It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

100's of Muslims protest Muhammad cartoons in London…But how many protest terror?

page: 21
0
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1

Somehow you’ve managed to derail the subject into political overtones regarding foreign policy and the war on terror.


Welcome to the world of marg6043, are you ready for me.




In any case, I am simply saying that its possible, that since this isn’t something that has taken place in America and since a lot of Muslims in America are “westernized” that they see how illogical it is to riot over a published cartoon.


Perhaps and that will make everything all nice and pretty but also is others reasons as why is not more outrage in the muslin community in the US.

After all a good conspiracy has many angles to be exploited.




Now had an American paper printed this, CAIR would have been all over it and the logical thing would have been to voice their opinion, bring attention to it and boycott which they’ve done on several occasions.


Are you glad that it was not American magazine doing this?




[edit on 7-2-2006 by marg6043]




posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by BaastetNoir
i am getting so very tired of hearing people call Islam
a Religion of Peace... thats even an offense to Budhism !


Since you brought it up ... 'Religion of Peace'. Hmmmm .

Frankly, the ONLY religion I know of that is truly and totally
peaceful is WICCAN. Their creed is 'do ye no harm'.
That's it. They don't say 'do ye no harm unless thy
enemies be disbelievers, then slit their throats ... '

No crusades ... no beheadings ... no stonings ... no calls
for destroying cities ... no calls for genocide of continents
.... just 'DO YE NO HARM'.

THAT's a religion of peace!



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma

When he turns his back, His aim everywhere is to spread mischief through the earth and destroy crops and cattle. But Allah loveth not mischief.



Beachcoma;

I think that's a stretch. The way I read that verse, it's saying:

"He who turns his back [on Islam] desires to spread mischief throughout the Earth."

This, in my view, is intolerant language because it portrays those who leave Islam as something that is bad. Albeit, it's not as intolerant as, say, this:

98:6
Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings

This is a small example of of many text throughout the Qur'an that are intolerant.

BTW Beachcoma: Are you a woman?

[edit on 7-2-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Here's why an apology would be the WRONG thing to do. Seems a Rap song in Thailand is insulting Islam.

Get out your fire extinguishers, people!



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Here's why an apology would be the WRONG thing to do. Seems a Rap song in Thailand is insulting Islam.

Get out your fire extinguishers, people!


Thanks BH;

That's my submission. Please vote yes if you haven't already.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by FactoryLad
The British seemed to pick up on it, however, I can't comment on the American press.


- I didn't mean that the story was ignored in Britian, of course it wasn't.

I was referring to how come stories - even UK ones - of a certain kind get picked up here and volumes spoken about them whereas this one is now unremarked and not getting the way of the standard ravings about loony blood thirsty Muslims just itching to kill us all in our beds etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc ad infinitum and over several threads.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Beachcoma;

I think that's a stretch. The way I read that verse, it's saying:

"He who turns his back [on Islam] desires to spread mischief throughout the Earth."

This, in my view, is intolerant language because it portrays those who leave Islam as something that is bad. Albeit, it's not as intolerant as, say, this:

98:6
Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings

This is a small example of of many text throughout the Qur'an that are intolerant.

BTW Beachcoma: Are you a woman?

[edit on 7-2-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]


You are right, I mistakenly took that out of context, my bad! (al-Baqarah is so bloody long!)

However I did find this:

On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. (Al-Ma’idah 5: 32)

Following that I believe it's safe to say that what these rioters are doing are un-Islamic, because clearly they are spreading mischief in the land. I suppose it's even justifiable to have the leaders of the rioting shot or hanged -- they're certainly doing nobody any good.


But then the verse you quote when put into context of the passage reads to me as "He who rejects the truth in the face of evidence are the worst of people"

In other words, those who don't deny ignorance are the worst. That's what I see in it anyways.


Anyway, to say that the Qur'an promotes intolerance is wrong in my view, as it's stated in the Qur'an:

O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of God is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And God has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things). (Al-Hujrat 49: 13)

Isn't that supposed to mean "embrace diversity"?

Or what about this:

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in God hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And God heareth and knoweth all things. (Al-Baqarah 2: 256)

And this:

To every People have We appointed rites and ceremonies which they must follow, let them not then dispute with you on the matter, but do invite (them) to your Lord: for you are assuredly on the Right Way. If they do wrangle with you, say, 'God knows best what it is you are doing.' 'God will judge between you on the Day of Judgment concerning the matters in which you differ' (Al-Hajj 21:76-69).

