. It isn't like the deck hasn't been stacked in the oppostie way before.


Originally Posted by Calanen That is islam. Whether people choose to follow that belief or not, is up to them. But that is what it says.

Yes, and there lies the argument, whether people choose to follow the literal strict beliefs, or the lightened up version. Judging that human instinct (path of least resistance) and how other religions have gone (Most people are "Sunday Saints") eventually the more moderate side will win out. But there will be wackos, just as there are in every ideology.

[Kilgor]

I've heard this argument before somewhere...

Those damn Muslims (insert Jews, Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Irish, Catholics, Germans, Japanese) just pull TOO much wieght in these countries! Have you noticed how that place down the street has started selling Halil foods? (Kosher, Asian foods, Bratwurst, Tortillas). Geez, added to this they have all the Gangs! (Money, Babies, Power, Jobs). Also, did you here they are LOBBYING to government, our DEMOCRACY for what is BEST for THEM! The NERVE!

oooooooo...I know! Lets put them in camps.

This Islamophobia stuff gets no one anywhere, it's treading water in the sesspool of racism. No one seems to realize that there is a war within Islam as much as there is in with the West. Islam has no set standard of belief, no Pope like Catholicism, no overriding cultural connection. Wahhabism is a small, fringe portion of Islam, sure it's growing, but most religions are (funny how that correlates with rising population). There are three major schools of Sharia, and countless smaller trains of thought. Sufi Islam is barely similar in some of its practices to Sunni or Shia practices.

To look at only Wahhabism and draw generalizations of all Islam, is like looking at West Virginia snake charmers, and calling all your friends and telling them about what wack-jobs the Christians are. The West is simply another casualty of Islam's evolution, possibly even a reformation. It isn't like the deck hasn't been stacked in the oppostie way before.



Yes, and there lies the argument, whether people choose to follow the literal strict beliefs, or the lightened up version. Judging that human instinct (path of least resistance) and how other religions have gone (Most people are "Sunday Saints") eventually the more moderate side will win out. But there will be wackos, just as there are in every ideology.

You let me know where there have been such extreme profile terrorist attacks in the last 10 years as those committed under the name of "Islam" and if this is a irrational fear. I would not call it irrational at all.

[Calanen]

Oh...my...god...Islam and Mormons are in cahoots!

Its amazing how similar this Islamophobia crap is to antisemitism.


The Jews have no concept of Jihad. They have no concept of shari'a law. They do not have theocratic states that execute people for apostasy or insulting the prophet. They dont (by and large) treat women as second class citizens, nor are there are any jewish terrorist groups.


Same stuff, different religion. I want to see radical Islam destroyed, but I'm not going to fall victim to ignorant hatred and fear. What do you propose you do about the Muslim population in your country? Ethnic cleansing?

Neither am I unduly afraid, nor am I ignorant. Any muslim who rejects jihad, sharia law and agrees to live side by side with the infidels indefinitely..like everyone else has agreed to do I might add..is welcome. Any others, can gtfo.



You despise them for their intolerance, and yet you are intolerant of their beliefs.


Tolerance must never be extended to evil, otherwise you just become so open minded that your brain has fallen out of your head.

And yes I am intolerant of anyone who wants to kill me, declare jihad, and overthrow the rule of the common law. I will not be dhimmied into accepting or promoting anyone who believes in the overthrow of my constitution and my governmental system, no matter who they are and whether it is their 'belief' or their God that tells them to do so. I dont care what the reason is - it is not going to happen. And no resort to political correctness or other al-taqiyaa or belligerent victimhood name calling will change my belief on that.

And nor will it change the majority of right minded hard working Australians. They see with their own eyes what is happening - and no amount of 'spin' can convince them otherwise.

[Lefty]

I'm not saying the fear of Islamic terrorism is irrational, I'm saying that the fear Islam is going to somehow rise and pull us all under some kind of warped global domination is irrational.

Why? Because terrorism works, only if you let it. As of now, political power is typically geographical, unless you control governments and land, you have little power. Terrorism can push people to actions, but it does not lead to direct political control as invading a country would. The Palestinians have been pulling terrorist attacks for years, they can influence Israeli politics, but nobody from the PLO, Hamas, oe Hezbullah seems to be writing laws in parliment.

My argument here though, is simply that Islam is not predisposed to violence more than anybody else, they are just using different tactics.

[Calanen]

My argument here though, is simply that Islam is not predisposed to violence more than anybody else, they are just using different tactics.


Islam is predisposed to violence - the concept of jihad - war against unbelievers is unique as a doctrine in Islam and to the extent to which it is followed in Islam. There are huge slabs of religious text devoted entirely to the manner in which you wage warfare, what 'booty' you can take in warfare, and how if you die in warfare, you go to paradise and get your 72 virgins. That is unique to islam. That approach is also more likely to lead to followers committing more violence than other religions who do not believe or have a doctrine of spreading the word through violence. Dar-al-Harb..the House of War is wherever the infidel and infidel law prevails.

You perhaps missed all of the islamic threads. Have a read, they are legion.

[KoTeMoRe]

Islam is predisposed to violence - the concept of jihad - war against unbelievers is unique as a doctrine in Islam and to the extent to which it is followed in Islam. There are huge slabs of religious text devoted entirely to the manner in which you wage warfare, what 'booty' you can take in warfare, and how if you die in warfare, you go to paradise and get your 72 virgins. That is unique to islam. That approach is also more likely to lead to followers committing more violence than other religions who do not believe or have a doctrine of spreading the word through violence. Dar-al-Harb..the House of War is wherever the infidel and infidel law prevails.

You perhaps missed all of the islamic threads. Have a read, they are legion.


Holy effing war, St Augustine...Calanen would you please stop trolling.

[Clearday-TRForce]

Peter Hammond has released a purely unbelivable hillarious article. No sense no result.

Should we refresh your minds for the many genocides/ethnic cleanings by the west?

- An estimated 120 million native Indians were killed in Canada, America and South America

- The British apparently committed genocide of the Irish during the Great Potato Famine, 1845-48. the Irish lost ½ their population from emigration provoked by starvation conditions, and the British aggravated the starvation by callous policies permitting the exports of foodstuffs from Ireland during the famine calamity. The state of New York in the United States teaches the Potato Famine as an example of genocide.

- Substantial evidence implicates France in Algerian genocide during 1954-62 war of independence in which more than 200,000 Muslims were slaughtered. Senior French officers who fought in Algeria have recently confessed that torture and summary executions were routine grisly instruments of French warfare.

- Italy is guilty of genocide in Ethiopia and Somalia during its colonization and war aggressions, and a co-inspirator in the Jewish Holocaust as an ally of Hitler's Third Reich.

- The Dutch seem indictable for genocide of Indonesian tribes during its long colonial rule that ended only after World War II. The Dutch slaughtered and subjugated indigenous populations for economic gain and a belief in their racial and religious superiority.

- Neither country is a EU member, but both associated with its lofty ideology of moral superiority, and were former colonies of Great Britain. Both under the colonialism of the latter and during their early years of independence, these twin nations committed genocides against Australian aboriginals and New Zealand Maoris, respectively.

- Germany committed genocide against the Herero tribe in then Southwest Africa during its colonial occupation in the 1890s. The best evidence shows the Germans slaughtered members of the tribe because they believed they were genetically and mentally inferior. The tribe was not guilty of treason and not provoked the German savagery by its own massacres of Germans. The butchery of the Hereros was not during wartime when excesses are inevitable. Those who survived the initial German genocide revolted against their brutal treatment with the Hoitentots in 1904, but were viciously destroyed with vastly superior arms or otherwise.

jews? rwanda? iraq (over 1 million people dead for what?) ?....many...


such as at the near future 1990s Srebrenica? Karabagh? Chechens? so?

Peter Hammondt can pick up where we left off here. Softly tragicomedy.

[Russian_dude]

Islamophobia is NOT RACISM. A muslim can be an Arab and just as well he can be a blond/blue eyed German convert. Islamophobia = Racism is a feeble excuse of the usefull idiots on the left. What's next hating communism is being racist?

[Russian_dude]

Peter Hammond has released a purely unbelivable hillarious article. No sense no result.

Should we refresh your minds for the many genocides/ethnic cleanings by the west?

- An estimated 120 million native Indians were killed in Canada, America and South America

- The British apparently committed genocide of the Irish during the Great Potato Famine, 1845-48. the Irish lost ½ their population from emigration provoked by starvation conditions, and the British aggravated the starvation by callous policies permitting the exports of foodstuffs from Ireland during the famine calamity. The state of New York in the United States teaches the Potato Famine as an example of genocide.

- Substantial evidence implicates France in Algerian genocide during 1954-62 war of independence in which more than 200,000 Muslims were slaughtered. Senior French officers who fought in Algeria have recently confessed that torture and summary executions were routine grisly instruments of French warfare.

- Italy is guilty of genocide in Ethiopia and Somalia during its colonization and war aggressions, and a co-inspirator in the Jewish Holocaust as an ally of Hitler's Third Reich.

- The Dutch seem indictable for genocide of Indonesian tribes during its long colonial rule that ended only after World War II. The Dutch slaughtered and subjugated indigenous populations for economic gain and a belief in their racial and religious superiority.

- Neither country is a EU member, but both associated with its lofty ideology of moral superiority, and were former colonies of Great Britain. Both under the colonialism of the latter and during their early years of independence, these twin nations committed genocides against Australian aboriginals and New Zealand Maoris, respectively.

