RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

JerseyKrissi72 -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (11/28/2006 8:26:07 AM)

To understand the nature of Islam and the truth about the assertion often made of Islam's espousal of violence. it is important to analyze this question clearly remembering that the word islam itself means peace and that the history of Islam has certainly not been witness to any more violence than one finds in other civilizations, particularly that of the West.

<remainder deleted>

http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/IslamAndViolence.htm

[Mod Note: Please don't post content from other sites here in it's entirety.  Post an excerpt and a link to the original material]



Mercnbeth -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (11/28/2006 9:49:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JerseyKrissi72
To understand the nature of Islam and the truth about the assertion often made of Islam's espousal of violence. it is important to analyze this question clearly remembering that the word Islam itself means peace and that the history of Islam has certainly not been witness to any more violence than one finds in other civilizations, particularly that of the West. <remainder deleted>
http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/IslamAndViolence.htm
[Mod Note: Please don't post content from other sites here in it's entirety.  Post an excerpt and a link to the original material]


The word "Christian" intimates believers and followers in the teaching of Christ; yet "in his name" we can refer to the Crusades or any number of other little and large instances of mass murder, intolerance of other religions, injustice, and persecution. Definition and historical reference are meaningless and irrelevant to current events. Current 'political correctness' retroactively condemns the Christians for the same exact activities and beliefs that are being rationalized as 'understandable' being conducted by the Muslims. One thing remains consistent; the hypocrisy of the enablers.

Today, here, now, Islam defines religious intolerance. Islam defines religious oppression. Islam condones and glorifies suicidal murders committed in their name by children and grandmothers. Individuals can claim aversion to these tactics. Articles can be written and hidden in the editorial pages of unread newspapers; activities and the response to those activities illustrates the nature of the group as a whole. A crucifix can be exhibited in urine as 'art', with no murderous response. A cartoon of Mohammad generates murder and the threat of more murder. As apposed to condemnation the perpetrators are glorified and have celebratory demonstrations given in their honor. Leading clerics, elected leaders of Muslim countries, and Muslim organizations take pride in representing that death is the only option to Islamic conversion. If a "pax Romanus" or in current terms "pax Americanus" is considered oppressive, and imperialistic, why isn't the same consideration applied to a people who have "pax Islamicus" as their stated goal?

Edited to add:

An example of how Islam whats to be represented and what they do to Muslims who speak against the radical terrorists acting the name of Islam. This occurred not in the UK, but in Tulsa OK:
quote:

Jamal Miftah, a Muslim who lives in Tulsa, wrote a column for the newspaper Tulsa World condemning Al Qaeda and calling on fellow Muslims to reject terrorism.
In return, he was kicked out of the local mosque by leaders until he apologizes for his article—and threatened with violence by other members of the peaceful Islamic community of Tulsa, Oklahoma. Link to video of story: http://www.newsok.com/video/text/64941/?template=news/main 


I don't speak for evils of Islam - they do it well enough on their own.

quote:

Merc is right in this regard... read any foreign paper in regard to this and it is stating the same or ominously silent in this regard.  
Merc never said it was ALL muslims... just that they are remaining silent (look to the Muslim middle class's reaction to all of this - silent for/in fear of....)  
And, that is a fact.
 LoD, Thanks I thought of responding, but I thought I give my head a break from pounding it against the wall in frustration.



NorthernGent -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (11/28/2006 11:32:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline

Even the world press is condemning the silence of the vast majority of Islam in the wake of the attrocities being committed - both post 9/11 and post Iraq invasion).
 
The list demonstrated are few and far between.
State sponsored papers, papers independent, papers aligned with major relilgious or political figures - all have been silent in relative opposition to the press from the rest of the world; which has struck a chord against such actions and terrorism.
 
Merc is right in this regard... read any foreign paper in regard to this and it is stating the same or ominously silent in this regard.
 
Merc never said it was ALL muslims... just that they are remaining silent (look to the Muslim middle class's reaction to all of this - silent for/in fear of....)
 
And, that is a fact.
 
~J



You've simply reiterated that "the vast majority are silent" and then you've stated "this is a fact". You've offered no evidence and then you dismiss evidence put before you as simply few and far between when in fact they are the views of a cross section of people (muslims and non-muslims) from various countries. 

To win an argument you need to provide some evidence and acknowledge evidence put before you. Everyone is wrong from time to time, that's life - win some lose some.



philosophy -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (11/28/2006 11:37:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline
Even the world press is condemning the silence of the vast majority of Islam in the wake of the attrocities being committed - both post 9/11 and post Iraq invasion).


