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.

 

German study claims devout Islamic youth more violence-prone

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raustin
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


It still reads as convert or die to me as well. I understand that the last blurb of 'scripture' does seem to say let the people who don't believe live in their ignorance, but EVERYTHING before that reads: 'CONVERT OR DIE!' If not, the koran needs a new translator. And so does the poster.


You can read a passage any ways you want, but at the same time you need to explain to me why it reads that way to you?

What is the reasoning.



9:6 And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not.


Does the bold part of that passage make you read the verse as stating convert or die?

Which part of the passage, I'm curious here.



"Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to God's will) in Islam. Leave them alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them). (The Noble Quran, 15:2-3)"




posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   
A German News Service obtains a leaked document. Then Headlines it without the data or methodology. Additionally THEIR statement contains these two quotes.

" The as-yet unpublished research... " How does one question this ?

" The authors' interpretation "< I love that one, no method / data. No problem.

Yeah ........ I'd jump right on that as proof positive of what ?

An editors opinion , of the authors 'INTERPRETATION on unpublished research ?



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Raustin
 


Right. Putting it in context doesn't make it sound any better. It actually sounds even worse in context. Everything around it seems to be convert or die, then ~"accept the protection of Muhammad and not die" which still sounds like "convert or die" to me, just stated in the inverse.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by LittleSecret
You can read a passage any ways you want, but at the same time you need to explain to me why it reads that way to you?

What is the reasoning.


The reasoning is that every statement to not kill or harm them is conditional. Conditional on accepting what they want you to accept, such as "seeking the protection of Muhammad". That's why it all reads like "convert or die" to me.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Raustin
 


Right. Putting it in context doesn't make it sound any better. It actually sounds even worse in context. Everything around it seems to be convert or die, then ~"accept the protection of Muhammad and not die" which still sounds like "convert or die" to me, just stated in the inverse.


That is the funniest twist up to date lol.

If someone asks you for protection, that doesn't mean protection from Muslims, that simply means protection, because all people need protection, the idolaters didn't just have Muslim enemies, they had other enemies also, so once again:

If someone asks you for protection, give him protection because it is good if they live under your protection. Why? Because at least under your protection they will hear Allah's words, hence the AZAN, if you know what that is.

I don't know how you twisted that to convert or die lol



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 




The reasoning is that every statement to not kill or harm them is conditional. Conditional on accepting what they want you to accept, such as "seeking the protection of Muhammad". That's why it all reads like "convert or die" to me.


?????

OK either you are confused or I'm confused.

Where does it say kill them if they don't accept the protection of Muhammad? Or as you put it, if they don't convert?



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 12:31 AM
link   

9:6 And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not.


K this is what bothers me: And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the word of allah, and afterward convey to him his place of safety.

In MY language, that wreaks of conditional.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by LittleSecret
 


You want us to look at this tripe in context. This is the verse you gave us preceding


9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.


slay the idolaters wherever ye find them




posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   
I'm done for the night.

Up in 6 hours and not tired yet.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Raustin
 




K this is what bothers me: And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the word of allah, and afterward convey to him his place of safety.

In MY language, that wreaks of conditional.


I don't get it, explain in detail.

Is the "if" bothers you, or the and afterward convey to him his place of safety.?

What is the condition? It states if they seek for protection, give it to them, and then let them know where they can live in safety.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by LittleSecret
 


I get from your earlier remarks that you believe that many non-Muslims do not understand the teachings of Islam well enough to be making blanket statements...or that we take things out of context.

Perhaps so.

But I wonder if you would like to comment on whether or not you think that, at this point in history, there are a lot of violent acts being committed by followers of Islam...both against other Muslims, and against non-Muslims.

My completely non-scholarly take on it is that, yes, there is a terrific amount of violence around the world right now that is perpetrated by people who claim to be acting on behalf of Islam. And that, far, far, more religious violence - today - is being done in the name of Islam than in any other religions' name(s).

A quick and likely far from complete list of countries that have recently suffered from Islamic acts of terrorism (where mass murders of one kind or another take place or are thwarted). I am not including places where things like "honour killings" have taken place...because the list would just be too long for this post.

