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.

 

Pentagon Briefing: Terrorists Are "Rational Actors" Following Their Holy Book

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx
im not going to claim to be talking on behalf of every muslim on the planet but here goes :


OK; but something tells me that what you state in your post are the same or similar sentiments shared by most Muslims. I'd be interested to know DJMessiah's opinion on what you've said here.


Originally posted by iqonx
1. Al-Qeada and Bin ladin are criminals just as much as those that dropped nukes on women and children in japan, and those that dropped napalm on villages in vietnam and those that carpet bombed dresden.


So you're equating what happened on September 11, 2001 with what happened in WWII and the Vietnam War? Let's see. JAPAN ATTACKED US!. And it's a well-known fact that destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives in the long run as the war with Japan was going to be a long protracted war otherwise. More civilians would have died were it not for dropping those bombs.

As far as Vietnam is concerned: I find it interesting that you are comparing the cowardly tactics of the Vietcong, who hid among women and children, to the cowardly "war-fighters" of the Mujahadeen (Hezbollah, Hamas, al Qeada) who do the exact same thing.


Originally posted by iqonx
Hamas and Hezbollah are different to al-qeada. Hamas and Hezbollah where born during a brutal occupation by Israel you simply cannot compare that to Al-qeada. Fact is that if Israel never occupied Lebanon that Hezbollah would never have been created. So rather then condem the freedom fighters i condem Israel for having a brutal occupation of lebanon for 18 years and Palestine for 60 years.

2. Israel does not have a right to exist becuase they where built by expelling the natives of that area. The majority of people that live in Israel are not even native. How are white skinned, Blue eyed euro jews native to the middle east?

I only recognise the true natives the arabs/jewish Palestinians to live in that area and not euro/foriegn jews to live in that area. The natives where thrown out of there homes to make a land for the jews. Why should the Palestinians suffer. Destroy Israel and send the white jews back to europe where they belong and let the native palestinians(christians, Jews, Muslims) live there.


Here in the US the Statue of Liberty states:

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me".

We welcome, with open arms, those who wish to come here in search of freedom from oppression; from every corner of the globe without regard to religious differences. What is it about Palestinian Arabs that they couldn't voluntarily accept a people seeking safety from a brutal regime that attempted to exterminate them as a race? Where, exactly, is the peaceful benevolent nature of Islam in this circumstance? Why can't they live side-by-side with their Jewish neighbors?


Originally posted by iqonx
I don;t understand why everybody wants to condem the people who rise up for there freedoms why not condem the occupiers and theifs who steal peoples land an dhumiliate them in there own country.


There have been many examples where Israel extended the olive branch despite their differences with the Palestinians. Most notably in recent times: giving the Gaza Strip to Palestinian control despite the blood-letting and infighting among the settlers. Yet depite this, Hamas took the position that it was their continued attacks using suicide bombers that "forced" israel to give up Gaza. Therefore, Hamas vowed to, and have continued to, attack Israel.



Originally posted by iqonx
I only recognise the true natives the arabs/jewish Palestinians to live in that area and not euro/foriegn jews to live in that area.


I notice you're in England. Do you think you'd be there if the UK took the same position on Muslims?


Originally posted by iqonx
I'm so sick and tired of everyone feeling sorry for land thiefs thats its sickning how everybody is feeling sorry for those that stole the land and screwed over the natives.

America has killed more people in a single week in Veitnam then more terrorist groups have in there whole existance.


I'd like to point out, to anyone following this thread, how iqonx is an "extremist" in the disguise of a "moderate" Muslim. I believe most "moderates" take nearly the same positions that iqonx has taken.

Comments DJMessiah?


Freedom_for_sum




posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Japan was trying to surrender most of the summer of 45 but the United States refused to negotiate. Like it or not the bombs were not dropped on Japan to save American lives, they were dropped as a warning to the Soviet Union.