And more on courtesy:

And say, 'The truth is from your Lord, so whosoever wants let him believe and whosoever wants let him deny’ (An-Nahl 16:29).

Further down the passage:

Invite (all) to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious. Your Lord knows best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance (An-Nahl 16:125)



So there! Like I have said all along, be nice be courteous. Oh yeah, FFS, one last thing, I'm not a woman. Where did you get that idea?



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   
From a Muslim following the Right Path


photos1.blogger.com...

muttawa.blogspot.com...

[edit on 7-2-2006 by Vladtepes]



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vladtepes
From a Muslim following the Right Path


The first link isn't working. BTW: I like your signature!!



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Love the hammers Vlad!!

Very nice....



-DT



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   

orginally posted by Beachcoma

However I did find this:

On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. (Al-Ma’idah 5: 32)


From Pikthal:

For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than man slaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if be had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had: saved the life of all mankind. Our essengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's sovereignty) , but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.

So, according to 5:32 man slaughter and corruption are the exceptions here. My question is: What's corruption? How do extremists define corruption?

5:33 does offer a little more clarification:

The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;

It would seem that extremists are justified in their actions (from their perspective).


orginally posted by Beachcoma
Following that I believe it's safe to say that what these rioters are doing are un-Islamic, because clearly they are spreading mischief in the land.


I disagree. I think they believe they are fighting corruption.


orginally posted by Beachcoma
I suppose it's even justifiable to have the leaders of the rioting shot or hanged -- they're certainly doing nobody any good.


I'm with ya' there.



orginally posted by Beachcoma
Anyway, to say that the Qur'an promotes intolerance is wrong in my view, as it's stated in the Qur'an:

O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of God is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And God has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things). (Al-Hujrat 49: 13)



From Pikthal:
O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Lo! Allah is Knower, Aware.

In this verse, Mankind is first referred to in the context of nations and tribes. I wonder who the "noblest" of them are? I believe Muslims are.



orginally posted by Beachcoma
Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in God hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And God heareth and knoweth all things. (Al-Baqarah 2: 256)


From Pikthal:

There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm hand hold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.

This verse is saying there is no compulsion in religion for those who believe. In other words, if they believe, they don't need to be compelled; do they? After all, the "right direction is distinct from error".

Of course, the next verse, 2:257, states:

Allah is the Protecting Friend of those who believe. He bringeth them out of darkness into light. As for those who disbelieve, their patrons are false deities. They bring them out of light into darkness. Such are rightful owners of the Fire. They will abide therein.

There's no reason to compel those who disbelieve. The threat of the fire should be enough; right?


Just for the sake of brevity (and because we're getting somewhat off topic) I'll stop here. I willing to concede that it's all up for interpretation. My question is: how are Muslims, such as yourself, going to change the perceptions of extremists?

BTW; I didn't assume your gender one way or the other. If you were a woman, I was going to ask you your opinion of 4:34. But since you are a man; I think I know what your answer is



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   
He who follows Jesus or Allah or any god at all without question....is not a follower at all. They are a slave.

Reminds me of my job a bit, but it's true.

You have to ask questions, you have to doubt. it's part of learning.

-DT



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Freedom,

You said that from their perspective, the rioters are fighting corruption. I agree, from their perspective they think they are indeed fighting corruption. But I stand by my assertation that what they are doing is unislamic. Two wrongs never made a right.

As for the "noble" bit, you wrote yourself:

Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct.

It's pretty clear, who is noble here, that is, the one best in conduct. Even by that definition the rioters would not be considered noble, for their conduct is far from best. In fact I'd say it's worst than animals, coz you don't see animals commiting arson.

Pertaining to Al-Baqarah 2: 256-257, you do know that Allah or Illahi or any other permutation of the sorts means God right? And don't mistake the "Fire" with "fire". The former clearly is referring to whatever concept of Hell you might have while the later is just what it is. And no it's not torching buildings


I don't think we're getting off-topic though, because proper understanding of the Qur'an would actually reveal that these violent actions perpetrated throughout the world by so-called muslims are clearly unislamic.

Now to answer your question, that's a pretty tough one, though. There's no one answer to it, but tentatively, I'd say the following are the steps that can be taken:


    Educate them, show them that the Qur'an must be taken as a whole, not taken out of context. But the Qur'an alone is not enough, so they must be educated in the Hadiths as well, for the Hadiths reveal to us the character of the Prophet Muhammad. Perhaps then they will see how wrong they have been.