- Germany committed genocide against the Herero tribe in then Southwest Africa during its colonial occupation in the 1890s. The best evidence shows the Germans slaughtered members of the tribe because they believed they were genetically and mentally inferior. The tribe was not guilty of treason and not provoked the German savagery by its own massacres of Germans. The butchery of the Hereros was not during wartime when excesses are inevitable. Those who survived the initial German genocide revolted against their brutal treatment with the Hoitentots in 1904, but were viciously destroyed with vastly superior arms or otherwise.

rwanda? iraq (over 1 million people dead for what?) ?....many...


such as at the near future 1990s Srebrenica? Karabagh? Chechens? so?

None were done for religious reasons.

[Clearday-TRForce]

None were done for religious reasons.



really? none for Islam reason too. We do not care who use it behalf on it. Is there another name to clean a whole/part nation? with which moral values? for what? Islam is not a name for your buddies to label it like genocide/ethnic cleansing machiner,never ever. To show a religion like that will not solve any problem that humanity faces. The problem is not a religion, it is about poverty,ignorance,extremism,polarization.

[KoTeMoRe]

Islamophobia is NOT RACISM. A muslim can be an Arab and just as well he can be a blond/blue eyed German convert. Islamophobia = Racism is a feeble excuse of the usefull idiots on the left. What's next hating communism is being racist?

No, you're right Islamophobia is plain hate, you know the casual one, the one you ocasionnally feel about germans when walking around a military graveyard.

Being an Atheist, I could care less, but sometimes, things are just way too wrong to be right.

Edit: Polarization is human, so unless you kill us all that would not stop.

[Bro Jangles]

really? none for Islam reason too. We do not care who use it behalf on it. Is there another name to clean a whole/part nation? with which moral values? for what? Islam is not a name for your buddies to label it like genocide/ethnic cleansing machiner,never ever. To show a religion like that will not solve any problem that humanity faces. The problem is not a religion, it is about poverty,ignorance,extremism,polarization.
the reasons the dutch colonized the indonesia and the reason a young arab man takes a bomb onto a bus are two completly different reason, empires are in it for money, were as you fundamentalist actually believe they will go to heaven for comiting these terrible act.

[Media]

I agree, when they say Peace, it means peace to Muslims only, in the Sharia, all non Muslims who living with Muslims, must pay to stay in peace, and that pay is either money, land, or ppl(slaves), and if we let them go like this, we will go back to the dark ages in no time fellas, breeding like mice....

[KoTeMoRe]

I agree, when they say Peace, it means peace to Muslims only, in the Sharia, all non Muslims who living with Muslims, must pay to stay in peace, and that pay is either money, land, or ppl(slaves), and if we let them go like this, we will go back to the dark ages in no time fellas, breeding like mice....

Zombie Squad (wanted to pull this one out for while).

You're awesome dude.

[Holycrusader]

I agree, when they say Peace, it means peace to Muslims only, in the Sharia, all non Muslims who living with Muslims, must pay to stay in peace, and that pay is either money, land, or ppl(slaves), and if we let them go like this, we will go back to the dark ages in no time fellas, breeding like mice....


Do you read that in The Völkischer Beobachter, because your language is simmilar...

[Lazy Lob]

Do you read that in The Völkischer Beobachter, because your language is simmilar...

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/7648/nazima0.jpg

[Mastermind]

You know...this article spells it out probably better than most I have read...Yes, it is short and not too filled with explanatory detail. But, there it is for every one to see. It's real. It's backed up with years of observation. You can accuse it of being racist and bias and all the other Muslim excusing and apologising you want. But, you can not deny the stats fit exactly what's been going on in the world.

[Mundzos]

That is such a bull$hit article.....40% of muslims in Bosnia were terrorized and massacred by peacefull catholics and ortodox people...not the other way around....:fork:

[Calanen]

Do you read that in The Völkischer Beobachter, because your language is simmilar...

http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/4149/nazicardgb3.png (http://imageshack.us)

[Rictor]

How's this crap any different than The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

The Protocols were foisted on an poor, uneducated, xenophobic population ****e to outbursts of anti-Semitism. No such excuses can be made for the people who go "ZOMG! Dhimmitude is nigh!" in the year 2008.

[Mastermind]

That is such a bull$hit article.....40% of muslims in Bosnia were terrorized and massacred by peacefull catholics and ortodox people...not the other way around....:fork:
Have you actually read any kind of history of the conflict there? Please...do yourself a favor.

[seraosha]

Islam is a brain virus: a meme.

And a very successful one. It's a complete package-deal, as has been pointed out previously.

[Clearday-TRForce]

Islam is a brain virus: a meme.

And a very successful one. It's a complete package-deal, as has been pointed out previously.


you are the biggest virus I have seen in MP.net. Cong.!!! get rest...

[seraosha]

you are the biggest virus I have seen in MP.net. Cong.!!! get rest...

lol, Wat?

Ok, not to single out Islam...all organized religion, including my own, are meme's...

[Lazy Lob]

you are the biggest virus I have seen in MP.net. Cong.!!! get rest...

Yet your (very personal) point of view doesn't invalidate a fact that seraosha has clearly spelt out.

meme: A meme (****ounced /miːm/)[1] is a popular neologism for the term cultural trait; that is, a learned thought, feeling, or behavior. Examples include thoughts, ideas, theories, practices, habits, songs, dances and moods. Memes propagate themselves and can move through a "culture" in a manner similar to the behavior of a virus. As a unit of cultural evolution, a meme in some ways resembles a gene.

(from teh wiki)

[deli_dumrul]

Have you actually read any kind of history of the conflict there? Please...do yourself a favor.

What are we supposed to find out? Please elaborate? Are you referring to ethnic conflict as opposed to a religious one?

[Blue_0]

Islam is simply Christianity minus a several hundred years. There is nothing more inherently wrong with it then there is Christianity. It may be true it has not advanced in the same time period, but it is unfair to say it is not advancing now. The efforts of the religious leaders in Turkey are indicative of this, with their review of the holy writings.

I would argue that the response and violence of the Islamic radicals is occurring now because Islam is changing, and they see this change, or corruption of their primitive values caused by the west. Our culture is infecting theirs from the bottom up, and they are trying to fight back against it. ***, rock and roll, and western values are infectious, and everywhere you look in the Islamic world you can see this taking root in cultures that have not changed for a 1000 years.

The ones with that respond with violence because violence is the only way they know how to respond. It is the only weapon they can respond with. They are in a civil war now, between the extremists who want to go back in time, and the rest who would rather move forward. Their version of extremist version Islam is a problem; much like Christianity minus several hundred years would be a problem for us. The solution to the Islamic problem is to try and speed up its modernization. This will result in more violence, but the sooner Islam modernizes, the sooner the problems will go away.

[wildcat]

Islam is simply Christianity minus a several hundred years. There is nothing more inherently wrong with it then there is Christianity. It may be true it has not advanced in the same time period, but it is unfair to say it is not advancing now. The efforts of the religious leaders in Turkey are indicative of this, with their review of the holy writings.

I would argue that the response and violence of the Islamic radicals is occurring now because Islam is changing, and they see this change, or corruption of their primitive values caused by the west. Our culture is infecting theirs from the bottom up, and they are trying to fight back against it. ***, rock and roll, and western values are infectious, and everywhere you look in the Islamic world you can see this taking root in cultures that have not changed for a 1000 years.

The ones with that respond with violence because violence is the only way they know how to respond. It is the only weapon they can respond with. They are in a civil war now, between the extremists who want to go back in time, and the rest who would rather move forward. Their version of extremist version Islam is a problem; much like Christianity minus several hundred years would be a problem for us. The solution to the Islamic problem is to try and speed up its modernization. This will result in more violence, but the sooner Islam modernizes, the sooner the problems will go away.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_04/GothRP2201_468x665.jpg

Here ya go modernized.

[Calanen]

Islam is simply Christianity minus a several hundred years. There is nothing more inherently wrong with it then there is Christianity. It may be true it has not advanced in the same time period, but it is unfair to say it is not advancing now. The efforts of the religious leaders in Turkey are indicative of this, with their review of the holy writings.

This constant comparison with Islam to Christianity is just so painfully stupid. And it is made by people probably who have never read the Koran, let alone the reliable hadith.

There is no doctrine of jihad within Christianity. There is no concept of being killed in battle and automatically going to heaven and getting 72 virgins in Christianity. There is also not 100s of pages devoted to warfare, the conquest of unbelievers and the rule over unbelievers. That will always make Islam different and more likely to divert its followers into the direction of warfare.



I would argue that the response and violence of the Islamic radicals is occurring now because Islam is changing, and they see this change, or corruption of their primitive values caused by the west.


Well you'd be wrong, and you are ignoring jihad that has been going on with little respite since 700AD. The US in the time of Thomas Jefferson was being attacked by the Barbary pirates in the name of Islam. You'd think after all this time that America would learn how to stop their culture from upsetting those peaceful members of Islam?


Our culture is infecting theirs from the bottom up, and they are trying to fight back against it. ***, rock and roll, and western values are infectious, and everywhere you look in the Islamic world you can see this taking root in cultures that have not changed for a 1000 years.

That's not right either.



The ones with that respond with violence because violence is the only way they know how to respond. It is the only weapon they can respond with.


Is it? And why is that. Perhaps its because the Koran says things like this:



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


or 100s other quotes in the hadith and the Koran. And what is more important than the fact they are there, is the fact that some people in islam actively follow them.