Besides that fact... Pearl Harbor was (shades of 9/11) allowed to happen. We had (in both cases) ample warning to have deterred, if not actually prevented them from happening.

Besides even that, your very response sum shows you of being incapable of at least attempting to entertain another's viewpoint. Like it or not, that IS how America is precieved in a lot of the world.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Why don't you just come out as say bluntly what your thread does in so many words, that you are bigoted against Muslims and no amount of discussion on the matter is going to change your closed little mind instead of trying to pretend that you are not.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Japan was trying to surrender most of the summer of 45 but the United States refused to negotiate. Like it or not the bombs were not dropped on Japan to save American lives, they were dropped as a warning to the Soviet Union.


Off topic; but if your'e going to make claims such as this: site your references and support your claims.


Originally posted by grover
Besides that fact... Pearl Harbor was (shades of 9/11) allowed to happen. We had (in both cases) ample warning to have deterred, if not actually prevented them from happening.


Your ignorance is astounding!
Site your references; support your claims. You might want to consider starting another thread.


Originally posted by grover
Besides even that, your very response sum shows you of being incapable of at least attempting to entertain another's viewpoint. Like it or not, that IS how America is precieved in a lot of the world.


I have EXTREME difficulty understand the mind of a person who can strap explosives to himself to kill indiscriminately (including deliberately targeting children) and shout "Allahu Akbar" while doing it. I have extreme difficulty understanding the mind of a person who can saw the .s off of people (not even military soldiers) in the name of their god. Besides: Why should I even try to understand them if they are a "small minority of extremists"? If we just exterminate them wouldn't we be doing Islam a favor? Where, exaclty, are the bands of peace-loving Muslims rising up to defeat this small brutal group Islamic misunderstanders?

[edit on 11-10-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Why don't you just come out as say bluntly what your thread does in so many words, that you are bigoted against Muslims and no amount of discussion on the matter is going to change your closed little mind instead of trying to pretend that you are not.


Why don't you respond to what iqonx has posted? I'm interested to know your opinion of his position.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
From what I have read on sites such as www.watchingamcerica.com it reflects a lot of the world's attitude towards America. It has been my experience though that if you sit down with the vast majority of, not only Muslims, but other 3rd world peoples, its not Americans that they resent (or hate) it is the actions of our government.

You are really not worth arguing with.

[edit on 11-10-2006 by grover]



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Part 1/2 of Response


Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum


So you're equating what happened on September 11, 2001 with what happened in WWII and the Vietnam War? Let's see. JAPAN ATTACKED US!. And it's a well-known fact that destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives in the long run as the war with Japan was going to be a long protracted war otherwise. More civilians would have died were it not for dropping those bombs.


Actually Japan attacked a military base known as pearl harbour. America attacked there civilians with fire bombings and nukes.

And America started it by interfering in oil shipments that where being sent to Japan.

And secondly Nuking Japan did not saves lives but only the lives of American soldiers. America nuked civilians to save the lives of it's soldiers. There is a big difference. American soldiers signed and agreed to die for America's wars while Japanese civilians did not agree to die for there country. So nuking them was not justified.

And using the excuse more civilians would have died if America did not nuke them is also an Opinion not a fact. Japan actually wanted and end to the war and there where multiple pathways to achieving this.


Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
As far as Vietnam is concerned: I find it interesting that you are comparing the cowardly tactics of the Vietcong, who hid among women and children, to the cowardly "war-fighters" of the Mujahadeen (Hezbollah, Hamas, al Qeada) who do the exact same thing.


Vietnam didn't go around shoving phrases such as "defenders of freedom" and "protectors of justice" and other crap down peoples throats around the world.

America claims to be the most morally superior nation on earth so i judge it with the most highest morals. Thats the difference that if you claim to be a defender of freedom and a supporter of justice then you should allow people to judge you on those attributes.