.....NG linked to a number of articles that suggest the opposite of what you suggest here. i assume you can link to at least an equal number supporting your thesis..........



Mercnbeth -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (11/28/2006 12:05:22 PM)

quote:

.....NG linked to a number of articles that suggest the opposite of what you suggest here. i assume you can link to at least an equal number supporting your thesis..........


To what end? Obviously from this example (Link to video of story: http://www.newsok.com/video/text/64941/?template=news/main ) we are talking about a self policing closed community.

You need news articles to prove the point? What of published positions by countries? Why does possession of Christian Bible or attempting missionary work subject to penalties as severe as death? Why can a group offer and publish bounties on the heads of those in opposition and be doubted about their aim?

The articles supplied are examples of 'man biting dog'; news because they are rare exceptions. Daily bulletins from Islamic countries and the religious leaders don't merit note, because they are occurring every day. How about a link to the Al Jazeera, or a daily posting of speeches by Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran. If these sources speak for a minority how, for instance, did Ahmadinejad get elected? Why, as in the most recent occurrence in Tulsa, is a man who spoke up considered a pariah to the Islamic community he was once a part?



philosophy -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (11/28/2006 12:11:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
You need news articles to prove the point?


.....if someone posts that the world press has a stated position, as LOD explicitly did, then surely it is fair to ask him to provide some examples of that Merc.......if one is able to say that "Even the world press is condemning the silence of the vast majority of Islam" then an example or two of world press doing such condemning would be easy to produce. If it isn't easy to produce, then one is forced to conclude that the statement is untrue, particulary as NG has managed to produce a few examples of world press reporting the opposite.



LordODiscipline -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (11/28/2006 12:22:39 PM)

1. I am not seeking to "win" at this disussion (I am not arguing it)... that is rather a narrow scope to be playing with a a distinctly silly thing to do where politics and opinion are being flaunted.
2. It is a fact that Merc did not state it was "All Muslims"
3. I cannot provide that which does not exist - I stated that the middle class muslim are not speaking up as a force within the countrys of the middle east... and, that is true. The nature of the governments, the politics of stating that one is 'against jihad' are not favorable to such.
 
But, to ask that this be demonstrated through publication... rather rhetorical request, no?
 
Even in Lebanon where there is (arguably) the most freedom of speech of any middle eastern society, people are being killed for their expression of such and summarily silenced.
 
Until the middle class as an economic front declares that they are against the terrorism, there will be no end. As with the American Irish example, it is  an on going thing to provide money simply because they are asked.... and, organizations like Hezbollah are prime examples of such entities.
 
~J

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline

Even the world press is condemning the silence of the vast majority of Islam in the wake of the attrocities being committed - both post 9/11 and post Iraq invasion).
 
The list demonstrated are few and far between.
State sponsored papers, papers independent, papers aligned with major relilgious or political figures - all have been silent in relative opposition to the press from the rest of the world; which has struck a chord against such actions and terrorism.
 
Merc is right in this regard... read any foreign paper in regard to this and it is stating the same or ominously silent in this regard.
 
Merc never said it was ALL muslims... just that they are remaining silent (look to the Muslim middle class's reaction to all of this - silent for/in fear of....)
 
And, that is a fact.
 
~J



You've simply reiterated that "the vast majority are silent" and then you've stated "this is a fact". You've offered no evidence and then you dismiss evidence put before you as simply few and far between when in fact they are the views of a cross section of people (muslims and non-muslims) from various countries. 

To win an argument you need to provide some evidence and acknowledge evidence put before you. Everyone is wrong from time to time, that's life - win some lose some.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (11/28/2006 12:26:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
You need news articles to prove the point?

.....if someone posts that the world press has a stated position, as LOD explicitly did, then surely it is fair to ask him to provide some examples of that Merc.......if one is able to say that "Even the world press is condemning the silence of the vast majority of Islam" then an example or two of world press doing such condemning would be easy to produce. If it isn't easy to produce, then one is forced to conclude that the statement is untrue, particularly as NG has managed to produce a few examples of world press reporting the opposite.


philo,
Fair enough, but the examples are given by the 'western' press. Would you agree that for the most part it is a 'free' press. You want a liberal view in the US watch CNN. There I'm sure you can reference interviews with  Muslims condemning Islamic terrorists. Go to FOX and you'll see Muslims celebrating terrorist attacks.

A fair comparison would be to see a anti-terrorist message on Al Jazeera. Or an anti-terrorist condemnation by President Ahmadinejad.