They are in a civil war now, between the extremists who want to go back in time, and the rest who would rather move forward.

Civil war? Surely you jest. The only war against anybody is against the West. Where is this civil war? Has even one shot been fired in the defence of so called moderate islam? The primary aim of the majority of people vocal in Islam is to silence westerners for noticing the violence of certain followers of Islam, and then blaming the westerners for inciting them to do this. There is very little inward looking focus as to what is the problem within the religion - its all the West's fault for making them choose terrorism.


Their version of extremist version Islam is a problem; much like Christianity minus several hundred years would be a problem for us.

The West is actually fortunate that Christianity was as 'extremist' as it was, otherwise you would not have kicked the peaceloving muslims who managed to rampage out of their native lands all the way up into Spain and France, nor stopped them at the gates of Vienna.


The solution to the Islamic problem is to try and speed up its modernization. This will result in more violence, but the sooner Islam modernizes, the sooner the problems will go away.

No the solution is for the Islamic community to accept the right of Western governments to be infidels, to have infidel governments, and for Islami followers to not seek to attempt to through jihad disrupt, destroy, or damage western societies and institutions, either through armed jihad, economic jihad or any other jihad. It is also for the Islamic community to accept the right of infidels to live in a place not governed by sharia law, and not to respect the traditions, values, and freedoms within the west especially if that is where they have chosen to live.

By the way, your fairy land view of the problem is the predominant one held by the average person in the West. Which is why I am writing my book, so that people can understand the true dimensions of the difficulty.

All these motherhood statements you quote..oh its just like christianity people, are just pointless and distract us from the real issues at hand.

[Lazy Lob]

Islam is simply Christianity minus a several hundred years. There is nothing more inherently wrong with it then there is Christianity. ............

You what?????? I haven't read such a load of codswallop in a long time.

Islam is the word of god. It cannot be altered. It cannot be wrong. That is the major difference with christianity.

[seraosha]

Islam is simply Christianity minus a several hundred years.

You obviously have nothing to bring to the discussion until you have read the Q'uran, Sunnah, and Hadiths...or at the very least have some basis of reality to form an opinion around.

Educate yourself, come back when you have a clue about what you are talking about, instead or regurgitating what has been spoon fed to you.


http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/

[Blue_0]

You what?????? I haven't read such a load of codswallop in a long time.

Islam is the word of god. It cannot be altered. It cannot be wrong. That is the major difference with christianity.

Christianity is the word of god also. I was raised with the bible being said to be the literal word of god. Genocide is part and parcel of Christainity.

----------------------------------------
Throughout the old testemant the records of god adorned genocide are frequent. Here is one of the first.

Numbers 31:

The LORD said to me, "See, I have begun to deliver Sihon and his country over to you. Now begin to conquer and possess his land."
32 When Sihon and all his army came out to meet us in battle at Jahaz, 33 the LORD our God delivered him over to us and we struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army. 34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed [c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=5&chapter=2&version=31#fen-NIV-4973c)] them—men, women and children. We left no survivors. 35 But the livestock and the plunder from the towns we had captured we carried off for ourselves. 36 From Aroer on the rim of the Arnon Gorge, and from the town in the gorge, even as far as Gilead, not one town was too strong for us. The LORD our God gave us all of them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Give it a few hundred years, and we have the christian god angry at the first king of the Isrealites, because he only did a half assed job of genocide.

1 Samuel 15


7 And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt.
8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. 9 But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.

10 Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying,
11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.
12 And when Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning, it was told Samuel, saying, Saul came to Carmel, and, behold, he set him up a place, and is gone about, and passed on, and gone down to Gilgal.
13 And Samuel came to Saul: and Saul said unto him, Blessed be thou of the LORD: I have performed the commandment of the LORD.
14 And Samuel said, What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?
15 And Saul said, They have brought them from the Amalekites: for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed.
16 Then Samuel said unto Saul, Stay, and I will tell thee what the LORD hath said to me this night. And he said unto him, Say on.
17 And Samuel said, When thou wast little in thine own sight, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel, and the LORD anointed thee king over Israel?
18 And the LORD sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed.
19 Wherefore then didst thou not obey the voice of the LORD, but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst evil in the sight of the LORD?
20 And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, and have gone the way which the LORD sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites.
21 But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God in Gilgal.
22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. 23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

24 And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice.
25 Now therefore, I pray thee, pardon my sin, and turn again with me, that I may worship the LORD.
26 And Samuel said unto Saul, I will not return with thee: for thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD hath rejected thee from being king over Israel.
27 And as Samuel turned about to go away, he laid hold upon the skirt of his mantle, and it rent.
28 And Samuel said unto him, The LORD hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine, that is better than thou.
29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.
30 Then he said, I have sinned: yet honour me now, I pray thee, before the elders of my people, and before Israel, and turn again with me, that I may worship the LORD thy God. 31 So Samuel turned again after Saul; and Saul worshipped the LORD.

32 Then said Samuel, Bring ye hither to me Agag the king of the Amalekites. And Agag came unto him delicately. And Agag said, Surely the bitterness of death is past. 33 And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.


It is this incident, if you read on that results in the rejection of Sauls bloodline, and the rise of King David.

I have spent 6 years in bible school in what in retrospect, I view as no better then a madrassa. If you actually read the bibles it shows the christian god activily promoting genocide, and punishing those who do not do a good job at it.

You can say what you want about Islam being more voilent, but lets be blunt about it, you don't get worse then genocide.

My initial statement stands, Islam is merely christianity minus several hundred years.

[Qandil]

Do you read that in The Völkischer Beobachter, because your language is simmilar...
You people dont get it do you? it is not about racism or any sh*t like that, they are a group of people who want us to convert to Islam or else, thats what Islam means (submission), Convert or else, dont you listen to the news man, you should read more brother....

[Calanen]

Christianity is the word of god also. I was raised with the bible being said to be the literal word of god. Genocide is part and parcel of Christainity.


So what. When there are legions of christians calling for jihad based on what is in the bible, then we can have a problem. There aren't, and there wont be.

And where exactly is the jihad that is being practised in the name of the Bible? Whatever the bible says, or doesnt say, or any other book says or doesnt say - makes no difference to the fact that there are sovereign states based on what the Koran says. Saudi Arabias constitution is the Koran. Countries with their huge resources back the literal interpretation of the Koran. While groups in a large number of places wage jihad based on the Koran.

And even if Christians were exactly the same (which they are not) it would just mean that there was an extra group to deal with, not that we should ignore the jihadis in Islam.

[Hollis]

Christianity is the word of god also. I was raised with the bible being said to be the literal word of god. Genocide is part and parcel of Christainity.




Before you post any more crap, try to at least have some relevancy to it, as if you have a clue.

[seraosha]

I'd like to apologize to anyone that took offense at my opinion about memes, and the idea's relevancy to organized religion, especially Islam. I could have expressed it better, without being a jackass.

[Limeyfellow]

at this point in history, no other religon is as physically dangerous as islam. you may not agree with Christianity, but baptist arnt strapin them selves with C4, and the vaticans not developing nuclear weapons.

No but they have been caught over the past several years trying to do cyanide attacks on malls in the US, Anthrax attacks, and various other nasty attacks. Of course maybe its because I had a bunch of Christian fanatics not so many years ago trying to blow up my family members. Then there are the ones who bomb the Olympics and clinics, not to mention the plot in the late 90s that was to attack Fort Hood, to defeat the evil satanic Chinese UN army hidden there. There plenty of loonies in any religious groups. Still most people are not like this.

The article is a bunch of paranoid bs, not based on evidence but sprouting made up garbage to try and gain support that the actions of a few radicals apply to a billion other people.

[Calanen]

No but they have been caught over the past several years trying to do cyanide attacks on malls in the US, Anthrax attacks, and various other nasty attacks. The article is a bunch of paranoid bs, not based on evidence but sprouting made up garbage to try and gain support that the actions of a few radicals apply to a billion other people.

Well when the Christian jihad threat is in any way comparable to the Islamic Jihad threat, I promise we'll all deal with it.

Until then, let's stop citing absurd irrelevancies.

Oh and if you believe you have solved the US Anthrax attacks by pinning them on Christian fundamentalists, give the FBI a call. They'd love to hear from you.

It wouldn't be this rubbish you were referring to, would it?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,57411,00.html
NPR: Sorry About the Story Linking Christian Group to Anthrax

Thursday, July 11, 2002
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
http://www.foxnews.com/images/foxnews_story.gif

WASHINGTON — Six months after the fact, the head of National Public Radio apologized Wednesday for what some lawmakers called a "slanderous" report linking anthrax-laced letters to a Christian conservative organization.

“We have made mistakes at NPR. One mistake was … our report about TVC,” said Kevin Klose, president and CEO of the public broadcasting radio network, referring to a story that suggested the Traditional Values Coalition was connected to the attempted assassination of two senators.

"You have my personal apology for that mistake and I hope to go on from there,” Klose said.

Klose’s comments in a Wednesday House subcommittee hearing came after several Republican members implored NPR to apologize for a January news package that suggested that the conservative group, which represents 43,000 member churches, was connected to the anthrax letters sent last fall to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

The NPR story suggested that TVC “fit the profile” of groups that might have been responsible for those types of letters. Such letters were ultimately linked to the deaths of five Americans.

Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the TVC, called Wednesday's apology "theater," and said the damage was far worse than a simple mea culpa could rectify.

