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.

 

Islamic Conversion Forced on Fox Journalist's for Freedom!

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
I will ask you the same question I asked Jgruh4e. Are you saying that there has never been forced conversions to Islam in present day and never in the past people have been forced to accept Islam?


No, I'm not trying to deny that. I'm just pointing out that things seem a little too convenient about this event and there are more questions than answers in my mind.

First you have a group that call themselves the "Holy Jihad Brigades", a name that incorporates english words and would translate as "Holy Holy-War Brigades". Make sense? Not to me. Unless it was invented for western consumption.

Second you have a demand that is so vague it can't possibly be fullfilled. Just release "some prisoners". Sorry, but I don't buy that as a serious demand and it sounds like a safe option to me - from somebody who doesn't really want any muslim prisoners released.

Third you have an outcome that is like a neo-con's wet dream. Can you imagine the effect this will have on the Republican's Christian Base? Wholesome hometown reporter forced to deny Christ by his muslim captors? Man, I bet those votes are already locked in and counted. :shk:

Fourth, FOX News and all the right wing pundits have a new poster boy (who btw now has a very bright future in media, guaranteed) and will be yelling "I told you so" from now until the mid-terms are over.

I'm sorry but this is way too convenient and lacks credibility IMO. I believe there's a link between the "Holy Jihad Brigades" and the "Mujahadeen Brigades" and that both are bogus.




posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   
FlyersFan,

I agree with what you are saying to a big extent. It is actually a well thought post except for the last paragraph which is rather ignorant, so i will not comment on that.

Otherwise, I agree with demographics shifts and never disputed it. However, again, I am misunderstood. I did not say I thought Israel had no right to exist. I said I saw why a Palestinian (with the understanding that there was never a country called Palestine) can think so. Certainly offtopic, but this was a question from Muaddib...

To continue your example of USA... Do you think native Americans were happy with the French and British finding their land to be a nice place to settle? And what about Texas hypothetically becoming Mexico2 one day? You said you were ok with that, but would all Americans think the same way. It would not be too far-fetched to say no. Maybe Texans will choose to fight for their 'freedom'...

mythatsabigprobe,

Thank you very much! I see others also see this as a very convenient tool for the neo-con propaganda.

[edit on 28-8-2006 by Jgruh4e]



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Okay, it looks like I'm the first to bring this up, but the Qu'ran forbids compulsory conversion to Islam:

2:256: "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 handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower."


Now, granted there are a whole plethora of other versus that Muslims should
fight/oppose/shun/strive against/regard as the enemy/never help/never befriend/sever family ties with/never compromise with/never obey/never forgive/chastise/curse/be ruthless toward/be stern toward/etc. the non-believer (3:118; 3:28, 3:56; 3:87-88, 4:50, 4:63, 4:101, 4:139-140, 4:144, 5:54, 5:57, 8:65, 9:14, 9:23, 9:73-74, 9:123, 25:52, 28:86, 31:7, 33:48, 45:7-8, 48:28-29, 53:29, 58:5, 58:22, 60:1, 60:4, 60:10, 60:13, 63:6, 66:9, 68:8-9, 76:24, 84:24). And countless passages describing something like 250 different hells for non-believers, and so forth.

According to the Qu'ran, you can justify almost any action against a non-believer (as you can with most other religions), however, the one thing it does not allow for is a forced conversion. You can make life utterly miserable for a non-believer, you can threaten and cajole, etc... but they have to find Islam on their own. Islam is not like a press-gang that shanghais you and you find yourself stuck with the Muslims, it's more like a very tight-knit exclusionary club that will allow anyone membership, but treat non-members poorly... IF one decides to practice it that way.

However, this has not been anywhere remotely the treatment I've ever received from any Muslim ever. All I've known (and I've known quite a few), were educated, friendly, charitable, and good conversationalists. You can't exactly have drinking contests with them, but meh... None had any interest in trying to convince me to convert to Islam, not even to casually bring it up. When I brought it up once to a Muslim friend in college, they quoted that verse to me and said anyone who didn't join Islam of their own accord was a worthless convert in Allah's eyes.

This isn't to say it hasn't happened historically (see Persia's history). However, just as with any other religion you name, there has been a time when the non-believers have been oppressed by the zealots. In this particular instance, though, with the reporter's forced conversion, I think you will find about as much support for it in the Qu'ran and the real Muslim community as you would ramming two jets into the World Trade Center. None of these monsters are good Muslims any more than the Nazis were good Christians or that the Qing Dynasty were good Buddhists.