Iraq
Iran
Afghanistan
Pakistan
India
China
Indonesia
United States
England
Canada (okay, the guys were caught before they were able to cut off the PM's head, as was planned)
Russia
Spain
Turkey
Argentina
Tanzania
Kenya
France

I could go on...

So, if you can agree that this is actually happening, then perhaps you would agree that the German study might have some merit.

If so, why do you think it is happening? Perhaps your complete understanding of the Islamic holy texts can shed some light on this seeming proclivity toward mass murder and suicide in name of your Prophet.

I stand to be corrected, but it seems that the evidence that it is happening on a worldwide scale is overwhelming. The real question, then, is why?



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raustin
reply to post by LittleSecret
 


You want us to look at this tripe in context. This is the verse you gave us preceding


9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.


slay the idolaters wherever ye find them



Are we going on circles now?

They broke the treaty and started violence against Muslims therefore war started and Allah basically said to attack and defeat your enemy.

Let me put this in simple terms because I suspect your head has been programmed therefore hard to understand for you.

"We Will find Al-Qaeda and kill them where ever they are"

A general says:
"Slay Al-Qaeda where ever ye find them"

Get it?

You still haven't explained how the condition is "convert or die".

zzzz



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by mobiusmale
reply to post by LittleSecret
 




But I wonder if you would like to comment on whether or not you think that, at this point in history, there are a lot of violent acts being committed by followers of Islam...both against other Muslims, and against non-Muslims.

This doesn't need to be a scholar of Islam to know that Muslims are revolting against the American empire. This is more so political than religious.

Religion is used to empower those who are incredibly weak fighting an empire with borders reaching from all the way West to all the way east.

How can a weak force such as the Iraqi resistance, the Afghani resistance, the Arabian resistance, the Egyptian resistance, the Pakistani resistance.... fight an empire which has the ability to annihilate the earth.

I can keep going.

but we all know this is more political than religious.

Ask any terrorists why they are doing the things they are doing, they won't say "because GOD told me to do so", they will name couple of American/Israeli oppression against Muslims, and show their anger in regards.

So once again, you don't need to be an Islamic scholar to know the violence is politically motivated, rather than religious.

Muslims want to rule their own land, they don't want the West to do it for them and demean them by calling them uneducated riot makers who don't know how to run a country.

Iran was one of the countries which got its independence from the American empire, actually had to get its independence by force and keep American hostages just in-case.

Look at Iran now, Iran is doing better than all those Muslim countries still under American empire.

So once again, you don't need to be an Islamic scholar to know the violence is politically motivated, rather than religious.

You can't force people to live under your rule, they have the right to fight back with any means necessary. It is called the right to resist.

Don't forget, it was the Europeans who start the first and second world war



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by LittleSecret
 


Well, I suppose going back and editing your posts is a good start. Just keep in mind that spelling and grammar absolutely do reflect upon your credibility, and as such you should strive to use that advantage to its fullest.


For the sake of me being bored I'll give this one a crack in the JAW..[sic]


This was, after your quote, the first sentence of your submission. I don't know if it was meant to be funny or ironic, but it sets your posture in this argument as aggressive. Furthermore, it tells us that you don't need a reason to be aggressive, simply being bored is enough. You may not realize that the things that people write carry subtext, but they do.

You then launch into an argument that proposes the merits of violence. This is off topic, because the study does not examine the question of whether violence is sometimes necessary. Rather, it examines whether the tendency towards violent expression is more prevalent in a very narrow demographic of one religion over another.


--People don't just resort to violence for no reason.


No, I suppose they first must be bored out of their wits.

So at this point in your argument you're telling us that Islam is better because it encourages Muslims to fight back. This seems to be in agreement with the conclusion supported by the study.

But it's all just propaganda, right? You make an attempt to define propaganda:


What is Propaganda?
Let's see.

--They call you a terrorist, but give no detail of why you are a terrorist, is a form of propaganda.

--They call Hamas a Terrorist organisation but not giving any reasoning behind such labeling is called propaganda.