“Clearly NPR employees graduated from the school of anti-Christian bigotry where their new math of two-plus-two-equals-four equates to Christian-organization-plus-speak-out-against-senators-equals-murder," Lafferty charged, adding that TVC's lawyers are fighting for a full retraction.

After receiving complaints about the story from listeners, NPR issued an on-air statement calling the reporting “inappropriate,” but did not go so far as to apologize or issue a retraction.

Wednesday's House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet hearing was billed as an oversight discussion, for which TVC's input was sought. The hearing also provided a look into the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s mandated conversion to digital programming for the year 2003 — for which the organization is seeking more funding to complete.

Lawmakers speaking to representatives from NPR and Public Broadcasting Station said they were “conflicted” about fully supporting CPB because of the liberal biases, as demonstrated by the report on TVC.

“Perhaps NPR cannot understand that members of TVC and members of the Christian community might be offended by this,” said Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., chairman of the full committee. For them, Tauzin suggested, “anyone outside that [liberal] circle is considered right wing, abnormal.”

But defenders of NPR dismissed those charges as the usual anti-public broadcasting rhetoric, based on liberal-versus-conservative biases typically sparked when CPB is looking for support from Congress.

“There is no question there is a bias — it’s far too conservative,” said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., amid laughter from the audience. He cited popular conservatives with regular stints on PBS, including “that classic Republican, Oscar the Grouch,” of Sesame Street fame.

Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., said perhaps TVC should drop its call for an apology since "a Christian value was forgiveness."

Under federal law, PBS must convert to digital broadcasting — an endeavor that the Association of Public Television Stations says will require an additional $274 million to finish the job. In 2004, CPB is slated to receive $380 million, or 12 percent of its funding, from federal dollars. President Bush has requested $395 million for CPB in 2005.

Some lawmakers question whether CPB, chartered in 1969 as an alternative to the three existing networks, is still necessary in the world of broad cable, digital and Internet information systems.

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, suggested that people were already voting with their feet against CPB's relevancy.

"Put me down as one of the skeptics about the need for public broadcasting today," he said.

[eskachig]

I don't see what people are getting all irate about. A few hundred years ago there was Christian jihad. We called it the crusades. A few hundred of years ago the Pope was literally infallible. A few hundred years ago Christians were burning heretics on the cross killing witches all across the world. To this day fundamentalist Christians remain some of the most hateful people around, and though they aren't as inclined to terroristm things like abortion clinic bombings have been known to happen.

The man is right. There are plenty of moderate muslims. Just not enough.

[wildcat]

I don't see what people are getting all irate about. A few hundred years ago there was Christian jihad. We called it the crusades. A few hundred of years ago the Pope was literally infallible. A few hundred years ago Christians were burning heretics on the cross killing witches all across the world. To this day fundamentalist Christians remain some of the most hateful people around, and though they aren't as inclined to terroristm things like abortion clinic bombings have been known to happen.

The man is right. There are plenty of moderate muslims. Just not enough.
a bit more than an few hundred years, but anyhow how did the Christian crusades fight..................Oh yes Islamic Jihadist

[Abaddon]

a bit more than an few hundred years, but anyhow how did the Christian crusades fight..................Oh yes Islamic Jihadist

If you mean 'who did the Christian crusades fight' it was 'subhuman pagans' with the intent to either destroy them or convert them. The Teutonic Knights did a pretty good job converting in Eastern Europe, whereas in the holy land crusades ethnic cleansing and massacre were more common. The Muslims at the time were more concerned with defending and re-capturing what was historically their land.

If you don't know history, maybe you should shut up. :hug:

[wildcat]

shut up. :hug:

You should follow what you preach. :backhand:

[MPNFL]

Terrible. nothing more then conjecture twisted with drivel. it seems today anthing condemning Islam as a "terrorist sponsoring" religion sells to those that want to believe it most. way to bridge the gaps between religions, i guess nothing really has changed for the past 2,000 years.

[Heinemann]

I don't see what people are getting all irate about. A few hundred years ago there was Christian jihad. We called it the crusades. A few hundred of years ago the Pope was literally infallible. A few hundred years ago Christians were burning heretics on the cross killing witches all across the world. To this day fundamentalist Christians remain some of the most hateful people around, and though they aren't as inclined to terroristm things like abortion clinic bombings have been known to happen.


And where exactly are Christians ordered to do this in their Scriptures? I understand your trying to take the secular humanist point of view by saying all sides are to blame but its simply not correct. Plus the Crusaders were in response to Islamic aggression, they were purely defensive.

[Abaddon]

And where exactly are Christians ordered to do this in their Scriptures? I understand your trying to take the secular humanist point of view by saying all sides are to blame but its simply not correct. Plus the Crusaders were in response to Islamic aggression, they were purely defensive.

L O L

I'm a Catholic and I don't even believe that. That's the most rediculous thing I've ever heard. The Reconquista, yes, but not the majority of the First Crusade onward.

[deli_dumrul]

Plus the Crusaders were in response to Islamic aggression, they were purely defensive.

Tell that to the Greeks...

[eskachig]

And where exactly are Christians ordered to do this in their Scriptures? I understand your trying to take the secular humanist point of view by saying all sides are to blame but its simply not correct. Christian scriptures have all sorts of loveliness in them that Christians by and large do not follow. But I'm not saying both sides are to blame - Christianity is far more culturally advanced in this age. Vatican relented on its drive for political power centuries ago, and for the most part Christians are starting to accept things like science and birth control. But from an outside perspective the two religions are mostly cut from the same cloth.


Plus the Crusaders were in response to Islamic aggression, they were purely defensive.That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life.

[Mr.Flint]

If you mean 'who did the Christian crusades fight' it was 'subhuman pagans' with the intent to either destroy them or convert them. The Teutonic Knights did a pretty good job converting in Eastern Europe, whereas in the holy land crusades ethnic cleansing and massacre were more common. The Muslims at the time were more concerned with defending and re-capturing what was historically their land.

If you don't know history, maybe you should shut up. :hug:
Really?
weird, i dont remember Muslims being there before Byzantine and Roman Empires or anyone else....

Looks like you should take your own advice :)

[Henry's Fork]

If disliking a backwards, stuck in the middle ages, cult/religion, who are responsable for 80-90% of the worlds terrorist attacks in the last 30 years is racist..........whhooooo fvcking whooooo i am the Grand Fvcking Wizzard of Racism. Eat a **** you jihadi supporters and nay sayers, i am a Racist!

But you better not tell any of my Black, Asian, or Latino girlfriends, they might not like being with a full blown Racist who dislikes insane religions.!1!!11one

[Abaddon]

Really?
weird, i dont remember Muslims being there before Byzantine and Roman Empires or anyone else....

Looks like you should take your own advice :)

I was specifically talking about 'the Holy Land' which had been in Muslim hands since 638.

[Qandil]

And where exactly are Christians ordered to do this in their Scriptures? I understand your trying to take the secular humanist point of view by saying all sides are to blame but its simply not correct. Plus the Crusaders were in response to Islamic aggression, they were purely defensive.
WTF you talking about, Crusaders were responsable for Islamic aggression?!!! where the Crusaders around when the Arabs invaded Persia? or did they Invaded Macca when the Muslims captured jerusalem and Egypt? Muslims are allways responsable for what comes to them, they are killers and allways will be mate, I suggest you read some history regarding this topic my friend...

[Mr.Flint]

I was specifically talking about 'the Holy Land' which had been in Muslim hands since 638.
That still doesnt make it "historically theirs".
My comment and suggestion still stand.

[Abaddon]

That still doesnt make it "historically theirs".

Four centuries. Germany hasn't been united for four centuries. The United States hasn't existed for four centuries. Etc. etc.

[Mr.Flint]

Four centuries. Germany hasn't been united for four centuries. The United States hasn't existed for four centuries. Etc. etc.
and before that 7 centuries of Roman (passing into the Byzantine) rule.
after? 2 centuries of Crusaders rule.

So my argument stands.
It is not "historically theirs" neither through the right of conquest, nor through longevity of rule/living there.

[Abaddon]

and before that 7 centuries of Roman (passing into the Byzantine) rule.
after? 2 centuries of Crusaders rule.

So my argument stands.
It is not "historically theirs" neither through the right of conquest, nor through longevity of rule/living there.

For four centuries before the First Crusade arrived. Hence the argument that they were retaking 'their' land. I'm not counting the seven more centuries of Muslim rule after the crusades because that's not applicable to the argument.

It was six centuries of Roman/Byzantine rule ( for most of which Jews were banned from Jerusalem), by the by.

6 - Jerusalem and the surrounding area comes under direct Roman rule
614 - Sassanids capture Jerusalem and the surrounding area
638 - Jerusalem and surrounding area comes under the rule of the Islamic Caliphate
1099 - Jeruslam conquered by First Crusade
1187 - Jerusalem conquered by Saladin
1244 - Jerusalem sacked by Tatars
1250-1517 - Jerusalem ruled by Mamluks
1517-1917 - Jerusalem ruled by Ottoman Empire
1917 - Jerusalem comes under the mandate of the British Army

And you know the rest.

[Hollis]

and before that 7 centuries of Roman (passing into the Byzantine) rule.
after? 2 centuries of Crusaders rule.

So my argument stands.
It is not "historically theirs" neither through the right of conquest, nor through longevity of rule/living there.