When we saw prisoners in their under-ware pictured with a US soldier President Bush apologized. When Daniel Pearl or Eugene Armstrong were beheaded Al-Jazeera and Al-Manar ran the pictures hourly without any condemnation or official apology.
quote:

Groups such as Abu Mus‘ab al-Zarqawi's Al-Tawhid wa al-Jihad (Unity and Jihad) and Abu ‘Abd Allah al-Hasan bin Mahmud's Ansar al-Sunna (Defenders of [Prophetic] Tradition)[10] justify the decapitation of prisoners with Qur'anic scripture. Sura (chapter) 47 contains the ayah (verse): "When you encounter the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have crushed them completely; then bind the prisoners tightly."[11] The Qur'anic Arabic terms are generally straightforward: kafaru means "those who blaspheme/are irreligious," although Darb ar-riqab is less clear. Darb can mean "striking or hitting" while ar-riqab translates to "necks, slaves, persons." With little variation, scholars have translated the verse as, "When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks."
(Links: http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/beheading-video-eugene-armstrong.html    http://www.meforum.org/article/713 )



philosophy -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (11/28/2006 3:35:04 PM)

Reasonable points Merc.......i'm trying to search the Al Jazeera site, but their search seems not to be working right. However it's not so much whether or not Bush apologised for publishing pictures that contravene Geneva convention (whilst continuing to run Guantanamo.....and that's a whole piece of thread fodder by itself), but LOD's assertion that the world press had taken a position on this issue. In his most recent post he says...
"I stated that the middle class muslim are not speaking up as a force within the countrys of the middle east" and
"to ask that this be demonstrated through publication... rather rhetorical request, no?"
....given that what i was asking about was his explicit statement concerning the worlds press this seems to me to be a lazy argument and contrary to his original point. For me, the way in which an argument is presented is important. If one states that something is true, it is reasonable to ask for some evidence of this.....not merely rhetorical.



LordODiscipline -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (11/28/2006 4:24:47 PM)

OK -
 
1. The "World Press" is not a coherent organization. They are not all talking about who's to say "what".
 
2. There are several good articles in this vein that were written right after the attack in Spain (Le Monde and The Press) and several more after 7/7 in Britain (The Times) - and, an excellent one just after 9/11 in the US through the Washinton Post
 
My point is - I am not in this as a contest - or - to "win" an argument... and, you are definitively not paying me for the reseach time.
 
I made a statement of fact that has been bandied about by everyone from NYT, WP, LAT, NPR, ABC, and CBS - all commenting on the European's stance on Islam, their middle class and ...
 
...if stating these things is not good enough because you want to compare it to something someone else said - you can google it.
 
Why would I bother?
 
It will not make me any less correct in the factual statement I made - Which is that the middle class in the middle east are not speaking out against terrorism.
 
It is not "rhetorical" if it is factual...
 
3. The second statement is taken out of context - whereas I was speaking about "the silence of the middle class in Islam" and you are referring to the "world press"... rather poor.
 
If the way in which it is presented is important... then this is a significant issue.
 
However, it is not the "way" in which something is presented - all the trappings in the world will not make a poor argument correct.
 
~J
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

Reasonable points Merc.......i'm trying to search the Al Jazeera site, but their search seems not to be working right. However it's not so much whether or not Bush apologised for publishing pictures that contravene Geneva convention (whilst continuing to run Guantanamo.....and that's a whole piece of thread fodder by itself), but LOD's assertion that the world press had taken a position on this issue. In his most recent post he says...
"I stated that the middle class muslim are not speaking up as a force within the countrys of the middle east" and
"to ask that this be demonstrated through publication... rather rhetorical request, no?"
....given that what i was asking about was his explicit statement concerning the worlds press this seems to me to be a lazy argument and contrary to his original point. For me, the way in which an argument is presented is important. If one states that something is true, it is reasonable to ask for some evidence of this.....not merely rhetorical.



meatcleaver -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (11/28/2006 10:54:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline

It will not make me any less correct in the factual statement I made - Which is that the middle class in the middle east are not speaking out against terrorism.
 


Having been subject to western terrorism for 60 years and having to deal with their own corrupt governments, often imposed by the west, why should they speak out?  9/11 was a gross act, so was Madrid and so was London which fortunately, luck made it rather less horrific than it could have been. However, add the deaths up suffered by muslims over the last half century that have been caused directly or indirectly by the west which come to many more times the number any islamic terrorism has caused and ask yourself if you were in their shoes, would you have any sympathy. I have yet to hear the west making significant nose and speaking out about western terrorism visited on muslims.