What people keep forgetting is that religions are composed of human beings, and there will always be ignorant assholes who profess to be of a certain religion, thump a holy book they've never actually read, and use a few isolated versus or misinterpretations by petty men to justify horrible actions.



[edit on 8/28/2006 by thelibra]



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jgruh4e
except for the last paragraph which is rather ignorant,

Why? Because you disagree with it? re-read it .. I didn't say ALL muslims were out to convert or kill ... it's the radical muslim terrorists. I think if you re-read and see what I said, then you most likely won't disagree with it. or at least you won't disagree as much.


Do you think native Americans were happy with the French and British finding their land to be a nice place to settle?

Absolutely not. But the fact is that the demographic shifted and the settlers were the stronger. They won - for a while. Here we are hundreds of years later and we are on the brink of another demographic shift. Part of America will most likely meld with Mexico. It's already happening. It's just a fact.


Texas hypothetically becoming Mexico2 ... You said you were ok with that
well ... I'm not exactly 'okay' with that. But I do see it happening and I know that it will. But it won't start with Texas. It'll start with California and work it's way southwest from there. Texas will be a battle zone and could go either way.


Maybe Texans will choose to fight for their 'freedom'...

They will. They'll get help from other parts of America and those fighting to make Texas part of Mexico will get help from their side to make it Mexican.

There is something missing in all this comparison however. The Jews had a historical link to the land that they now inhabit and that they now have recognized as their homeland. Europeans did not have any historical link or past inhabitation of the Americas and/or Australia before settling them.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Third you have an outcome that is like a neo-con's wet dream. Can you imagine the effect this will have on the Republican's Christian Base?


They denied Christ therefore they 'failed' and that is what the Republican Christian base will see. And before you say anything - no - I'm not a fundamentalist Christian. I just lived in Alabama for 9 years and had to deal with them and their CONSTANT attempts to convert me lest I go to hell because I didn't worship God exactly like them.


Man, the stories I could tell!
But that's for a different thread.

None of the fundamentalist christians in our deep south say 'convert or die'.
(because their religion says don't kill OR because our laws say dont' kill - or both)
However, there is a lot of proof that RADICAL muslim fundamentalists do say that.

Whatever. The fact is that if this were a set up to give the neo-con fundamentalists a 'wet dream' then the reporters would have stood their ground and not caved in ... they wouldn't have faked conversion to survive. They would have converted their captors or something .... IMHO.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra
the Qu'ran forbids compulsory conversion to Islam:

Absolutely. It also forbids suicide ... but that doesn't stop the radicals from blowing themselves up while killing 'infidels'.

It looks like the extremists are really cafeteria muslisms .. they pick and choose what they want to follow and interpret things the way they want so that they can justify their actions.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Jgruh4e
except for the last paragraph which is rather ignorant,

Why? Because you disagree with it? re-read it .. I didn't say ALL muslims were out to convert or kill ... it's the radical muslim terrorists. I think if you re-read and see what I said, then you most likely won't disagree with it. or at least you won't disagree as much.

True, I have misread it. Sorry for the remark.



There is something missing in all this comparison however. The Jews had a historical link to the land that they now inhabit and that they now have recognized as their homeland. Europeans did not have any historical link or past inhabitation of the Americas and/or Australia before settling them.


Yes, jews did have a historical link. But this was a very weak link as it dated many,many years back in time. I mights say that the link of the arabs who inhabited the land at that time was much stronger.

Ok, but the arguments pro and against Palestine/Israel are many and we can argue for ages. Certainly we have different opinions. Let's stay on topic. My speculation is that this 'conversion' event is a convenient tool for the neo-con propaganda. What is yours?



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jgruh4e
My speculation is that this 'conversion' event is a convenient tool for the neo-con propaganda. What is yours?


Since you asked ...


1 - that it isn't the 'wet dream' that was previously proposed because the two reporters FAILED. They went through their fake conversion to Islam. If it had been a set up to impress the christian base then they would not have caved in and they would have either escaped or 'converted' their captors. The fact that they denied their own faiths in order to survive is failure. I'm not an expert in fundamentalist christianity - but after having lived in Alabama for 9 years I think I know enough about them to say that they'll see this as FAILURE and not inspirational at all. (I could be wrong .. but I really dont' think so)

2 - The fact is that terrorism with kidnappings and murders happen all the time. Extremist muslims do this. It's just a fact. I provided links and I think everyone has seen enough news reports to know that they'll behead just about anyone ... including those who volunteer to go in and help and female healthcare workers, etc.