According the Qur'an, Al Maeda 20-25, It is not for the Muslim, but the people of Al Talba (The book?)

[Mr.Flint]

For four centuries before the First Crusade arrived. Hence the argument that they were retaking 'their' land. I'm not counting the seven more centuries of Muslim rule after the crusades because that's not applicable to the argument.

It was six centuries of Roman/Byzantine rule ( for most of which Jews were banned from Jerusalem), by the by.
Sigh, im not even sure why you are repeating this.
The numbers invalidate your argument.
Because 7 (check your numbers, its 7 centuries not six, from 63 BCE to 638 CE, your list misses the client state period, and the Byzantine retaking of Jerusalem in 629) centuries give the Crusaders (being the inheritors of the Roman/Byzantine Empires) equal if not bigger (for the majority of the population was not muslim) right to claim "historical" ownership.

So your argument is still wrong.

besides, its Jewish land anyway. You all were invaders to us, and all of your "historical" claims mean little to us woot

[Calanen]

I don't see what people are getting all irate about. A few hundred years ago there was Christian jihad.

No there wasnt. Do some research. The revisionist history of the Crusades is just more of the 'Europeans and white people should hate themselves for everything bs'. The start of all of that problem was the peaceloving muslims conquering Spain and half of France. You are really lucky that the Frankish knights saved France from having to live under Islamic rule. And it wasnt fun.


The Battle of Tours followed twenty years of Umayyad conquests in Europe which had begun with the invasion of the Visigothic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visigoths) Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian) Kingdoms of the Iberian peninsula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_peninsula) in 711. These were followed by military expeditions into the Frankish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankish) territories of Gaul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaul), former provinces of the Roman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire). Umayyad military campaigns had reached northward into Aquitaine and Burgundy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgundy), including a major engagement at Bordeaux (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bordeaux) and a raid on Autun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autun). Charles' victory is widely believed to have stopped the northward advance of Umayyad forces from the Iberian peninsula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_peninsula), and to have preserved Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) in Europe during a period when Muslim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam) rule was overrunning the remains of the old Roman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire) and Persian Empires (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Empire).[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours#cite_note-12) Others have argued that the battle marked only the defeat of a raiding force and was not a watershed event.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours#cite_note-13)

The Franks drove them out of France, and the Spanish drove them out of Spain. The Crusades were primarily defensive wars resulting from muslim aggression against Christian lands. It was not as if the muslims were living quietly on their farms in the Holy Land when suddenly the big bad crusaders attacked them. And you might also spare a thought for how the muslims got into the Holy Land when they started off in Saudi Arabia (hint it wasnt through savvy real estate purchases).


A few hundred of years ago the Pope was literally infallible.

The Pope is still infallible.


A few hundred years ago Christians were burning heretics on the cross killing witches all across the world. To this day fundamentalist Christians remain some of the most hateful people around, and though they aren't as inclined to terroristm things like abortion clinic bombings have been known to happen.

This comparison with Christianity is just so pointless. Does it mean that Islamic terrorists can have a 'turn' at behaving poorly? Does it mean that we should ignore them? It is just a meaningless and amateurish rhetorical device that gets trumpeted by the kumbaya crowd over and over again.

[Abaddon]

Sigh, im not even sure why you are repeating this.
The numbers invalidate your argument.
Because 7 (check your numbers, its 7 centuries not six, from 63 BCE to 638 CE) centuries give the Crusaders (being the inheritors of the Roman/Byzantine Empires) equal if not bigger (for the majority of the population was not muslim) right to claim "historical" ownership.

So your argument is still wrong.

It became a client kingdom in 63 BCE, it wasn't incorporated as a Roman province until 6 CE.

I'm not arguing the Christians of Europe didn't have a claim on the Holy Land, I'm simply arguing that the Muslims had a claim as well, after four centuries of rule and with Jerusalem being the third holiest city in Islam.



besides, its Jewish land anyway. You all were invaders to us, and all of your "historical" claims mean little to us woot

Thank god the Muslims let Jews back into Jerusalem in 638 CE after Jews were banned by the Roman/Byzantine Empire in 135 CE.

[Hollis]

This comparison with Christianity is just so pointless.

Considering this is 2008, I completely agree what happened 1000 years ago is pretty moot.

[Hollis]

Jerusalem being the third holiest city in Islam.


Show me where in the Quri'an that this is true or the Hadeths.

Maybe read Al Maeda 20 -25.

[Abaddon]

Show me where in the Quri'an that this is true or the Hadeths.

Maybe read Al Maeda 20 -25.

It was declared by the second Caliph of the Islamic Caliphate, Umar the Great. Ostensibly the successor to Mohammed. The same man who allowed Jews back into Jerusalem and signed a treaty assuring the protection of Christian people and holy sites within the city.

[Hollis]

It was declared by the second Caliph of the Islamic Caliphate, Umar the Great. Ostensibly the successor to Mohammed.


If it is not Qur'anic then it is nothing. The Qur'an in the view of the vast majority of clerics is unchanging. It does not negate what Al Maeda 20 -25.

So show me a Qur'an citation or one from the Hadeths.

[Abaddon]

If it is not Qur'anic then it is nothing. The Qur'an in the view of the vast majority of clerics is unchanging. It does not negate what Al Maeda 20 -25.

So show me a Qur'an citation or one from the Hadeths.

The Caliph had the power to make such declarations as the leader of the Islamic faith and successor to Mohammed. Much like the Pope.

[Hollis]

The Caliph had the power to make such declarations as the leader of the Islamic faith and successor to Mohammed. Much like the Pope.


Jeepers, then the Mullah and Imams are all wrong. BTW not all the Popes decrees where based on the Bible. Still Qur'anic wrong, Just as the Pope's mistakes.


"All law and spiritual practice proceeded from Muhammad. Nobody claimed that his successor would be a prophet; succession referred to political authority. The uncertainty centered on the extent of that authority. Muhammad's revelations claim to be directly from God, were soon codified and written down as the Qur'an (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an), which was accepted as a supreme authority, limiting what a caliph could legitimately command. However, there is some evidence that some early caliphs did believe that they had authority to rule in matters not specified in the Qur'an. They believed themselves to be temporal and spiritual leaders even in issues not commanded in the Quran, and insisted that implicit obedience to the caliph in all things not contradicting the Quran, was the hallmark of the good Muslim. The modern scholars Patricia Crone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Crone) and Martin Hinds, in their book God's Caliph, outline the evidence for an early, expansive view of the caliph's importance and authority. They argue that this view of the caliph was eventually nullified (in Sunni Islam, at least) by the rising power of the ulema (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulema), or Islamic lawyers, judges, scholars, and religious specialists. The ulema insisted on their right to determine what was legal and orthodox. The proper Muslim leader, in the ulema's opinion, was the leader who enforced the rulings of the ulema, rather than making rulings of his own, unless he himself was qualified in Islamic law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_law). Conflict between caliph and ulema, akin to a modern judiciary, was a recurring theme in early Islamic history, and ended in the victory of the ulema. The caliph was henceforth limited to temporal rule only. He would be considered a righteous caliph if he were guided by the ulema. Crone and Hinds argue that Shi'a Muslims, with their expansive view of the powers of the imamate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imamate), have preserved some of the beliefs of the early Ummayad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummayad) dynasty which they ironically despise. Crone and Hinds' thesis is not accepted by all scholars."


You fail to understand the who the Prophet Muhammad was, he was the equivalent to Jesus, the Pope was just, "Vicarious fili Dei".

[Abaddon]

Jeepers, then the Mullah and Imams are all wrong. BTW not all the Popes decrees where based on the Bible. Still Qur'anic wrong, Just as the Pope's mistakes.


"All law and spiritual practice proceeded from Muhammad. Nobody claimed that his successor would be a prophet; succession referred to political authority. The uncertainty centered on the extent of that authority. Muhammad's revelations claim to be directly from God, were soon codified and written down as the Qur'an (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an), which was accepted as a supreme authority, limiting what a caliph could legitimately command. However, there is some evidence that some early caliphs did believe that they had authority to rule in matters not specified in the Qur'an. They believed themselves to be temporal and spiritual leaders even in issues not commanded in the Quran, and insisted that implicit obedience to the caliph in all things not contradicting the Quran, was the hallmark of the good Muslim. The modern scholars Patricia Crone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Crone) and Martin Hinds, in their book God's Caliph, outline the evidence for an early, expansive view of the caliph's importance and authority. They argue that this view of the caliph was eventually nullified (in Sunni Islam, at least) by the rising power of the ulema (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulema), or Islamic lawyers, judges, scholars, and religious specialists. The ulema insisted on their right to determine what was legal and orthodox. The proper Muslim leader, in the ulema's opinion, was the leader who enforced the rulings of the ulema, rather than making rulings of his own, unless he himself was qualified in Islamic law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_law). Conflict between caliph and ulema, akin to a modern judiciary, was a recurring theme in early Islamic history, and ended in the victory of the ulema. The caliph was henceforth limited to temporal rule only. He would be considered a righteous caliph if he were guided by the ulema. Crone and Hinds argue that Shi'a Muslims, with their expansive view of the powers of the imamate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imamate), have preserved some of the beliefs of the early Ummayad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummayad) dynasty which they ironically despise. Crone and Hinds' thesis is not accepted by all scholars."


You fail to understand the who the Prophet Muhammad was, he was the equivalent to Jesus, the Pope was just, "Vicarious fili Dei".