Secondly you say hide among civilians. That shows you know nothing about guerilla warfare. These people did not just start fighting because they where bored but because there nation was invaded and there people oppressed. They “hide” among civilians because guess what they are civilians that have chosen to rise up and fight against oppression. What are they supposed to do go out into the middle of a field somewhere light up a flair and hold there $20 AK-47 in the air and wait for there enemy to use there multi million dollar helicopter gun ships to blow them up.

Do you honestly think that if these guerillas where just as powerful as the people that occupy them they would “hide” among civilians. Don't you think these guerilla's would rather be in a challenger tank or an Apache gunship rather then standing in a street with a $20 AK-47.



Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Here in the US the Statue of Liberty states:

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me".

We welcome, with open arms, those who wish to come here in search of freedom from oppression; from every corner of the globe without regard to religious differences. What is it about Palestinian Arabs that they couldn't voluntarily accept a people seeking safety from a brutal regime that attempted to exterminate them as a race? Where, exactly, is the peaceful benevolent nature of Islam in this circumstance? Why can't they live side-by-side with their Jewish neighbors?


Why should the Arabs care about the Jews?

Let Europe take care of the European Jews. The holocaust was a white on white, European on European crime why should the brown people such as Arabs in the middle east give there land and homes to the jews in Europe to make up for it. That's not justice but injustice. You write as if you are a rational person but behind your writing there is only irrational logic.

Why should Palestinians give even one inch of there garden's, farms, home's or land to the European jews for what the European Germans did to them.

And secondly the Jews that came to Palestine where not just there to live amongst Arabs they came to annex land and create a new homeland there for Jews at the expense of the native Arabs. There is no group of people on earth that would except this type of injustice and rape of there people.

And not only that they jews that came there where sent by Zionist organisations with the plan to create a Jewish homeland from the river Euphrates(Egypt) to the river Tigress(Iraq) to create Eretz Israel.

If Europeans/West feel so badly about the holocaust why don't they give a part of Germany or Austria or America to the Jews why should Middle Easterners pay the price of Western incompetence during World War 2 in which the jews where killed.

The Muslims had shown jews more respect in the past then any other religion at those times. The jews where saved many times from the Christians and others by the Muslims. But giving the jews a homeland is not a job of Islam or a requirement on any level. Any act of kindness shown to jews is a charity by saving them and protection them from Christian crusaders it was not a requirement. Saving them and giving them a homeland after WW2 after the Nazi's at the expense of native arab Palestinians was and is not a requirement or a religious duty of the Muslims.

If foreign European jews needed a homeland they should have built it in foreign countries not in Palestine where Arabs where living.

You can never have peace with those that come to your country to annex it to create there own homeland there at the expense of the natives. There is always going to be resistance.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Part 2/2 of response



Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
There have been many examples where Israel extended the olive branch despite their differences with the Palestinians. Most notably in recent times: giving the Gaza Strip to Palestinian control despite the blood-letting and infighting among the settlers. Yet depite this, Hamas took the position that it was their continued attacks using suicide bombers that "forced" israel to give up Gaza. Therefore, Hamas vowed to, and have continued to, attack Israel.



First of all you mistake is to assume giving Gaza to the Palestinians was an act of peace. Israel had to give back Gaza to the Arabs because of tactical reasons mainly being it was too costly for them to hold. Considering Israel spends roughly 7% to 10%+ of it's GDP on it's armed forces and on top of that much more on settlements and also receives something like $3 billion dollars a year in US military aid it is very expensive for Israel to hold ground in Gaza considering the ration of arab/Jews in that region they had to get rid of Gaza so they could cement there hold on Jerusalem and West Bank.

Those are not an olive branch was a punishing and humiliating whipping from a whip. They dropped Gaza so they could take greater and more demographically strategically Arab area's in Jerusalem and the Arab West Bank where the jews have been trying to eliminate the Arab presence especially in Jerusalem.

That's not peace but a strategic land grab. Secondly Hamas actually had a self imposed cease fire agreement before they even came into power. If you look back you will notice that actually Israel attacked Hamas many times during the cease fire and actually Hamas kept to it they only broke the cease fire when Israel killed people on the Gaza beach incident.

