Muslim does not equal Terrorist

After going through the war on terror forum, i cant help but notice that the fine members here at ATS seem to think that all muslims are terrorists.

I would like to point out that although i am not muslim myself, i have many middle eastern friends who are constantly telling me how wrong people have got it. Islam does not condone killing. Its as simple as that.

As for the Islamic terrorists, these people are twisting whats written in the Quran to suit there purposes.

I urge everyone here to follow the ATS motto and "Deny Ignorance" because stereotyping such as this is the height of ignorance.

Islam There is no "peace"...was founded on terrorisim. Mo was a terrorist from the beginning.

BEGINNING OF MUHAMMAD'S VIOLENCE



Just prior to Muhammad's leaving for Medina, he received a "revelation" allowing him to fight the Meccans. He knew that in Medina, he had a group of armed men who would support him. Furthermore, in Medina, would be more distant from the Meccans and their attempts to oppress or kill him. The following is from "The Life of Muhammad", page 212, by A. Guillaume, which is a rendering of Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasulallah", a biography of Muhammad written by an early Muslim scholar [1].





"THE APOSTLE RECEIVES THE ORDER TO FIGHT



The apostle had not been given permission to fight or allowed to shed blood before the second Aqaba [a place where a pledge was made between Muhammad and his followers from Medina]. He had simply been ordered to call men to God and to endure insult and forgive the ignorant. The Quraysh [a leading group of Meccans] had persecuted his followers, seducing some from their religion and exiling others from their country. They had to choose whether to give up their religion, be maltreated at home, or to flee the country, some to Abyssinia, others to Medina.



When Quraysh became insolent towards God and rejected His gracious purpose, accused His prophet of lying, and ill treated and exiled those who served Him and proclaimed His unity, believed in His prophet and held fast to His religion, He gave permission to His apostle to fight and to protect himself against those who wronged them and treated them badly......[a]

The meaning is "I have allowed them to fight only because they have been unjustly treated while their sole offense against men has been that they worship God. When they are in the ascendant they will establish prayer, pay the poor-tax, enjoin kindness, and forbid iniquity, i.e., the prophet and his companions all of them." Then God sent down to him: "Fight them so that there be no more seduction," i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. "And the religion is God's,", i.e. Until God alone is worshipped."



END OF QUOTE

[Note: two passages from the Quran are referenced: [a] Sura 22:39-41, which I did not quote, and Sura 2:193]





Two critical points here:



1) in Mecca, where Muhammad was weak, he attacked no one. He only preached his religion and insulted the Meccan's religions. But it was just prior to his leaving for Medina, where he had a limited amount of armed men to support him, that he received this "revelation" and began to use violence to further his desires. Islamic history shows that as Muslims grew in power their forms of violence changed from criminal terrorism to outright warfare.



2) At the end of the quote, it says that Muslims are to fight those who do not worship Allah.





I also comment on Ibn Ishaq's work. When reading this passage from Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad is made to appear to be long suffering and primarily fighting in self defense, and that up until just before Muhammad's departure, the Meccan persecution was tolerable, but that it became so bad that Muhammad was finally given permission to fight back.



The problem with this is that Muhammad had been severely persecuted prior to this and that Muslims had been abused well before their departure. In other words, the quoted passage is apologetic work on Ibn Ishaq's part. Earlier, well before the Treaty of Aqaba, things were so bad for Muhammad that he went to a town called Taif to seek their help and protection [Guillaume, op cit, page 192]. The Taifians rejected and abused him. Things were so bad for Muhammad in Mecca, Muhammad had to beg three men for their protection [Guillaume, op cit, page 194].



In Mecca, Muhammad continued to proclaim himself as a prophet and he was abused all the more. He never received any "revelations" to fight at that time.



Eventually, good fortune fell into Muhammad's lap and just as in Adolph Hitler's case, his persistence paid off. A group of feuding Arabs in Medina accepted him as their prophet. They hoped he could help them maintain peace. They eventually made a pledge to support Muhammad in war against the Quraysh [Guillaume, op cit, page 205]. Now Muhammad knew he had an able and armed following. It was only when he had a following who could defend themselves, and his people were migrating north to Medina, and that he knew he was going to leave town, that suddenly "Allah" gave Muhammad his "revelation" to fight. Muhammad's circumstances changed, and Muhammad's Allah changed with them. Muhammad went from being only a "warner" to being an aggressor.