Re-read what you've quoted. Umar the Great's rule as the second Caliph pre-dated the limitations placed upon the Caliph's rule and, in fact, the firm establishment of the ulema in Islam by over a century.

[Hollis]

"The caliph was henceforth limited to temporal rule only." is that hard to read.


Also explore Spain and the right of ownership that Muslim claim, then compare the arguments with Israel.


BTW, the Caliph is not in power to enforce anything thing.


Maybe as Muslims who are alive today, about this, their Clerics too. The Qur'an and the Hadeths are their guide.

Like many Christians today, what Pope decreed a 1000 + years ago has no baring on anything (especially non-Catholics).

[Abaddon]

"The caliph was henceforth limited to temporal rule only." is that hard to read.

Henceforth being more than a century after Umar. His declarations are still respected by the Sunni, although they are generally ignored by the Shi'a due to the succession debate.

[Hollis]

Henceforth being more than a century after Umar. His declarations are still respected by the Sunni, although they are generally ignored by the Shi'a due to the succession debate.


you missed this,

"They argue that this view of the caliph was eventually nullified (in Sunni Islam, at least) by the rising power of the ulema (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulema), or Islamic lawyers, judges, scholars, and religious specialists."

[Abaddon]

you missed this,

"They argue that this view of the caliph was eventually nullified (in Sunni Islam, at least) by the rising power of the ulema (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulema), or Islamic lawyers, judges, scholars, and religious specialists."

Eventually. Long after Umar. You don't seem to understand the timeline. The teachings and declarations of the Rashidun (all of whom ruled long before the reforms you mention) continue to be followed and respected by Sunni Muslims.

[Hollis]

Eventually. Long after Umar. You don't seem to understand the timeline. The teachings and declarations of the Rashidun (all of whom ruled long before the reforms you mention) continue to be followed and respected by Sunni Muslims.


This is 2008, I never heard a Cleric use a Caliph as a reference to anything. It is usually the Qur'an, then the Hadeths and maybe Bakari.

Again show me the Qur'an verse.

"The ulema insisted on their right to determine what was legal and orthodox" not the Caliph.

[Abaddon]

I found the Hadith you were looking for, by the way. Sahih al-Bukhari.

'Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Do not set out on a journey except for three Mosques i.e. Al-Masjid-AI-Haram, the Mosque of Allah's Apostle , and the Mosque of Al-Aqsa, (Mosque of Jerusalem)' 2:21:281

'" (4) Do not prepare yourself for a journey except to three Mosques, i.e. Al-Masjid-AI-Haram, the Mosque of Aqsa (Jerusalem) and my Mosque" 2:21:288

There's also a Hadith saying what a prayer in each of the three holiest sites (including Jerusalem) is worth, I just need to find it.

[Abaddon]

"The ulema insisted on their right to determine what was legal and orthodox" not the Caliph.

That was more than a century after Umar the Great and the other Rashidun. I don't know how many times I need to say this.

[Calanen]

This is 2008, I never heard a Cleric use a Caliph as a reference to anything. It is usually the Qur'an, then the Hadeths and maybe Bakari.

Again show me the Qur'an verse.

"The ulema insisted on their right to determine what was legal and orthodox" not the Caliph.

In addition, there is no caliph - despite Osama thinking its him.

[wildcat]

1234567890

[Abaddon]

"Abu Darda is quoted a saying that the Prophet said: "The reward of a prayer in the Sacred Mosque (in Makkah) is worth 100,000 prayers, a prayer
in my mosque (in Medina) is worth 1,000 prayers and a prayer in al Aqsa Mosque (Jerusalem) is worth 500 prayers more than in any other mosque."
[Bukhari]

I've found the proper quotation plastered everywhere, I just need to find where in the Hadith it is. At any rate, that's pretty conclusive.

[wildcat]

"Abu Darda is quoted a saying that the Prophet said: "The reward of a prayer in the Sacred Mosque (in Makkah) is worth 100,000 prayers, a prayer
in my mosque (in Medina) is worth 1,000 prayers and a prayer in al Aqsa Mosque (Jerusalem) is worth 500 prayers more than in any other mosque."
[Bukhari]

I've found the proper quotation plastered everywhere, I just need to find where in the Hadith it is. At any rate, that's pretty conclusive.

off topic, why would a prayer be worth more in Makkah, would not a prayer be seen in the eyes of Allah as the same?

[Mr.Flint]

"Abu Darda is quoted a saying that the Prophet said: "The reward of a prayer in the Sacred Mosque (in Makkah) is worth 100,000 prayers, a prayer
in my mosque (in Medina) is worth 1,000 prayers and a prayer in al Aqsa Mosque (Jerusalem) is worth 500 prayers more than in any other mosque."
[Bukhari]

I've found the proper quotation plastered everywhere, I just need to find where in the Hadith it is. At any rate, that's pretty conclusive.

the names in brackets are the translator interpretations, they differ in different translation, and are not definitive.
Look here http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=3297982#post3297982
and here you can see the video http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3319222&postcount=88

[Hollis]

That was more than a century after Umar the Great and the other Rashidun. I don't know how many times I need to say this.


I would suggest not being condescending.


Also you have NOT posted one citation from the Qur'an or Hadeths. You can post all you want about the Caliph a 1000 years ago. but show me a citation where what he says has any bearing on today. Read any Islamic site, the vast preponderance of citations are from the Qur'an or the Hadeths (the live of the Prophet).


Jerusalem is not even mentioned in the Qur'an. You seem to like some kind of time line thingie, so it's importance of today was defined in 1948. Purely political.

You never address what Spain is "on the Islamic" most want list too. Same reason on can say Israel is, and it has nothing to do with being especially sacre.


Bases of Sharia Law:

"There is no strictly static set of laws of sharia. Sharia is more of a system of how law ought to serve humanity, a consensus of the unified spirit, based on the Qur'an (the religious text of Islam), Hadeths (sayings and doings of Muhammad and his companions), Ijma Oyais and centuries of debate, interpretation and precedent."



Lets get back on topic.

I don't see a issue with a religious system. Most religions do the same, some are not a well established in all aspects of a person's every day life. Critics of other religions will point to the all encompassing aspect of the religion on the person's life, especially when that person is running for a political office. Example would be when JFK ran for presidency.

[perdurabo]

If you mean 'who did the Christian crusades fight' it was 'subhuman pagans' with the intent to either destroy them or convert them. The Teutonic Knights did a pretty good job converting in Eastern Europe, whereas in the holy land crusades ethnic cleansing and massacre were more common. The Muslims at the time were more concerned with defending and re-capturing what was historically their land.

If you don't know history, maybe you should shut up. :hug:


hmm in converting who? mass killing Prussians? Poland was christianized around 400 years erlier, Lithuania was christianized by Poles around XVth century... sorry but teutonic order wasn't succesfull here either, bunch of murders they where.

BTW thank god, buddhism isn't word of god but mumbojumbo of Indian prince, thats why i follow it.

[Abaddon]

I would suggest not being condescending.


Also you have NOT posted one citation from the Qur'an or Hadeths. You can post all you want about the Caliph a 1000 years ago. but show me a citation where what he says has any bearing on today. Read any Islamic site, the vast preponderance of citations are from the Qur'an or the Hadeths (the live of the Prophet).

I'm not being condescending.

I posted three citations from the Hadeths. All of which mention Jerusalem, one of which lists the Al-Asqa Mosque in Jerusalem as the third holiest site in Islam (As commonly accepted within Islam for centuries).

The Sahih al-Bukhari is one of the books of Hadeths. :)

[Mr.Flint]

I'm not being condescending.

I posted three citations from the Hadeths. All of which mention Jerusalem, one of which lists the Al-Asqa Mosque in Jerusalem as the third holiest site in Islam (As commonly accepted within Islam for centuries).

The Sahih al-Bukhari is one of the books of Hadeths. :)
I repeat, the parts that are in brackets are the translator commentary.
different translation, different interpretation.
Those are not considered as definite and therefore have no value whatsoever.
Watch the debate i linked to.

[Abaddon]

I repeat, the parts that are in brackets are the translator commentary.
different translation, different interpretation.
Those are not considered as definite and therefore have no value whatsoever.
Watch the debate i linked to.

The 'translator commentary' is, for the most part, commonly accepted within Islam. There is a debate among some, as there should be, but that hardly nullifies the interpretation.

Jewish scholars debate the interpretation of the prophecy that lead to Jesus. That doesn't nullify Christianity.

[Hollis]

I'm not being condescending.

I posted three citations from the Hadeths. All of which mention Jerusalem, one of which lists the Al-Asqa Mosque in Jerusalem as the third holiest site in Islam (As commonly accepted within Islam for centuries).

The Sahih al-Bukhari is one of the books of Hadeths. :)


I repeat, the parts that are in brackets are the translator commentary.
different translation, different interpretation.
Those are not considered as definite and therefore have no value whatsoever.
Watch the debate i linked to.


You seem also to be ignoring his post too.

Also considering the Prophet Muhammad died in 623 CE and "The first Al-Aqsa Mosque was constructed of wood by the Umayyads in 710 CE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you do the math. Again as Mr. Flint points out the issue with translation.

Political Islam does not follow the Qur'an.

[Abaddon]

You seem also to be ignoring his post too.

Also considering the Prophet Muhammad died in 623 CE and "The first Al-Aqsa Mosque was constructed of wood by the Umayyads in 710 CE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you do the math. Again as Mr. Flint points out the issue with translation.