And yes it was groups like Hamas which forced Israel to give up the Gaza strip this is because it was too expensive to hold onto by Israel considering the Arab/Settler ratio's it was putting a heavy strain on Israel's GDP through it's military spending on protecting the area from attacks from freedom fighters trying to eliminate Israeli colonies of there land.



Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I notice you're in England. Do you think you'd be there if the UK took the same position on Muslims?


Weak attempt at logical discussion.

First of all my family was invited to England during the 1960's/70's because Britain needed workers so people from India/Pakistan/Caribbean where invited to come to Britain and work.

The jews that came into Palestine actually illegly came into Palestine even though the Arabs and the occupying British forces had told the jews to stop coming there so the jews started to use terrorism against Arab civilians and British targets to continue illegally immigrating to Palestine.

My family and many other Muslims came during the 60's and 70's with others from around the world from countries of the ex-British empire. We did not come in with bombs against the wishes of the local population and start killing British soldiers to create a independent homeland on British soil called “Israel”.

So you weak comparison was very weak and illogical at best.


Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I'd like to point out, to anyone following this thread, how iqonx is an "extremist" in the disguise of a "moderate" Muslim. I believe most "moderates" take nearly the same positions that iqonx has taken.

Comments DJMessiah?


Freedom_for_sum Disgusted by Freedom_for_sum opinions which support illegal occupation, Land theft, Murder, violent oppression, Zionism and many other illogical inhumane practices.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
It has been my experience though that if you sit down with the vast majority of, not only Muslims, but other 3rd world peoples, its not Americans that they resent (or hate) it is the actions of our government.


What "actions" specifically are you talking about? Would it be the actions of our soldiers fighting along side Europe to defeat the brutal regime of Hitler's army? Or how about when we liberated an Islamic country (Kuwait) ffrom ussein's brutal army who raped their women and indiscriminately killed civilians in an attempt extend his megalo-meniacle dictatorship. Or are you refering to the time when we (Americans) stopped the ethnic cleansing (Sebians of the Kosovars) and imprisoned the person responsible (Milesovic)?

There is a graveyard in France full of American soldiers who fought FOR France when France couldn't fight for herself. ALL OF EUROPE would likely be speaking German under a brutal government (SS) if it weren't for the US. After we liberated France did we hang the American flag there and set up residency? NO! We left leaving France to govern herself; which is exactly what we will do with Iraq when the time is right.

Shall I keep going?

What people like you need to do is stop apologizing for America and start remembering what we have done for freedom and liberty throughout the world and history and remind those with short memories of those things.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx
Why should the Arabs care about the Jews?


You're right. I forgot. It is haraam to befriend Jews. BTW: Show me in the Qur'an where it delineates "blue-eyed" Euro-Jews from "Brown skinned" Arab Jews



Originally posted by iqonx
Let Europe take care of the European Jews. The holocaust was a white on white, European on European crime why should the brown people such as Arabs in the middle east give there land and homes to the jews in Europe to make up for it. That's not justice but injustice.


Thanks for showing your Islamic bigotry. The intolerance is loud and clear!!


Originally posted by iqonx
Why should Palestinians give even one inch of there garden's, farms, home's or land to the European jews for what the European Germans did to them.


Careful!! You're letting your Islamo-ignorance shine through. Jews are just as, if not more so, entitled to that land. They've been there for thousands of years. It is Islamic intolerance that fuels the continued conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.


Originally posted by iqonx
And secondly the Jews that came to Palestine where not just there to live amongst Arabs they came to annex land and create a new homeland....

...they jews that came there where sent by Zionist organisations with the plan to create a Jewish homeland...

If Europeans/West feel so badly about the holocaust why don't they give a part of Germany or Austria or America to the Jews ...

... The jews where saved many times from the Christians and others by the Muslims. But giving the jews a homeland is not a job of Islam or a requirement on any level. Any act of kindness shown to jews is a charity by saving them and protection them from Christian crusaders...