It is beyond me how westerners expect other people to kow tow to their view of the world, to feel empathy for thier suffering when the west's response to other people's suffering is to heap more violence and tragedy on them and not even to protect themselves but to keep up their proliferate lifestyles.



seeksfemslave -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (11/29/2006 1:57:32 AM)

In the UK the situation is actually worse than "not speaking out" The TV news programmes regularly discuss the Islamic and Israeli violence, what happens is this....

Israeli violence: constant stream of anti Israeli propaganda with say an Israeli spokeperson who is usually marginalised and constantly interrupted and cut short.

Islamic violence: Apologists for Islam are allowed to make long laborious defences of the current atrocity having started off by offering a few words to the effect that we all condemn violence and of course Islam is a religion of Peace.

I can "see" this, and I think Israel has a lot to answer for, can the Brit.. contributors like Philosophy Meatcleaver and of course NorthernGent "see" it.

Another well worn record is that we must be careful not to alienate or hurt the feelings of the Muslim community.

The worst offender  here is the BBC and that execrable programme NEWSNIGHT.



meatcleaver -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (11/29/2006 3:04:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave


Islamic violence: Apologists for Islam are allowed to make long laborious defences of the current atrocity having started off by offering a few words to the effect that we all condemn violence and of course Islam is a religion of Peace.

I can "see" this, and I think Israel has a lot to answer for, can the Brit.. contributors like Philosophy Meatcleaver and of course NorthernGent "see" it.



What planet are you on seek? The BBC talk about Palestinians in terms of militants and extremists.  Israeli extra-judicial executions that kill several innocent by-standers are always talked about as the Israelis killing a militant and as a side issue of no importance, that there happened to be several children killed with the same missile. They talk about Palestinian acts of terrorism but never discuss Israeli actions in terms of acts of terrorism but acts of self defence, even when lobbing shells into Gaza that kill innocent civilians.

The only time I have seen an Israeli spokesman being interupted was during the recent Lebanese war when the Israelis were clearly trying to defend the indefensible. Another time was an Israeli spokesman trying to justify using, damn I can't remember the name, the weapon that sprays the area with bomblets. In that case an Israeli soldier in command of one of the rocket launchers spoke up against the Israeli government for using terror tactics on civilians and that the Israeli command wasn't interested in aiming at Hezbollah.

Another time was the American organisation Human Rights Watch had compiled a list of Israeli actions that were war crimes. The Israeli spokesman waffled and went on about Hezbollah, Paxman kept bringing him back to the claim by Human Rights Watch which was the point the BBC had asked for an Israeli spokesman to answer but the Israeli spokesman was clearly uncomfortable at answering the claims because the evidence was pretty conclusive and he couldn't deny the claims without looking worse than he did by avoiding the question in the first place.



philosophy -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (11/30/2006 9:06:43 AM)

"I made a statement of fact that has been bandied about by everyone from NYT, WP, LAT, NPR, ABC, and CBS - all commenting on the European's stance on Islam, their middle class and ... 
...if stating these things is not good enough because you want to compare it to something someone else said - you can google it.  
Why would I bother?" LOD

...........ah, i finally see. You consider that because a bunch of North American media outlets have told you that the 'World Press' has said these things, that is good enough for you. Fair enough.......however you will have to forgive me if i fail to follow your blind trust in these organisations and insist on primary data, not hearsay.
It is not for me to google these things, i am not trying to suggest that the statement is true. You have, however, repeated a piece of hearsay.....if that is the standard of reasoned debate you are used to then so be it. 



LordODiscipline -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (12/4/2006 5:15:11 AM)

See - that is the issue in many of your discussions..
 
You do not accept anyone else's opinions (no matter how they are based and/or biased) and you will (in order to demean them and those opinions offered) find an exception in "how they are presented" and/or "why they are presented" or "what is presented" or (fill in the blank) rather than presenting an opinion that is counter to it.
 
You quote sources such as Al Jazhira and state that "it is the way that it is" - even though they freely admit their bias towards those that pay them and all things paying and araabic... and, admittedly look for the ultra sensational, rather than report the mundane in life which is so prevelent and imporant to any society (water shortages, famines where there is no supporting political faction, etc)
 
People read what they read -
People form opinions based on their exposure...
...and, people choose sources that are in alignment with their beliefs and their lives.

My belief is that I should read as much as I might and from as many sources as possible in order to form an informed and balanced opinion aligned with my life and education...
 
You simply have this entirely negative and pompously bigoted elitist attitude in regard to anyone thinking differently than you do which precludes intelligent conversation.
 