Political Islam does not follow the Qur'an.

The belief that Mohammed was referring to the Temple Mount when he spoke of 'the farthest Mosque' dates from at least 715...hence the name for Al-Aqsa Mosque.

I'm not a Professor of Muslim History, which makes explaining all this a little tiresome, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night. p-)

At any rate, to quote Metallica, 'the dream is my reality', what is commonly accepted within Islam is Islam for those that believe it. As Islam is not a unified religion there are no canon interpretations (hence Radical Islam, unfortunately).

What you, some Jewish scholar, or I believe about how the Qur'an and Hadith should be interpreted is moot. I'm not arguing that this is the correct interpretation, I'm arguing that it is what is commonly accepted within Islam itself, and did not originate in 1948.

[Hollis]

http://web.israelinsider.com/views/10662.htm, Political Islam made Jerusalem a holy site, there are no historical reasoning except the right of conquest.

"In the time it takes a clay water jar to tip and spill its first drop, Mohammed, in his mythical dream, flew from Mecca to the "the furthest place." In Arabic, "the furthest place" is "Al Aksa." At that time "Al Aksa" (or "furthest place") would be either a mosque in Medina or Allah's Courtyard in Paradise. There was no mosque, no "Al Aksa" mosque, on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem in Mohammed's lifetime"

"However, only since 1967 through the cleverness of Yassir Arafat, did they claim that Jerusalem is their third holiest city and give credence to another myth that of a non-people as a nation of history. Never before, whenever the Muslim conquerors had control did they establish a capital in Jerusalem. If you check out photos of the Temple Mount when the Muslims were in control, please note the grass growing up between the paving stones. The crowds of Muslims weren't there until the leaders started to remake their PR that Jerusalem is their third holiest city."

[Abaddon]

http://web.israelinsider.com/views/10662.htm, Political Islam made Jerusalem a holy site, there are no historical reasoning except the right of conquest.

"In the time it takes a clay water jar to tip and spill its first drop, Mohammed, in his mythical dream, flew from Mecca to the "the furthest place." In Arabic, "the furthest place" is "Al Aksa." At that time "Al Aksa" (or "furthest place") would be either a mosque in Medina or Allah's Courtyard in Paradise. There was no mosque, no "Al Aksa" mosque, on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem in Mohammed's lifetime"

"However, only since 1967 through the cleverness of Yassir Arafat, did they claim that Jerusalem is their third holiest city and give credence to another myth that of a non-people as a nation of history. Never before, whenever the Muslim conquerors had control did they establish a capital in Jerusalem. If you check out photos of the Temple Mount when the Muslims were in control, please note the grass growing up between the paving stones. The crowds of Muslims weren't there until the leaders started to remake their PR that Jerusalem is their third holiest city."

I'm sure that's what Israelis believe and that there are no ulterior motives for such a belief. :roll:

Why do you think the mosque on the Temple Mount was named Al-Aqsa in 715? It is because, at the time, a long time before 1948, it was believed Mohammed was referring to the Temple Mount.

You have a proper argument hidden somewhere in what you're saying, but blaming it on 'Political Islam' and 1948 is incorrect.

[Hollis]

I'm sure that's what Israelis believe and that there are no ulterior motives for such a belief. :roll:

Why do you think the mosque on the Temple Mount was named Al-Aqsa in 710? It is because, at the time, a long time before 1948, it was believed Mohammed was referring to the Temple Mount.


Keep citing political Islam, it is loaded with historicals revisions

"
However some disagree, arguing that at the time this verse of the Qur'an (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an) was recited (traditionally at around the year 621), many Muslims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims) understood the phrase "furthest mosque" as a poetic phrase for either a mosque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosque) established as an exclusively Muslim place of worship - in existence during prophet Muhammad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad)’s lifetime - (such as Medina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medina) [4] (http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP56403), Jirana (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jirana&action=edit&redlink=1),[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Mosque#cite_note-24) or Kufa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kufa) [5] (http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/rennert/history_8.html)), or a mosque in Heaven, or as a metaphor.
A number of factors are enumerated why they find it unlikely that this verse referred to a location in Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem) :


There were already two places that Muslim tradition of that time period called "the farthest mosque"; one was the mosque in Medina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Masjid_al-Nabawi)[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Mosque#cite_note-25) and the other was the mosque in the town of Jirana, which prophet Muhammad is said to have visited in 630.[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Mosque#cite_note-26)



Even over a century later, Islamic scholars continued to locate the "farthest mosque" with a site inside Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabia). For example, al-Waqidi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Waqidi) in his 9th century book Kitab al-Tarikh wa al-Maghazi (Book of History and Campaigns) preserved the tradition locating it in Jirana, which prophet Muhammad visited in 630, about ten miles from Mecca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecca).[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Mosque#cite_note-27)



No mosque existed in Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem) during prophet Muhammad's lifetime. It was 6 years after prophet Muhammad’s death that the Muslims conquered Jerusalem. Only then were the foundations of the mosque laid by the Second Caliph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliph) Umar ibn al-Khattāb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_ibn_al-Khatt%C4%81b) while he was in Jerusalem. The actual Mosque was completed by Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_al-Malik) and his son Al-Walid I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Walid_I), 68 years after prophet Muhammad’s death.



A passage from the biography of Umar states:

The Patriarch of Jerusalem handed over the keys of the city of Jerusalem to Umar. The Muslims were now the masters of Jerusalem… As Umar entered the city he was greeted by the citizens with great enthusiasm. Umar said that he wanted to be led to some place where he could offer thanksgiving prayer to Allah. He was led to a church but refused to pray there on the ground that that would set a precedent for the Muslims of the following generations to forcibly convert churches into mosques... Umar stayed in Jerusalem for a few days…he founded a mosque at an elevated place in the city. This mosque came to be known as Umar's Mosque. Actually, the above passage informs us that there was no known (by the people) mosque in Jerusalem to pray in when Umar entered the city. So, he laid the foundation of a mosque in Jerusalem as above mentioned that the door to the mosque was covered with trash.

Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_al-Hanafiya) (638-700), a close relative of prophet Muhammad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad), is quoted denigrating the notion that prophet Muhammad ever set foot on the Rock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakhrah) in Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem): "these damned Syrians," by which he means the Umayyads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyads), "pretend that Allah put His foot on the Rock in Jerusalem, though [only] one person ever put his foot on the Rock, namely Abraham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham)."[6] (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/84#Aqsa)

Thus he asserts prophet Muhammad never ascended to heaven from the Rock in Jerusalem and that another location was indeed meant by the "farthest mosque".

When Muslims finally conquered and occupied Jerusalem, they are not known to have identified the Temple Mount (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Mount) with "the farthest mosque" until 715. According to A.L. Tibawi, a Palestinian historian, in 715 the Umayyads built a new mosque which they named al-masjid al-aqsa, or "farthest mosque"."[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Mosque#cite_note-28)



In October 2003 an Egyptian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt) government-owned weekly questioned the sanctity of Jerusalem to Muslims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims), pointing out that the prophet Muhammad never made the miraculous "night journey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isra_and_Mi%27raj) " to the city. According to Al-Qahira, which is published by the Egyptian Ministry of Culture, the two mosques on the Temple Mount were built only to divert the pilgrimage from Mecca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecca) in the context of political rivalry between Muslim leaders:

When Abed al-Malik ibn Marwan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_al-Malik) became caliph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliph) and his rival Ibn al-Zubayr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd-Allah_ibn_al-Zubayr) held control of Hejaz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hejaz), he feared that the people would be inclined towards him Ibn al-Zubayr when they made pilgrimage [to Mecca], because the only way they could enter Mecca and Medina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medina) was with Ibn al- Zubayr's permission and under his control... Therefore, Abd al-Malik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_al-Malik) prevented people from making pilgrimage until [Ibn al-Zubayr was defeated and] the war ended. He began to build a large mosque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosque) in Jerusalem... It is from this point in time that some transmitters of traditions started to promote the religious significance of this mosque and turn it into the 'third to the two holy mosques' [of Mecca and Medina]."


BTW, Islam is not monolithic.

[Abaddon]

*Sigh*

You continue to make the wrong argument. The belief about the temple mount being the farthest mosque is nearly as old as Islam itself. It has nothing to do with 1948. It has nothing to do with modern 'Political Islam'. You're looking at it through modern Israeli lenses.

It was political, though, yes...in 715. Mecca was controlled by Abdallah ibn-Zubayr, a rival of the Caliph, Abd-al-Malik. I assume you can figure out the rest.

You do yourself a disservice by looking at Muslim history with an Israeli-centric view. Islam existed for more than a millennium before the birth of modern Israel.

At any rate, your argument is based on a false premise, whether the belief is political or not is moot, that doesn't nullify the belief.

[Hollis]

*Sigh*

You continue to make the wrong argument. The belief about the temple mount being the farthest mosque is nearly as old as Islam itself. It has nothing to do with 1948. It has nothing to do with modern 'Political Islam'. You're looking at it through modern Israeli lenses.

It was political, though, yes...in 715. Mecca was controlled by Abdallah ibn-Zubayr, a rival of the Caliph, Abd-al-Malik. I assume you can figure out the rest.

Perhaps you should look at history with a clear mind, one not clouded by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as it is obviously distracting you.


I mentioned 1948 once and you keep repeating it. My last post is a list from Islamic scholars on the Issue. Maybe dates are in 600 - 700 CE.