It is my sincere hope that you haven't yet and will not procreate. It is shallow thinking like yours that creates hatred and makes life on Earth a challenge. You, sir, are not worth the effort of any further responses. You need to go educate yourself and stop toeing the Islamic party line


[edit on 13-10-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   
took ya awhile to think those things up huh? I hope you haven't procreated either...we have enough ignorant right wingers out there as it is.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
ENOUGH, show the forum the respect it deserves. Now, back on topic.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
took ya awhile to think those things up huh? I hope you haven't procreated either...we have enough ignorant right wingers out there as it is.


Funny thing, Grover, is that I'm not a "right winger". I'm quite in the middle, as it were; and still waiting for you to provide proof and references backing your claims you've made here.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Read my posts from the beginning on...I have provided ample references...I am not going to do your homework for you, you wouldn't read them anyway, your mind is already made up on the matter.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Read my posts from the beginning on...I have provided ample references...I am not going to do your homework for you, you wouldn't read them anyway, your mind is already made up on the matter.


Well grover; the only references you provided in this thread were from the Qur'an:

1. Qur'an 2:256.
2. Qur'an 42:13.
3. Qu'ran 42:14-16.
4. Qur'an 4:169; 5:77; and 5:116.
5. Qur'an 4:155,156.
6. Qur'an 45:27-29.
7. Qur'an 2:62.

Which I responded to, and a couple websites to get general religion information; neither of which pertains to the topic of this thread.

I still say that so-called "extremists" or terrorists are following Islamic teachings to carry out their acts of terror. The pentagon briefing states as much and I agree with it. You have not adequately argued your position that terrorists are not folowing their "holy book". Nor has DJMessaiah or anyone else. In fact, DJMessaiah attempted to provide disinformation regarding Qur'an 4-34; by proclaiming that that verse states you can only beat your wife if she is an adulteress--which I proved was incorrect. He has since been mysteriously absent (despite saying he would "be sure to follow [my] topics from now on") or devoid of comment.

It may take awhile but soon you'll understand the serious flaws that exist in Islam and why it's incompatible with western culture.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
They perceive "moderate" Muslims, or non-wahabii Muslims as apostates. The punishment for apostacy is death. They believe they are justified in killing Muslims.


Notice, the Al Queda bomb Masjids and kill those worshiping in them as well. Do they also consider places of worship dedicated to God as non-Muslim too? One is a Muslim who upholds the Quran and peace. What they represent is a political movement, not in focusing on the teachings of the Quran, but rather their own beliefs and own agenda.


Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Originally posted by DJMessiah
What exactly did Iran do to change your perspective of Islam?


This thread says it all: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Did you ever check to see who wrote that news article from that thread? MEMRI isn't exactly known for being truthful on issues regarding Islam.


Do some research on the Egyptian Christian Copts.


I have. What exactly are you refering to about them? If it's for religious freedoms in Egypt for them, then read:

"Accordingly religious practices that conflict with Shari'a are prohibited; however, in the country the practice of Christianity or Judaism does not conflict with Shari'a and, in general, members of the non-Muslim minority worship without harassment and maintain links with coreligionists in other countries."

www.state.gov...

Not only that, but they event went as far as helping Muslims and non-Muslims alike in learning their own faiths in school:

"The Constitution requires schools to offer religious instruction. Public and private schools provide religious instruction according to the faith of the student."


As far as "prosyletizing in public": Blaring Islamic prayers over loudspeakers 5 times a day is not only prosyletizing; but it also oppressive. Imagine the fate of a Christians singing hymns in public! In addition; No church or synagogue is allowed in Saudi Arabia.


"Blaring" the Islamic Adhan (call to prayer) is no different than the "blaring" church bells ringing from the Christian Churches.