No, that's no good. Here, I got this from Wikipedia:


Defining propaganda has always been a problem. Garth Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell have provided a concise, workable definition of the term: "Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist." This definition focuses on the communicative process involved—more precisely, on the purpose of the process, and allows "propaganda" to be considered as a neutral activity, which can be seen as positive or negative behavior depending on the perspective of the viewer.


We can work with this. From your perspective, the study is propaganda because it takes its findings, specifically that young Muslim males are more prone to violence than young Christian males, and attempts to apply that finding to the entirety of the Muslim and Christian faiths, respectively. The problem is that it does not do this.


The study suggested those views were transferred to young people at the mosque, whereas non-devout boys picked up more liberal German attitudes. Pfeiffer wrote: 'This is not a problem with Islam, but a problem with their education in Islam.'


Pfeiffer, who conducted the study, acknowledges that to apply these findings to the whole of Islam would be folly.

To a true believer, all the evidence in the world would not shake the convictions that follow from an unfalsifiable claim. If the party line says "X religion is a religion of peace" then any evidence to the contrary is clearly the work of the devil, or the great deceiver, or the evil of men.

Every Muslim follows the Koran and the Hadith to the letter, right? Every Christian follows the Bible to the letter, right? No? Well, some people must. I think they're called fundamentalists. Those who label themselves moderate are merely apologists for the fundamentalists. Here's the kicker:


The study also argued that agnostic migrant children were the fastest to integrate ...


I wonder how well we'd all get along with no deities...



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by LittleSecret
Ask any terrorists why they are doing the things they are doing, they won't say "because GOD told me to do so", they will name couple of American/Israeli oppression against Muslims, and show their anger in regards.
Let's test that theory shall we?

See if the transcript from the terrorist hijacked Flight 93 ever mentions God or Allah:

911research.wtc7.net...


Flight 93 Transcript
Transcript of Flight 93's Cockpit Voice Recorder


09:58:33 Unintelligible. Let's go guys. Allah is greatest. Allah is greatest. Oh guys. Allah is greatest.

09:58:41 Ugh.

09:58:43 Ugh.

09:58:44 Oh Allah. Oh Allah. Oh the most gracious.

09:58:47 Ugh. Ugh.

09:58:52 Stay back.

09:59:42 Trust in Allah, and in him.

10:00:06 There is nothing.

10:00:07 Is that it? Shall we finish it off?

10:00:08 No. Not yet.

10:00:09 When they all come, we finish it off.

10:00:11 There is nothing.

10:00:13 Unintelligible.

10:00:14 Ahh.

10:00:15 I'm injured.

10:00:16 Unintelligible.

10:00:21 Ahh.

10:00:22 Oh Allah. Oh Allah. Oh Gracious.

10:00:25 In the cockpit. If we don't, we'll die.

10:00:29 Up, down. Up, down, in the cockpit.

10:00:33 The cockpit.

10:00:37 Up, down. Saeed, up, down.

10:00:42 Roll it.

10:00:55 Unintelligible.

10:00:59 Allah is the Greatest. Allah is the Greatest.

10:01:01 Unintelligible.

10:01:08 Is that it? I mean, shall we pull it down?

10:01:09 Yes, put it in it, and pull it down.

10:01:10 Unintelligible.

10:01:11 Saeed.

10:01:12 ... engine ...

10:01:13 Unintelligible.

10:01:16 Cut off the oxygen.

10:01:18 Cut off the oxygen. Cut off the oxygen. Cut off the oxygen.

10:01:34 Unintelligible.

10:01:37 Unintelligible.

10:01:41 Up, down. Up, down.

10:01:41 What?

10:01:42 Up, down.

10:01:42 Ahh.

10:01:53 Ahh.

10:01:54 Unintelligible.

10:01:55 Ahh.

10:01:59 Shut them off.

10:02:03 Shut them off.

10:02:14 Go.

10:02:14 Go.

10:02:15 Move.

10:02:16 Move.

10:02:17 Turn it up.

10:02:18 Down, down.