[edit on 7-2-2006 by thermopolis]

[edit on 7-2-2006 by thermopolis]

on what do u base this outlandish claim? i can run around sayin jesus was a terrorist but that doesnt make it true....

All muslims are not terrorists by far,but agood % agree with what the terrorists want a world under muslim law.

It's hard for people not to stereotype. We as humans have always sought to look for patterns amidst the chaos. We try to place everything in different boxes under different labels.

This is not always a bad thing, for if it weren't for our ability to systematically categorize things, we wouldn't reach our current level of scientific and technological breakthrough.

However, when it comes to matters of human behaviour and human psyche, things start to blur. For years psychologists have tried to typefy people in an effort to understand why people do the things they do. But they have not always been successful. They have found that when it comes to human beings, these sometimes seemingly irrational beings, things are not always black or white, but a multitude of different shades of grey.

I went to college to study psychology, in an effort to better understand people, but after two years, I found that I don't understand them any better. In fact, I'm more confused. That's why I switched to mass communication, I figure it's probably better to learn how to communicate better, which will lead to better understanding than to categorize people into different boxes.

Anyway that's my take on stereotyping.

Sorry Thermopolis, but that is only somebodys opinion, im sure i can google jesus+terrorist and find something similar.

The fact is that people will always interpret things based on there own beliefs, and if the facts dont match. No worries, we will just edit that part out.

originally posted by kuhl
All muslims are not terrorists by far,but agood % agree with what the terrorists want a world under muslim law.

and whats wrong with that? Im sure a good % of christians want a world under Christian Law.

I think what im trying to point out here is that all the arguments being put forward, go both ways.....

We need to pigeon hole muslims then -

1. Muslim (peaceful)
2. Muslim (slighlty angry)
3. Muslim (really angry especially at cartoons depicting allah in a bad way)
4. Muslim (terrorist)
5. Muslim (all other categories)

The more i hear about islam the less i like. If your going to have a group that kills in the name of allah all infidels (non muslims) then the non muslims are not going to like it. ergo Islam is going to have a tough time. Its that bad we cant even draw a cartoon without have the european embassy's being destroyed in the middle east by our peaceful muslim friends. I saw the placards in london and I tell you sir you are talking kacka. Do muslims feel safe in europe in general yes do europeans feel safe in muslim countries NO.

Muslim = 1,2,3,4,5 ?

You figure out a classification.

All i know is the word Fanatical, terrorist,extremist seems nowadays to be linked to the word muslim,islamic. Maybe its just me.

No one can kill in gods name. can we all agree on that. Im sure if god wanted someone dead, he could easily fire a lightning bolt and wipe whoever off the face of the earth.

All i know is the word Fanatical, terrorist,extremist seems nowadays to be linked to the word muslim,islamic. Maybe its just me

And where did that link happen. In the "free press" thats where. Im sure if we are all told the same thing over and over again, it would end up being believed as fact.

[edit on 7-2-2006 by Conspiracy Theorist]

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist
Sorry Thermopolis, but that is only somebodys opinion, im sure i can google jesus+terrorist and find something similar.

not that i completely agree with therm, but you are wrong in this assertation. jesus very clearly teaches to "turn the other cheek." he wouldnt even use his power to protect himself in the face of unthinkable torture and death. you should be able to show without a problem how christians in the past have twisted god's message for their own benifit, but christ was peaceful to the point of self-destruction, completely different from mohammad, who was quite violent at times.

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist
No one can kill in gods name. can we all agree on that. Im sure if god wanted someone dead, he could easily fire a lightning bolt and wipe whoever off the face of the earth.

Actually GOD already killed all but 8 on the entire planet.

Please provide any references to Christ killing anyone in his time or leading and army "in his time" on earth 2000 years ago.......

He will return an clean this planet with fire, and soon.........

I believe the topic here is Muslim does not equal terrorist.

i was only responding to your post and i stand by the fact that you could google jesus and terrorist and find something similar.

Can we get back on topic or is this thread going to be sidetracked over fingerpointing at the various religions.

The point I think others are trying to make is that you can say that Muslim doesnt equal terrorist all you want. But when crap like this is happening over a cartoon and you hear of very few who are trying to calm these people down(And yes, there were some Imans tyring to clam the crowds in Damascus). Its easy to come to the conclusion that if youre not speaking out against these types of actions being committed by Muslims as we speak, then you either support it, or are inadvertantly precipitating it. Which is just as bad in consequence.