    Improve socio-economic conditions of the nations they come from. Now this one is pretty hard to implement. A lot of these extremist come from poor, uneducated backgrounds (granted there are those that don't, and these people end up leading the rest). Not an easy task.

    I'm probably gonna get some flak for this last one, but the west should be more sensitive and less biased in matters concerning the regions where most of these extremist come from. Instead of thinking short-term solutions and profits, think long-term and the people. Failure to do so would only give the extremist leaders more fuel for their anti-west rhetoric. These people are smart (at manipulating people). And their followers are easily swayed (from lack of education)


In short, there's no easy answer. All the suggestions above will take a long-long time for the results to be seen. Maybe 2-3 generations later before major results are visible. There's a lot of contempt going around, from generations of being caught in the middle of whatever forces that are fighting in the area.

It's a tough issue, an issue that you can't simply blast your way through.

P.S. Concerning 4:34 An-Nisa - For me, equal rights, with mutual respect, same as my father, same as his father before him.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Beachcoma
I cannot understand HOW you can mix Mohamed with Zarathustra.

ZOROASTRIANISM should be the what Muslims should follow
He shows all the signs of a real prophet, unlike Mohamed



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Huh? You referring to my sig? I just like that Nietzsche quote. I'm not mixing it, though I confess I believe God is actually quite a cool and reasonable entity.


Edit: spelling, spelling...

[edit on 7-2-2006 by Beachcoma]



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
Huh? You referring to my sig? I just like that Nietzsche quote. I'm not mixing it, though I confess I believe God is actually quite a cool and reasonable entity.


Edit: spelling, spelling...

[edit on 7-2-2006 by Beachcoma]


Check this out, very interesting!
www.geocities.com...



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 07:12 AM
link   
More people killed in Muslim anti terro…er….cartoon riots.

Deadly cartoon riot near U.S. base

www.debka.com...
www.cnn.com...



KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) -- Afghan police have shot and killed several protesters trying to storm a U.S. military base, bringing the death toll from this week's violent demonstrations over caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed to at least 10.

Hundreds of protesters hurled rocks at police in the southern city of Qalat on Wednesday. Officers first fired into the air to try to clear the crowd but turned their guns on protesters as they tried to attack the base, provincial police said.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkeyI was referring to how come stories - even UK ones - of a certain kind get picked up here and volumes spoken about them whereas this one is now unremarked and not getting the way of the standard ravings about loony blood thirsty Muslims just itching to kill us all in our beds etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc ad infinitum and over several threads.


I see what you mean, but if you have an agenda, or your that focused on one side of an argument you tend to develop blinkers.

Besides, bad news stories sell better than good news stories, even on the BBC.

Regardless of that, I still believe Omar Khayam would not have apologised for his actions were it not for the intervention of community leaders, therefore it doesn't hold that much weight in my book. I thought this before his recall to prison was announced by the Police and Home Office.

edit: spelling

[edit on 8/2/2006 by FactoryLad]



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by FactoryLad
I still believe Omar Khayam would not have apologised for his actions were it not for the intervention of community leaders, therefore it doesn't hold that much weight in my book.


- Would you agree that there is actually a hopeful sign here?

I mean, if the Muslim community leaders still have sufficient power and respect to be able to 'make' people like Khayam stand up and publicly apologise to the country on TV then surely that is not worthless?

Khayam himself is a hot-headed idiot, frankly I could care less about him personally (and he will still face the consequences for what he has done and what he did) but what he was made to publicly do was of far more value IMO.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Although I love the debates that have spawned from this thread, I think maybe we should refocus on my original point:

Why are Muslims more offended by cartoons that are forbidden by their faith, than Muslims killing non believers?

I think this question has been answered indirectly a handful of times already, but how about a definitive answer?

I think there are three major contributors that lead to this anomaly:

#1 Islam is governed by honor, not logic or the rule of right or wrong
#2 Non Muslims are not equal to Muslims. They are a lesser being and it is not a sin to kill them
#3 Islam does not permit criticism. Muslims protesting the killing of disbelievers by other Muslims is a form of Islamic criticism, and that’s not permitted.

I really feel the riots today are an amalgam of the three factors I have listed above. And the off topic tangents this thread has produced has actually affected my perceptions of the cause.

Other faiths seem to have more tolerance for criticism, and that may be the key factor. I would also say that western cultures are less dependant on the defense of honor, we want equality through right and wrong, even at the cost of lost honor.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join