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.

 

Islam, Religion of Peace and a stack of Dead Bodies

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   
I agree with most of what you say Bodrul, with one exception - it is not for man to interpret the words of god, that's how wars start and we've seen that all too often.

I believe it started when the vast majority could not read - so along came "scholars" to interpret for them,with predictable results: The spin of the "scholar" coloured the message until in some instances it no longer resembled the original message.




posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TheoOne
 


en.wikipedia.org...


Muslim conquest in 642

Several historians told varying accounts of a Muslim army led by Amr ibn al 'Aas sacking the city in 645, and that the commander asked the caliph Umar what to do with the library, and received the response "...if what is written in them agrees with the Koran, they are not required; if it disagrees, they are not desired. Destroy them therefore.", and thus burned the books to heat bathwater for the soldiers.[15][16] However the legend has been dismissed by some as a later invention of Christian crusaders eager to justify the "barbarism" of Muslim armies.[17]. While the first Western account of the supposed event was in Edward Pococke's 1663 century translation of History of the Dynasties, it was dismissed as a hoax or propaganda as early as 1713 by Fr. Eusèbe Renaudot, and other later scholars agreed, including Alfred J. Butler, Victor Chauvin, Paul Casanova and Eugenio Griffini[18]. Recently, in 1990, Bernard Lewis argued that the original account is not true, but that it survived over time because it was a useful myth for the later Muslim leader, Saladin, who also found it necessary to destroy a library. Lewis proposes that the story of the caliph Umar's support of a library's destruction may have made Saladin's actions seem more acceptable to his people.[19]

[edit] Conclusion

Although the actual circumstances and timing of the physical destruction of the Library remain uncertain, it is however clear that by the 8th century, the Library was no longer a significant institution and had ceased to function in any important capacity.


So no, it's not true.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   
The website is not only one sided, it takes the ENTIRE issue out of context.

Anyone with any education in the history of the Middle East knows that irrational Islamic extremism arose after the fall of Nationalism throughout the region, typically the tipping point from one ideology to the next was after the Six Day War against Egypt, where Nationalist from many nations where embarassed and abandoned the nationalistic parties.

Islam came in to fill the vacuum, where Nationalism helped aim the state objective of the peoples to fulfill a desired outcome, Islam does the exact same thing. Think of it as a mask, and behind the mask is an objective. Currently the wars over there, in home territory, are fueled by religious fighters. These people do not fight because "the book says so" but because their political (and Islamic movements are VERY political) leaders tell them to. Often the most ignorant can be hoodwinked into actually doing something we call "evil" simply through a profound belief. It should also be noted that these same people are usually very poor, lost members of their family, suffered a great deal of shock from an act of violence or are mentally incapable to decipher what is good and bad.

Some movements are considered purely religious when in fact they are the opposite. Hammas for the most part before their take over of Palestine was a social organization that focused on humanitarian aid and local politics (town leaders) .. while religion is implemented into laws as would be expected as it is their culture, for the most part their organization would be no different then a western one. 50 some years ago and it would have been nationalist.. not in the name of Allah, but in the name of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc, etc, etc.

To say that a religion is a religion of hate and a "stack of bodies" because violence engulfs the REGION of the world that the religion is most prominent, is completely disregarding the entire history of the region.

Not only that, but if you take out all western military and flawed foreign policy the region would be quite peaceful side from a few rampant dictators. A world wide issue, not an Islamic one. And honestly, the only way to deal with Islamic extremism would be to render it useless.. stop giving it a goal to which it strives to meet a means to. Take out western exploitations and political and military leaders can throw around the Quran all they want, if there is no objective, no reason for the propaganda, the entire issue would dissolve. All it would take is to look at WHEN and WHY Islam took root to fix social and international issues. Nationalism was traditional, and could be dealt with by pre-vietnam style warfare (national armies not militant cells)..

So in closing, yes the site reports factual data from main stream news. No, the data is not put forth in a truthful way that truly shows the entire situation. And no, Islam and all Muslims are not hell bent on converting the world or kill us all.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Great post - starred.
An excellent, concise and clear representation of the history and politics of the situation.





posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Good post, gave you a star.

What many people seem to miss in their hatred for orginized religions is that yes, every, EVERY religion has done a bad deed or two, but it´s those religions who have MATURED and realized that one or another thought process was indeed wrong or evil.

Like Christianity. Shoot, one time IN THE PAST we too were beheading people because they didn´t accept Christianity.

However, the key words are "one time IN THE PAST."

Unlike Islam, where many of it´s followers and the ones who are put in charge to lead Islam, they CONTINUE to do so. Turn on CNN, BBS, local news networks etc and there ya go.

I do know many Muslims who don´t share the same belief that EVERYONE who isn´t a willing convertee to Islam should be killed, however in the middle east, I´m sure the majority could share that POV.

We can´t judge a religion on it´s actions in the past. It only leads to a weak argument.

So when Islam finally understands that they can´t force everyone to be a Muslim, and gets over it and becomes a truly peaceful religion, will we hold their past against them? I doubt it! At least, I will not.