Off Topic: About Jesus, theres no way you can compare Muhammed with Jesus ideologically, simply no comparison. And I know no Christians pesonally who want the world under Christian law, hell we never think about it. I'm sure they are out there somewhere though.

[edit on 2/7/2006 by ludaChris]

I think they are the same as communist party members.

Cartoonist = terrorist
danish = terrorist
peaceful placard waving non christians = nice guys invite them round for a beer.

Lets all get our bombs and go down to the danish embassy and roast a few, in allahs name of course so it'll be alright won't it.



AS a prominent muslim chap once said lets ' wipe israel off the face of the earth' think that was on peace day maybe not.

You gotta luv those peaceloving muslims .......

The Prophet Mohammad fuels too much hate against non believers its not like we can twist the Bible and say okay JESUS defeated the Romans lets defeat Islam as he did. He did not even lay a finger and Christians do the same, but as soon as people hear the word of truth it scares them they feel ashamed in comparison so they hide behind being politically correct. Jesus just spread the word and the Romans fell. But Islam is so secluded that not even a good thing when they have it can get in and instead lots of bad things come out of the mental tension of oppression.

Everything is so oppressed that it’s a mental and social prison. Its all about defeat the infidels Allah will destroy the Jews and submission or else. It’s a religion of peace they say but is it of love? Christianity is a religion of Love and that I feel is missing from this messenger of Mohammad rapped up in fighting stories. Repetitive reciting of negative anger at the infidels, which is hard not to miss compared to the word of love can have its effects.

Islam cannot accept outside influences and yet Muslims migrate to free societies and build Mosques because the Western society is free from them to do so. After so much integration and infiltration you end up with terrorist activities which intern has caused the war in Iraq even if it’s wrong. Would have been better to have Saddam look after his people maybe a new war against Iran would have been in the process. (Not sure about the war bit)

How free should we be about printing a cartoon? Or how restricted should we be in letting Islam and other religions grow in emigration and birth rates in Western countries. Should we be as restricted as them as they are to the rest of the religions in their own countries it might solve our problems too coming from them. I don’t think I would like to live in the Middle East and it sounds, as like Christians, Buddhists, Jews and Sikhs would not really be accepted in their countries. Border countries have a combination of religions but even then there is constant conflict. One wants its law and nothing else without compromise so you get battles and terrorism.

All this is an international conspiracy between Satan towards man and God to divide and conquer and his is doing his prophetic job as predicted so lets wait a while and see.

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist
After going through the war on terror forum, i cant help but notice that the fine members here at ATS seem to think that all muslims are terrorists.

I would like to point out that although i am not muslim myself, i have many middle eastern friends who are constantly telling me how wrong people have got it. Islam does not condone killing. Its as simple as that.

As for the Islamic terrorists, these people are twisting whats written in the Quran to suit there purposes.

I urge everyone here to follow the ATS motto and "Deny Ignorance" because stereotyping such as this is the height of ignorance.

It's not sterotyping at all. The head choppers are very devout followers of Islam. All the 'moderate' muslims that protest (*cricket*cricket*) the terrorist actions aren't very good followers of the faith.

Islam followed to it's written law is terrorism.

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist
After going through the war on terror forum, i cant help but notice that the fine members here at ATS seem to think that all muslims are terrorists.

Its not that people here think that ALL Muslims are terrorists, its just that some of us feel that there are MORE Muslim terrorists than there are Hindu, Christian, Budhist, Mormon, Scientologist, Athiest terrorists.

After all, when is the last time you heard about a Hindu suicide bomber?



[edit on 7-2-2006 by skippytjc]

Islam does not condone killing. Its as simple as that.

Ahh...but one could cite passages that condone and encourage the killing of "infidels".

But then, the same thing could be found in the Bible as well...

Just to clarify, I agree with your original sentiment, but one must realize that the muslims who do such things are but one sect of a whole. Just as Baptists and Catholics may be considered Christians, so are Moderate and Radical muslims different....

If you where to create a league of the most extremist religions in the modern world I wonder who would top the list.


Times are a changing and I for one am not going to become a muslim. So if its side with GW or start praying to allah then I know what side i'm on.