3 - Yes this had two Fox News personnel involved. I understand why democrats and/or those on the left wouldn't trust it right away. If it had been two CNN workers then Republicans and/or those on the right wouldn't trust it right away either. But just because they work in the field for Fox News doesn't mean they are criminals who would make up an international story etc etc. They COULD .. but most likely they wouldn't. Same with any CNN reporter. They COULD make up something that would favor a stand the left takes, but it doesn't mean that they would.

4 - This story casts a favorable light upon a stand that the right is taking. It's hard for some on the left to believe but perhaps the stand the right has taken in this case is ... right.
I know ... I know ...
I had to take some aspirin when former Secretary Cohen (under Clinton) turned out to be right about UBL. (I was so sure he was wrong!!) But it does happen sometimes that 'the other side' of the political coin is correct.

5 - Just because this one story is true doesn't automatically make every stand the right has taken correct. Don't worry. It's not a slippery slope.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   
you may think i'm some sort of a nut ... but doesn't this fit perfectly in the propaganda campaign ... saying all the muslims over there want to convert everyone and will kill you if they would do the opposite ...

these people aren' stupid ... you can't convert a person into another religion by force LOL ... it's hard enough by persuading one to convert ...



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Islam is based on submission. Submission through violence if necessary. After reading the quran I honestly believe the only non violent Muslims are Muslims that do not strictly ad hear to the quran. The quran does not teach equality of religions the only peace in the quran is to other believers and or people paying the tribute tax and living as inferiors.

The quran teaches submission of all non believers. You either convert to Islam / die / or pay a tribute tax to Muslims called the Jizya and you must live as a inferior. Don't believe me?? READ IT FOR YOURSELF!!!

Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home , an evil fate! Quran 9:73

All who believe! Fight the unbelievers who gird you about and let them find firmness in you and know that Allah is with those who fear him Quran 9:123

There are hundreds of statements like these in the Quran.

The Quran teaches some an order of wrong. Such as its a sin to lie steal cheat and murder unless it benefits Islam. If it does then its ok because its a greater sin to not benefit Islam. This order is used often and in this way the Quran cancels out the peaceful teachings with the teachings for war against unbelievers.


Anyone that knows anything about Islam should not be surprised that these people "converted" these reporters. This is the root of what Muslim empires were based upon.

Many people that want to compare all other religions to Islam and want to think that its just a very few extremest that cause problems. While there are extremest in every religion the Quran teaches extremism. Lets compare the words of Jesus to that of Muhammad .


Jesus: Blessed are you when me revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad for your reward is great in heaven. Matthew 5:11
if anyone strikes you on the right cheek turn to him the other. (Matthew 5:39)
love your enemy's and pray for those who persecute you (Matthew 5:44)

Muhammad: And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out for persecution is worse than slaughter. (Quran 2:191)
(recognize the order of wrong here?? its bad to slaughter but worse to be persecuted therefore it is justified canceling out the teachings about not killing!!!)

Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil so go and fight against the friends of Satan (Quran 4:76)

Against them make ready your strength to utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and your enemies and others besides whom you may not know but who Allah knows. (Quran 8:60)

Islam was spread by the sword from the very beginning of its creation by Muhammad whom was a caravan raider.

Islam = Convert or else



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heckman
Lets compare the words of Jesus to that of Muhammad


Oh, please...

I could find plenty of versus in the Bible that recommend committing all sorts of heinous acts. From the giving away of one's daughter to be raped by a group of men, to the slaying of one's son at the behest of God, to raising of the dead, to suffering a witch not to live, to multiple wives, to the wholesale slaughter of non-believer's children, to anything else you want to justify. The Bible is certainly not immune to contradictory and inflammatory material any more than the Qu'ran is, and Christianity certainly hasn't been any more saintly over the centuries than Islam. Both have their dark passages and people who abuse the written words to suit their own devices.