My 0.2 Ameros,
FK

*edit*
Edited to fix typo.


[edit on 31-12-2007 by Frontkjemper]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
islam is violent
so is christianity. in fact, the bible has more violence in it than the koran (granted, that's more a matter of the bible being longer)



Ugh. And you sir are biased as well.

Catholicism WAS violent. During medieval times. And into the Inquisitional period immediately following medieval times.

The Old Testament has stories of violence commited by Israelites and Jews on the various idol worshipping peoples of the area of Israel. Note that this is not Christianity, not stories of Christians, but of Jews.

The New Testament rolls around. Hey look, not one single instance of advocating violence, not even against unbelievers! It may say in Revelation this or that will happen to unbelievers, but that is not saying
'go out and kill these people'.

The New Testament advocates peace, even through persecution, torture, and martyrdom, they still did not strike back violently. Those who were martyred were glad to be so.

You can say Christianity is violent all you'd like but its plainly incorrect. The only people killed in the name of Christianity were killed by agents of the Roman Catholic Church, whether it be the Inquisition, or a Crusade. But all of that was Catholic branded, under the Catholic flag, and all was done in Medieval times. The only meat and potatoes you have here is maybe the Salem Witch burnings. Even in the Lebanese civil war, the Maronite Christian population formed militias near Mount Lebanon for self defense only. And only then did they do that because the Sunni's and Shiites, as well as the Syrians and Israelis, were all armed to the teeth and looking to gun you down.

Islam on the otherhand advocates violence plainly and directly. Mohammad directly states in the Koran to kill nonbelievers. People of the Book get the option to convert, or die. If they dont convert, Mohammad sanctions all Muslims to be able to kill any Person of the Book who has refused conversion to Islam upon conquering that town or city. Especially Jews, where examples are given in the Koran of a large number of captured Jews being beheaded personally by Mohammad. This was written no later than 650 A.D., so .. really .. their violent conquest of formerly Christian & Jewish territories, in the Catholic's eyes, was the catalyst to the Crusades being called up. But I am not defending Catholicism.

Just stating the facts clear here. Generic Christianity is not violent. It does not advocate violence. It may have some violent stories from thousands of years ago, but none of that stuff is true according to y'all anyways?

Also, take a look at how each religion has spread up to now.

The Christian areas were either traditionally that way from long ago, received Christian refugees, or more likely was visited by numerous missionaries who were attempting to peacefully spread the word as far as possible. They do this to this day. This is how Christianity reached the nooks and crannies of the world. How did Islam reach its' places? Let's see .. just about everyone, everywhere .. including North Africa, Southern Spain, Western Asia, the Mid East, Southern Asia? All of these were converted through organized military conquest. Dont fool yourself just because you dislike one religion more than others. This happened. I feel for the pagans, they were just killed outright usually, no chance for conversion. Jews and Christians sometimes could save themselves by submitting to Islam, but sometimes they were all killed as well. Particularly Jewish tribes.

[edit on 12/31/2007 by runetang]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   
The truth is in the laws of the Middle East because you know what happens to rape victims - the woman get's the lashes and you know what happens when Muslims leave Islam too. Plus all the decapitations for punishments and death over trivial matters. IT'S IN THEIR LAW, and people should try and tell them they are mistranslating not the people who make the websites full of quotes that are actually put into practice.

The Bible's Old Testament was to pave way for Moses and his people for high preist hoods as God was directly present and was aimed only for Moses and his tribe. Those books are Jewish and are only for Jewish past history and as man passed certain pain barriers with God, God let man have back some freedoms of their own. These were tests for man at that time untill Jesus came along and broke the sin barries and salvation was formed and given to man kind.

This is where Islam seems to become even more dated than the Bible because they brought back where Moses and God left off during that time and it was an era that was complete without turning back and never to be repeated for the same reasons. Basically Muhammad tried to be Moses and they say he was like the new version of him as a prophecy and the Christians claim Jesus was more like Moses by spirit than action as in saving his people.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   
So let me get this straight, you can put up a link to a Muslim hate site, but not a Jew hate site? WTF is the difference?????



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Let me test this theory.........

Here is one..... www.jewwatch.com...

here is another........... www.muhammadanism.org...

Lets see what happens.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Luvidicus is a prime example of this in christianity.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
by the way... um... why is christianity any better?