Maybe you should read, and knock off this game your playing. 1948 is in reference to the current conflict and the perpetuation of the myth. Arafat evoked that myth in 1967.

It seems you are incapable of read any of the post in it's entirety. Reference my last post and your 1948 comment.

BTW this is 2008, we are all looking back and you assume your revisionist view is from the beginning of time. Even Saladin added to the myth as a excuse to invade Jerusalem ( AND NO THAT WAS NOT IN 1948)............but 12 Century

"It wasn't until the 12th Century C.E. that the myth took a new turn. Salah a-Din, the great Kurdish warrior wanted an excuse to attack Jerusalem and drive the knights of the Christian Crusaders off of the Temple Mount and out of the Holy City. The Temple Mount has been Holy for three thousand years because it was chosen by G-d -- which is why the Jews built their two Temples there; the Christians later built churches there; the Muslims called it the Noble Sanctuary and built their two Mosques on top of the site of the Jewish Temples."


BTW my bases is that Jerusalem is NOT the third holiest place in Islam based on the Qur'an and accurate translations of the Hadeths. Out side of weak translations you have not supported your argument, just presented series of fallacies.

If I was to argue that Jerusalem was Holy to Islam, I would state that all Jewish Prophets are considered to be holy in Islam and religious sites honored. I would not use questionable abrogations of the Qur'an and Hadeths.

If you understood Islam you would also know why the year 1948 is critical. A year celebrated by Jews and Christians and for Muslims a concern, a question, "Is the Qur'an the final testament of Allah".

The political important of Israel to Islam is also of religious importance, if Jewish and Christian prophecy is to coming to fruition, that how does Islam fit into that. Destroying Israel would clearly define Islam as the final testament.

I presented there are numerous Islamic Scholars who challenge the concept that Jerusalem is as you present it to be.

Your right, you no professor.


BTW, it is also a old tactic to say one thing in Arabic and another completely different statement in English.

[Abaddon]

BTW this is 2008, we are all looking back and you assume your revisionist view is from the beginning of time.

My 'revisionist view' dates back to at least 715. I know the reasons for that interpretation's birth and continued existence, it may be revisionist, but it is deeply rooted in the history of Islam.


BTW my bases is that Jerusalem is NOT the third holiest place in Islam based on the Qur'an and accurate translations of the Hadeths. Out side of weak translations you have not supported your argument, just presented series of fallacies.

That's a fine argument to make, perhaps if you were a well respected scholar in the Muslim community it might matter. As it stands, rightly or wrongly, the belief that Jerusalem is the third holiest place in Islam is widespread and a millennium old. 'Perception is reality'.

[Alexandr]

You are mixin Shia and Sunni consept of Islam.Its wrong.All you talking about is Sunni point of Islam.Sunni have globalistic concept,for them Jihad is Holy War fro all Brothers in religion,than for Shia - Jihad is only liberation war for home Land.(and pelase no need to start screaming about Iran backing Hezbolla an Iraqis Shias.They are backing,yes,but it is nothing have to do with Holy War,thats buisness and tool of political influence)
And many thing still serioisly different today.
Azebarjananees and Iranias muslim,and Iraq Shia do not fit your description of "system",too much differs.

[proscriptor]

Albania -- Muslim 70%


as far as I know Albania didn't have unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels. my 2 cents

Not only that, but in fact most are atheists in Albania. Those 70% crap are "Ottoman statistics", they're some 2 centuries old, and they were nominal even back then. The Ottomans said so bc it fitted them to say so. If anyone's interested about religion in Albania have a look at this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Albania). It pretty much explains everything about the 70/30% myth 'n stuff.

[KoTeMoRe]

Not only that, but in fact most are atheists in Albania. Those 70% crap are "Ottoman statistics", they're some 2 centuries old, and they were nominal even back then. The Ottomans said so bc it fitted them to say so. If anyone's interested about religion in Albania have a look at this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Albania). It pretty much explains everything about the 70/30% myth 'n stuff.

Albania: 100% ammoral atheists. And the older they are the less tolerant to faith they appear.

[wigon]

My 'revisionist view' dates back to at least 715. I know the reasons for that interpretation's birth and continued existence, it may be revisionist, but it is deeply rooted in the history of Islam.



That's a fine argument to make, perhaps if you were a well respected scholar in the Muslim community it might matter. As it stands, rightly or wrongly, the belief that Jerusalem is the third holiest place in Islam is widespread and a millennium old. 'Perception is reality'.


While I agree that perception is reality, I have to side with Hollis as far as his data goes. So yes you are right concerning what the general perception is when it comes to the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. However, perception can be changed. Islamic schools with scholars that agree with what Hollis quoted, could be funded to distribute Qu'rans and literature saying these teachings (as well as some of the more enlightened aspects of early Islamic theological teachings) in the same manner that the Saudis distribute their hateful Salafi propaganda all over the world with millions of dollars behind it.
The lovely thing about religion is that if you know how to control the symbolism and theology of the religion to your advantage, you control the followers.

Wigon

[sikh_warrior]

http://www.gulfnews.com/world/India/10232674.html

New Delhi: Outright condemnation or tight-lipped silence. India's film fraternity on Monday united behind its Muslim actors - including the four Khans Shah Rukh, Aamir, Salman and Saif - who have been threatened by the little known Indian Mujahideen outfit that has also claimed responsibility for the Ahmedabad blasts.

The group has purportedly written an e-mail stating that Muslim actors must stop working in films immediately or face death. The email arrived Sunday, a day after 21 blasts killed 50 people in Gujarat's main city Ahmedabad.


Prashant Pandey, writer of Ram Gopal Varma's "Contract", an action thriller that released last week and is said to be uncannily similar to how the Ahmedabad blasts played out, said it was unfortunate if actors were being targeted in the name of religion.


"An actor has no religion. One cannot categorise an actor on that basis. His persona is different as an individual both on and off screen," Pandey said.

Renowned director Aziz Mirza, whose Kismat Konnection has just been released, said terrorists must be cold shouldered.

"The terrorists are s****d guys. You don't react to them. You just negate them. They can do whatever they want... Nobody in the industry will give a reaction."

People were shocked
According to Bollywood trade analyst Taran Adarsh, people were "shocked but the producers, writers, directors or even the actors have not issued any statement on this yet".

Describing the threats as "very sad and very unfortunate", Adarsh said: "At the moment, there have been no official reports in the industry. What do actors have to do with the attacks? It is a free country and one has the right to do whatever she or he wants to."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

thats quite silly, now muslim actors are being threatened in India

Any muslim who rejects jihad, sharia law and agrees to live side by side with the infidels indefinitely..like everyone else has agreed to do I might add..is also threatened! (text copied from a reply posted by Calanen)

[ggk]

lol very funny thread...
IMHO my country never resort to persecution of non believer...(but there are cases where small group of retard try to, but all were supressed by the government)

[Adux]

lol very funny thread...
IMHO my country never resort to persecution of non believer...(but there are cases where small group of retard try to, but all were supressed by the government)

Really , Malaysia. This is going to be interesting. Bhumiputra concept for one.

[ggk]

it is interesting but im only commenting on the weird :



From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

[Adux]

Malaysia already uses Sharia law, and jiziya as well as Bhumiputra concepts to supress the minorities.

[ggk]

sharia only for muslims not non muslim.

no such thing as jizya

yep bhumiputra concept were unique but its not for supressing anyone...quite the opposite

[Adux]

sharia only for muslims not non muslim.

No, When you population of the same coiuntry subjected to different systems, there are bound to be clashes. So when a non-Muslim vs muslim dispute occures, who do you think gets away with it!!!


no such thing as jizya


http://www.proz.com/kudoz/arabic_to_english/other/37250-jizia.html



yep bhumiputra concept were unique but its not for supressing anyone...quite the opposite


I am sure it is.:roll:

[ggk]

No, When you population of the same coiuntry subjected to different systems, there are bound to be clashes. So when a non-Muslim vs muslim dispute occures, who do you think gets away with it!!!

nope sharia law were never implemented in to the life of non muslim...when there is dispute, this is because the man or woman were allegedly a non muslims or in some cases muslims who denounce their religion...or cases where it is unclear what is his religion is.



(http://www.proz.com/kudoz/arabic_to_...250-jizia.html)http://www.proz.com/kudoz/arabic_to_...250-jizia.html (http://www.proz.com/kudoz/arabic_to_...250-jizia.html) (http://www.proz.com/kudoz/arabic_to_...250-jizia.html)

you are being silly, i meant malaysia never imposed jizya to non muslims. Taxes were imposed to all malaysian regardless of races and religion.




I am sure it is.:roll:


yes it is....but if i explain it, it will only derail this topic. ....and after seeing the way you reply my post, im sceptic you will not accept my view anyway.

[Adux]

That is true, I know what there is to know since I live with 180 million Muslims. My state is 25% muslim, I know what it is about quite well.

[ggk]

any country with a mixes of races living together will bound to have this problems...but idont think my country ever resort to any ethnic cleansing because of this...lol

[armchairpundit]

What about the Tea Pot cult ?

[ggk]

What about the Tea Pot cult ?

its a money scam cult.

[Calanen]

it is interesting but im only commenting on the weird :

Persecution of christians in Sudan certainly. Not the other three to any great extent, but that is because the governments are muslim.

[ggk]

Persecution of christians in Sudan certainly. Not the other three to any great extent, but that is because the governments are muslim.

i didnt live in sudan...im talking about my country