If you believe that 'only you are right', that your 'sources' are the only ones 'accurate' and that there is 'no other truth than your own' (all praise your name) then you should not be involved in these converations as you simply come off looking like a dick without anything decent to say....
 
Unless of course involvement simply make you feel the suprerior in the way that you know you should but do not get in life on the average day.
 
The sources I quoted are viable and authentic...
 
If they are not up to 'your standards' - please find others that counter the argument I made and/or make a counter point (that is not overtly snobbishly dismissive) so that I (and, others) might be capable of reading more of you than your self mastabatory opinionated denigration of others thoughtful expressions.
 
Just something to consider -
 
~J
(who has enjoyed exercising the dictionary this date)
PS: I quoted three European Newpapers and a country who's press I read regularly ithe middle east in my writing  that you missed when you glossed through your reading of it in order to get to the part where you attempt to flay another's opinion without any real consideration.
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

LOD
...........ah, i finally see. You consider that because a bunch of North American media outlets have told you that the 'World Press' has said these things, that is good enough for you. Fair enough.......however you will have to forgive me if i fail to follow your blind trust in these organisations and insist on primary data, not hearsay.
It is not for me to google these things, i am not trying to suggest that the statement is true. You have, however, repeated a piece of hearsay.....if that is the standard of reasoned debate you are used to then so be it. 




LordODiscipline -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (12/4/2006 5:19:33 AM)

There are many reasons they should speak out.... and, many reasons they do not..
 
But, the point was - they do not speak out.
 
~J
 
Who has experienced terrorism world wide and at home and does not believe that this makes me a better arbiter of the information about it - just more self aware.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline

It will not make me any less correct in the factual statement I made - Which is that the middle class in the middle east are not speaking out against terrorism.
 


Having been subject to western terrorism for 60 years and having to deal with their own corrupt governments, often imposed by the west, why should they speak out?  9/11 was a gross act, so was Madrid and so was London which fortunately, luck made it rather less horrific than it could have been. However, add the deaths up suffered by muslims over the last half century that have been caused directly or indirectly by the west which come to many more times the number any islamic terrorism has caused and ask yourself if you were in their shoes, would you have any sympathy. I have yet to hear the west making significant nose and speaking out about western terrorism visited on muslims.

It is beyond me how westerners expect other people to kow tow to their view of the world, to feel empathy for thier suffering when the west's response to other people's suffering is to heap more violence and tragedy on them and not even to protect themselves but to keep up their proliferate lifestyles.



meatcleaver -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (12/4/2006 5:30:41 AM)

The middleclasses in the middle east have been ignored by the west for 60 years. While there are middle class voices speaking out, the fact that many remain silent is probably because they are fed up of speaking out and then watching the west pour yet more oil on the fire.

Though I have seen many reports of people speaking out on British, German, French, Belgium, Dutch, Turkish, Al Jazeera TV. I haven't seen any reports on CNN Europe nor any American news reports but the proviso is, my access is strictly limited to US news, as I am limited to BBC World broadcasting a complete news report from one of the main US channels each day.

There have also been many reports in European newspapers. The middleclasses in the middle east could be more vocal but as I have pointed out, they have been ignored for 60 years by the west.



seeksfemslave -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (12/4/2006 6:16:20 AM)

Maybe the Arabic "middle classes" should speak out against what many Muslim terrorists do because it is WRONG, regardless of whether or not certain groups listen to what they might say. Panorama BBC Sunday night had  local Afghan. tribesmen saying that after the Brit. army left an area the Taleban moved back into that area and attacked killed and tortured the villagers.

The criticism not to say dismissal of Philosophers approach to the debates in these posts is "spot on".. Just offer opinions based on your experience and outlook Philosopher, not constantly demand primary sources from a poster OR demolish a post with which you do not agree by using your own primary sources.



ExpSUBmale -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (12/4/2006 6:31:24 AM)

Islam preaches death and subjecation and intoleration.  Islam is the greatest threat to civilization in the world today.  It is a cult of evil.   



meatcleaver -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (12/4/2006 6:40:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Maybe the Arabic "middle classes" should speak out against what many Muslim terrorists do because it is WRONG, regardless of whether or not certain groups listen to what they might say. Panorama BBC Sunday night had  local Afghan. tribesmen saying that after the Brit. army left an area the Taleban moved back into that area and attacked killed and tortured the villagers.



Not many westerners have spoken out against western terrorism, probably because they are happy to live off the exploited wealth of other nations. You just have to look on the threads of CM to see how many people are apologists for western violence.

The fact that someone else is a murderer, doesn't make it morally acceptable for someone else to be a murderer too.



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875