That's a tangent and doesn't change the effect of the subject. If I said Charles Manson was evil would you refute that with "Hitler murdered more people"? You point is off-topic and does nothing to refute the claims of the site in question.

i tend to agree with you, these people are intolorent of other societies that they either visit or live in. they do not wish to adopt a new way of life that strays away from the teachings of the quran...and where is there 1..just 1 islamic coutry that honors human rights. europe is finding out what that much tolorance toward muslims gets you. and it should be the proverbial "canary in a coal mine" for the rest of western culture.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 

with all due respect for a civil discussion, i must disagree with you, islamic violence is taking place in more places across the world where muslims are not the primary or even a large minority of the society. even in america, muslim women are held to quran law. there has been articles across the nation where muslim men have harmed and even killed their wives for disobeying islamic law. i'm for human rights for all people, and i don't think we should be passive in this regard, in upholding that value even if it goes against anyones religious beliefs. and muslims should be no exception. period, end of story.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by runetang
 


Starred.
Interesting thing that I have to say, we would all be Muslims by now if not for a little battle that took place in Tours, France on the year 732 ad. Without the leadership of Charles Martel, on the Christian side against the Muslim invaders, we would have lost the battle.
The battle forced the Islamic invaders to retreat to Spain and guaranteed that Christianity would survive as the dominant religion in Europe.
More info here:
en.wikipedia.org...
And do not forget the battle of Lepanto in 1571, when the majority of the Ottoman Turkish fleet(Muslims) was decimated by the Holy League (Christians) fleet.
Before the battle, the Christian fleet had 206 galleys and 6 galleasses, and the Muslim fleet had 230 galleys and 56 galliots.
Casualties were the Christians had lost 8,000 men and 12 galleys, and the Muslims had 20,000 dead or wounded with 50 ships sunk and 137 ships captured by the Christians.
en.wikipedia.org...(1571)
A little something for the New Year.
Happy New Year everyone.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by articulateka0s
Luvidicus is a prime example of this in christianity.


First of all Leviticus (correct spelling) is the third book written by Moses c. 520-400 BC. This was after the exodus from Egypt and during the 40 years in the wilderness. Christians were not even in existence yet as Jesus had not been born nor crucified and resurrected. After the resurrection 33-34 AD the followers of Christ Jesus were known as "Christians". The Old testament refers to Jewish history not Christian history.

Besides, what does Leviticus have to do with Christians, Islam and this thread.....nothing!

I have seen posts from time to time by various ATS members referring to the Qur'an and what it says. My question is, have they read the Qur'an? I do not mean simply a passage here and there but the Qur'an as a whole. Some will argue the point that it has peaceful parts and violent parts the same as many works. However, one main difference is the allowing of the murder of those that fail to convert.

This is in violation of the Mosaic laws which they claim to uphold. Dealings with an infidel are not subject to the same rules as with a fellow Muslim. This being said, how they justify the murdering of a family member or punishing a victim of rape that is a Muslim smacks of a double standard. I guess not having a beard long enough, not wearing a hijab, getting raped or having a "western" style haircut is grounds for murder.

How can anyone claim that Islam is peaceful in the light of its actions is beyond me. One point to remember, you can draw allot more supporters with honey than you can with vintager. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still, and it is better to offer a flower than a bullet.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Saying that Islam maybe not related to Christianity maybe akin to saying JFK maybe not related to RFK. Birds of similar feathers flock together. Religion as a main category and Islam as a sub-category. Maybe the differences are fairly minor but enough for insane people to split hairs over the details as to which one seems more logical or more fair or more accepted in the world. They both offer claims of which neither seem capable of fulfilling. Maybe these groups of people simply prefer to ignore the broader metaphysical understanding of reality that we all have in common yet experience subjectively. Too bad for them if they can't get off there butts and learn a few things about life outside of their "belief systems", I don't really care if they believe these things so long as they don't harm me or others. I simply don't have much tolerance for these groups of people simply due to their history as oppressors of difference, information and evolution.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Yes yes that site is one sided but u cant avoid the fact that Islam is the religion filled with the most amount of controversy. Christianity use to be like that but not anymore. Muslims do not eat pork, Christians eat ham during Christmas dinners. One man's sin is another man's dinner.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 04:03 AM
link   
"When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? It is because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind."
~ J. Krishnamurthi



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Impreza
 


There it is. It couldn't be more simple. Thank you Impreza.

I wish I could have been as succinct as Krishnamurti was instead of writing that long post.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by Rasobasi420]



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by bodrul
 

I'm afraid I have difficulty taking your point seriously while you have a banner in your signature saying "Boycott israeli Goods". Surely this is tarring a whole nation with the same brush in exactly the same way some of the posters in this thread are inclined to tar all of Islam with the same brush, is it not?

My opinion on Islam is the same as it is for all the major religions who have a theocratic hold somewhere in the world, and it is this:
When a small proportion of a religion's following are dispicable human beings, the religion whose name that they commit their acts must be held accountable. Otherwise, one could very well hand a gun to every small child in the world and tell them it is to be used for hunting only, and then when some of those children grow up and start to turn those same guns on each other, you can deny all responsibility and expect absolutely no criticism for giving them guns in the first place. Religion is capable of both good and evil - fact! So if you're going to take credit for the good you have bestowed upon the world, you must accept equal damnation for the bad you have bestowed upon the world.

I believe that the bad that major religion has caused outweighs the good and it must therefore be abandonded by all intelligent people.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth
 


i never said hinduism is killing many people, i was just wondering how a religious system that openly states that a certain group of people must be actively discriminated against is better...



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join