Churches are not allowed in S.A for the same reason Islamic Mosques, or any other places of worship for non-Christians, are not allowed to be built near the Papal state. To date, Italy still does not recognize Islam as an official religion, unlike S.A. and Egypt, who do recognize Judaism and Christianity as an official religion.


Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Pertaining to honor killings, it’s something that is not allowed in Islam.


Then why is it so prevalent in Islamic societies?


Islam condemns honor killings. Murder is not allowed in Islam, like I've stated before. I would hardly call the honor killings that do occur in the M.E. as 'prevalent.' Consider your own quote you found: "There have been at least seven cases of honour killings in 2003." 7 honor killings is hardly as 'prevalent' as you make it sound.


Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Originally posted by DJMessiah
They are doing it with no regards to the teachings of the Quran. The Quran does not permit suicide. They are far from being in the name of Islam.


Martyrdom is permitted in Islam. They don't consider what they're doing as suicide.


Martyrdom is allowed in Islam, as it is in many other major faiths, but suicide is not martyrdom. If your intention is killing yourself, it's hardly what Islam considers as being a martyr.



Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
You've completely turned the meaning around of that Surrah. "...let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies" refers to [the one] who accuses his wife and is comfimed by the statement that follows: "that he is of those who speak the truth".


I'll post the full Surrah. You can see that the woman's word is over the man:

Surrah 24:6-8

"As for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves; let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies , ( swearing ) by Allah that he is of those who speak the truth; And yet a fifth, invoking the curse of Allah on him if he is of those who lie. And it shall avert the punishment from her if she bear witness before Allah four times that the thing he saith is indeed false"


Why would the husband "beat her lightly" when the penalty for adultery is death?


Can you show me which surrah from the Quran was used that council had made their judgment on? You seem to often use the same tactic of using individual cases as enough justification to classify the whole as the same. Let me ask, what does your faith's book write as punishment for adultery?


And while we're on the topic of wife beating, here is this thread about a guy who wrote an Islamic guide on how to beat your wife.


"Islamic" guide? You seem to make everything someone does seem "Islamic" in what you write. The guy wrote the guide to hitting a wife who won't obey him. How is that Islamic?


: Originally by Freedom_for_sum


Originally posted by DJMessiah
Who does this help, exactly? In your mind, you may see yourself as helping Islam, but in reality, you’re trying to hurt it (whether it’s intentional or unintentional). If you want to help, don’t just show “how they’re doing it,” but rather show why it goes against Islam.


It helps by educating people on what's going on.


How do you consider yourself "educating people," when you justify the terrorists views on Islam? Not once have I seen you post a surrah from the Quran which shows that the terrorists are going against the Quran's teachings, but rather you post misquoted surrahs and teach them as truth.


The notion that these things are being commited by a "tiny minority of extremists" is slowly eroding because of people like Robert Spencer.


Yes, leave it to someone biased against Islam to teach their view of Islam as truth. Honestly, I don't see what you find honest about this man.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 01:30 AM
link   

I believe I asked before for you to show a Fatwa proclaiming riots and such as un-Islamic and demanding cesation.


Can you show me where you asked me this? I'm pretty sure I've replied to anyone who asked me for something like this. If I didn't reply to yours, then my apology. Here's what you asked for:

www.islamonline.com...
www.religionnewsblog.com...
www.supanet.com...



Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I think most would disagree with you. Everyone knows they are Muslims.


Who are these "most who disagree" and "everyone" that you're referring to? Muslims? Were they still considered as "Muslims" when they went to the strip club prior to committing terrorism?


Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
The are Muslims actively engaged in Jihad which, in Islam, is the legal justification for attacking.


Incorrect. "Jihad" means "to struggle against." It in no means justifies murdering innocents. Even if those men were attacked, they could only defend, not offend and kill innocents. The Quran does not allow anyone but the attacker to be defended against. The innocents that died in the WTC did not attack anyone, nor did they seek to offend.


And there is no word "innocent" that exists in Islam; just like there's no "infidel" in the Qur'an.