If I were to judge Christians just based off what I'd read in the Bible, I wouldn't know what in the hell to think, because half of it is an angry, petty, and rather evil god, and the other half is some free-love hippy that got deified, and it's all capped off by some dude in a cave on hallucinagens.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   


giving away of one's daughter to be raped by a group of men, to the slaying of one's son at the behest of God, to raising of the dead, to suffering a witch not to live, to multiple wives, to the wholesale slaughter of non-believer's children


all of those things you mentioned are old testament .. Not new testament teachings about Jesus of which Christianity is derived from.

No doubt even "Christianity" has been used for "holy wars"and those whom took part in those holy wars were clearly not following the teachings of Jesus.

Those who fight in jihad against non believers are doing exactly what the quran teaches.


[edit on 28-8-2006 by Heckman]



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heckman
all of those things you mentioned are old testament .. Not new testament teachings about Jesus of which Christianity is derived from.



See, this is one of the biggest beefs I have with Christianity, the idea that you can just toss out the Old Testament when its convenient. If that were truly the case, it should be snipped altogether. Obviously, some branches have. However, even the New Testament has passages that talk about the need to fight/smite/etc the non-believer. If I can find the old thread on it, Saint4God and I had a long discussion about them.

The point is, you can't go condemning the Qu'ran for violent passages while using the Bible as an example of a "better" book. It's just not. Just like the Bible, the Qu'ran was written by multiple people, across a wide span of time, for differing political purposes, and there are multiple interpretations of those ancient texts.

If Jesus or Muhammed were alive today and being directly quoted by all the news stations, imagine the spin Faux..er...Fox News would use as opposed to, say, NPR, or CNN, or the Daily Show, or Colbert Report, or whomever you name.

Everyone in religion fits in one of three categories:

1. They spin the words to their own agenda, or...

2. They have no agenda, so they follow someone else's, or...

3. They ignore the words when needed and follow their gut instincts.

And that includes Prophets.


Originally posted by Heckman
No doubt even "Christianity" has been used for "holy wars"and those whom took part in those holy wars were clearly not following the teachings of Jesus.

Those who fight in jihad against non believers are doing exactly what the quran teaches.


No, they aren't. Muslims cannot decide for themselves this policy, it must be a fatwah declared by a mujtahid or a mufti to address a specific fiqh (or question). One of the whole reasons the REAL Muslims are pissed at Osama Bin Laden is he is trying to declare a fatwah when he isn't allowed to according to Islamic Law. Effectively, extremists like Bin Laden are saying "ignore what the laws of Islam say, do what I say instead," when the whole reason those laws went into effect was to stop people like Bin Laden from interpreting the Qu'ran in such a violent way and leading other Muslims to do the same.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   
From the original post:

A previously unknown group calling itself the "Holy Jihad Brigades" had claimed responsibility for the kidnapping, but senior Palestinian security officials said the name was merely a front for local militants whose identities were known to Palestinian authorities.

Well then, it should be an easy matter to round these guys up and bring them to justice, no?

Also, FlyersFan, you have contributed some very informative posts to this thread, so here ya go!


You have voted FlyersFan for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   
This incident (like so many others) is clearly a False Flag Operation. It's an event staged to ensure our support of Israel (They needed something like this after their massacres in Lebanon).

The MOSSAD (an Israeli equivalent of the CIA) has a motto written in Hebrew underneath it's emblem. It translates to, " By Way of Deception, Thou Shalt Do War". (Hidden in plain sight
)



[edit on 8/28/06 by Calm Anomaly]



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Shame on these journalists.


I'd rather be beheaded than to utter any compliance to a bunch of fanatics.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Religion consists of three elements:

1) Genuinely historical and/or fictional events either recorded for posterity, or created as fiction to explain, teach, instruct, or influence. Take the book of Daniel in the Bible for instance; there is little or no indication that a single author named "Daniel" ever wrote or even contributed to the book. It is considered far more likely, even by the most literal biblical scholars, that multiple authors contributed over an extended period of time - perhaps centuries - through stories passed down verbally, long before the consolidated form we have today was ever put to paper. There may have been an important historical character or person given the name Daniel that the stories, as passed down, were ascribed to, however.