The word "innocent" doesn't exist in the Quran, but the meaning does. Wouldn't you consider someone who is not the attacker, not an offender, and someone who wants peace as one who is innocent? The Quran does. Muslims are not allowed to fight those who want peace, only those who attack us.


There's the "House of Peace" (Dar Al Islam) or "House of War" (dar al-harb). From their perspective we are engaged in war.


The "dar al-harb" is not in the Quran. It, just like the Hadith, are not teachings of Islam, but rather man made teachings that were added later.


Your answer shows you are anti-Israel. Your term "non-Zionist" means basically without their own statehood.


I'm anti-Israeli policy and oppression. Notice I stated that I support a state that has equal rights for all races and faiths. I've met Jews in Israel who are against Israel's policy as well, especially against their treatment of Palestinians. If you want to experience Israel yourself, I suggest you visit there and see how they treat you in the non-tourist areas, as a non-Jewish person.


In addition, it was Hezbollah who attacked Israel. Israel asserted her right to defend herself and, in my opinion, didn't go far enough to elliminating Hezbollah.


Incorrect. It was Israel that tresspassed and entered Lebanon. Prior to the soldier's kidnappings, Israel sent in jet fighters to Lebanon.



Your response to this question makes you somewhat extreme--though I don't think you advocate Israel's destruction as Iran has.


I see you're using the word "extreme" and "extremist" often. Can you tell me what your definition of "extreme" is? Also, please show me where Iran advocated the destruction of the Israeli lands.


Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Originally posted by DJMessiah
3. I’m an American. In Islam, there can be no . power controlling the Muslims.


Uh huh. What about the Caliphate? What about Mohammed himself?


My statement was in regards to after Muhammad, of course. There can be no other prophet or leader in Islam after Muhammad. The Caliphate was in charge of Muslims who lived with Prophet Muhammad. The caliphate acted as their imam, he however, did not lead any Muslim who were not living in Mecca. Islam does not allow any one else to lead all Muslims, after Muhammad passed away.



Are you aware that CAIR made to following statement: "Islam is not in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominate. The Koran...should be the highest authority in America, and Islam is to be the only accepted religion on earth." -- Omar Ahmad, founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). What do you think about that?


I think he was using his first amendment right by stating his opinion. He merely stated what televangelists advocate on their belief: a "A religiously (Christian) dominated and ruled U.S."

Now that I have answered your questions, let me ask you, what have you done to fight extremism in your faith?

[edit on 14-10-2006 by DJMessiah]



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
DJMessiah;

Here are four translations of 4:34: (BTW: I believe you stated before that "nushooz" means adulterer. I believe you are incorrect.)


I stated:

"As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds..."

In Arabic:

"waallatee takhafoonanushoozahunna faAAithoohunna waohjuroohunnafee"

Nushooz in Arabic means "adultery," "disloyal" or "unfaithful."

When used in terms of relationship wise, it means being unfaithful as in committing adultery.



Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
In fact, DJMessaiah attempted to provide disinformation regarding Qur'an 4-34; by proclaiming that that verse states you can only beat your wife if she is an adulteress--which I proved was incorrect.


I never provided "disinformation." Nushooz means exactly what I said.


Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
He has since been mysteriously absent (despite saying he would "be sure to follow [my] topics from now on") or devoid of comment.


Let's not lie, here, please. Did you forget that you sent me a PM asking me to reply, and I answer it and said I would after I finish studying for my mid-terms? I said I would follow your topics when I have free time again. I do not appreciate you twisting my words to benefit your own stance.

[edit on 14-10-2006 by DJMessiah]



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 06:42 AM
link   
I referred to Karen Armstrong's books..."Islam: A Short History"... "Holy War: The Crusades and Their Impact on the Modern World"... "The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism"... all excellent and eridite reads by one of the world's most intelligent scholars of religion, from Britian and a former Roman Catholic nun. Thing is even if I sent them to you I doubt seriously you would read them or if you did, with an open mind.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join