2) Scholarly, religious, and/or theocratic interpretation, organization, and compilation of existing texts or verbally circulating tales into unified scripture or religious bureaucracy (or both.) It is the case in nearly every religion in the world that by the time serious, centralized political and religious power is organized around a belief structure, multiple versions and interpretations exist of the original stories - both historical and fictional - many of which contradict one another and many of which end up being totally excised from the final compilation. Even in the early Christian church there were competing interests, political squabbles, differing "interpretive agendas" (if you will,) and so forth. When someone did decide - quite a long time after Christ's death, incidentally - to compile the bible as a "whole" and organize it, the way in which it was done was dictated by a small group of individuals (relative to those who now practice the religion) who oversaw what went into it, how it was framed, what order the respective "books" were to be placed in (which often had nothing to do with their chronological origins, by the way,) and what was cut out of it all together. I respect that many Christians believe that even this highly arbitrary and politically motivated organization of religious scripture was facilitated and directed by the will of God, and that the bible therefore remains (even subsequent to its many linguistic translations since then) a viable spiritual guide and record of literal events in human history as it pertains to humanity's relationship to a supreme being. I won't debate or question that, as I believe all religious beliefs are equally valid and worthy of respect (and potentially enlightening and enriching.) I'm simply making the point that there are many iterative and interpretative steps along the path almost any religious scripture takes on the journey toward being a consolidated, contemporarily recognizable "book."

3) Personal interpretation by those who follow the given faith. Once all of the above has happened, each and every individual who follows a religion still interprets the words and deeds contained in the scriptures and derives meanings from them in their own ways, and usually for their own reasons. They may not even realize this. Indeed, most pious individuals I've spoken to believe that they are part of a single, unified body of religious people spread across the world who believe exactly what they believe. Yet, when you really start to poke around and debate sensitive issues, you quickly find that there is as much variation of thought in terms of what each person gets out of his or her religion as there are people practicing the faith in question. That variation can range from the extremely small, to the shockingly broad. Even apart from what the religious and political figureheads of a specific faith structure advocate, teach, preach, endorse, and chastise, individuals who practice within that structure tend to have their own unique opinions, beliefs, and justifications for what they believe is and is not acceptable. It is somewhat ironic that, ultimately, after all attempts made to contour and shape people's interpretation of religious scriptures the world over, in the end the final decision regarding right and wrong still lies in the heart of the individual. This is how it has always been and how it will always be, in my opinion.

My point: A religion can preach that on September 11th, all its members should attempt to kill Americans every year (which, just incase anyone out there actually believes that to be true, Islam does not teach,) but whether they actually do so is entirely up to the individual members of that faith. It is not the words in a book, or the preaching, or the inspiring speeches of leaders, or the ravings of fanatics that make people commit unspeakable atrocities; it is how those factors intersect and resonate (or fail to do so) with the hearts and minds of individual, otherwise totally ordinary, human beings. If we fail to recognize the factors and situations which result in the psychological and political conditions in which these acts are justifiable in individual hearts and minds, then acting against any one faith, cultural movement, or ethnicity will do – and can do – nothing to stem the tide of hatred which enshrouds our world today.

I respect the views of all who disagree with what I am about to say, but I feel moved and compelled to say it regardless:

The day we begin to make the assumption that the word "Islam" means "terror" or "terror justified," we forfeit any right we may now think we have to feel safe in practicing whatever faith we ourselves follow as free-thinking individuals. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -Martin Luther King Jr. If we can say that those who practice Islam pose a threat to the peace and security of our society, then we have already sacrificed our freedom to safely practice any other faith, because I assure you: no religion on the Earth is in a uniquely unassailable position, politically. Anything – and any faith - can be subverted by the agendas of those with the power and the resources necessary to do so.

I believe that the loss of one person’s freedom of religious expression is a threat to my own. Sadly, that is a notion nearly as unpopular today as terrorism itself. Nothing else I have said in this post makes my point more effectively than that, in my opinion.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Islamic Conversion Forced on Fox Journalist's for Freedom?

A question.

Were they circumcised?

I mean, I want to see a picture of their ding-dongs minus a calamari to believe that story.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Yancheck,

Good question. Notice that there never is much proof of anything. Everything is hearsay.
Nothing ever happens that can be proven anymore.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Yeah its Islam that's violent....righto then.

Coming from an atheist I could understand, but coming from Christians I find it laughable. Both Christians and Jews have been violent and all have terrorists who publically espouse their religious justifications.

I find it offensive that some here would attempt to brand an entire religion as violent. That is completely unjustified and entirely without merit. If you want to brand Islam violent because of the Koran then brand Christianity and Judaism as violent because of the violence called for in the Bible and the Talmud.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join