10:02:23 Pull it down. Pull it down.

10:02:25 Down. Push, push, push, push, push.

10:02:33 Hey. Hey. Give it to me. Give it to me.

10:02:35 Give it to me. Give it to me. Give it to me.

10:02:37 Give it to me. Give it to me. Give it to me.

10:02:40 Unintelligible.

10:03:02 Allah is the greatest.

10:03:03 Allah is the greatest.

10:03:04 Allah is the greatest.

10:03:06 Allah is the greatest.

10:03;06 Allah is the greatest.

10:03:07 No.

10:03:09 Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.

10:03:09 Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.


Any mention of God or Allah in there? In the middle of a commission of a terrorist act? It looks like a lot of comminucation with Allah to me if Allah has nothing to do with it.

I don't even know how you can believe what you write yourself.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Wait,Pfeiffer?!

First, every sane person living in germany will tell you the guy is a lunatic. He runs a personal crusade against video gamers. He was highly critisiced by virtually everyone regarding his past so called studies. His methods are not at all in concordance with statistical principles and when asked to provide detailed sources on the population he ran the surveys with,e.g place and status, he refused to do so. Further more it was found that in many cases the data was plain fraud.
He is only supported by government agencies because, guess what, the german government is run by CDU, Christlich Demokratische Union, a highly conservative christian right wing party hell bent on condemning video gamers as killers and with a traditional agenda against foreigners, muslims, blacks, jews, ...

And to the guy writing about kosova: stop your filthy lies. Not even a thousand rivers can wash the blood from the hands of the serbs and what they did to all the peoples of the balkans.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by LittleSecret
 



Okay, so you are saying that yes Muslims are committing a great many acts of violence around the world. But, this is political, not religious.

I hear you. So...

1) Why is it always Muslims of many, many nations fighting and killing people? That is, why isn't it countries (ie. political entities) fighting against western influence? Instead it is young men who are being taught by Imams in many scattered places who are being taught that they must defend Islam, and to join in the Jihad (that sounds more religious than political to me).
2) Why is it so often Muslims who are being trained to turn against their own countries of birth...they go off to train in foreign Islamic training camps, to come back and kill their own countrymen. Again this sounds like a religious agenda, with political dressing, to me.
3) What does the American influence have to do with mass killings in Russia, China, Africa and many places in Asia?
4) How does this explain the widespread mass murders of Sunnis by Shiites - and Shiites by Sunnis?

I understand that you are trying to explain that the worldwide killing spree is a response to unhappiness by a downtrodden people (in the Middle East mainly?) who have been under the boot of a major power.

Perhaps this is the motivation for some...or even many. But how can your argument escape the truth that the common denominator in all of these things is a religion...Islam?

America's influence has touched the entire world, particularly since World War II. Many countries have benefited from this influence, and some have suffered no doubt. Some countries have rebelled against this influence in various ways over the years. That rebellion of course would be political in nature.

However, within the context of this discussion, the rebellion is coming from an organized religion...based in multiple countries around the world. The rebellion is being taught and encouraged by the leading figures in that religion.

So, again, whether political or religious (or both) in nature your comments would tend to support the finding of the German study.

Furthermore, it seems to this one humble observer, that if we are to accept your explanations...then we must accept that as a matter of fact Islam has declared war on "the West", and if the West is to prevail in this struggle we had better cast off our Politically Correct cloaks and declare war on Islam - not "terrorism", Islam.

Call if political, or call it religious...the bottom line is Islam around the world is waging war against the West (America, its allies, and just about everybody else).

Thank you for clearing up that the war Islam (a religion I thought) declared and is fighting has little to do with religion.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Zelun
 


You still haven't provided anything in regards to the discussion, I don't know what you are trying to prove?

My point is simple, this is propaganda, read the article.

If it wasn't propaganda the article would have provided full report, but all we have is speculations.

As I said previously, it is propaganda, and it is propaganda because it doesn't mention based on what condition do those kids choose violence.

It is like saying, "Australian study claims devout American youth more violence-prone".

Then I would ask the same question, based on what condition would American youth choose violence?

Would they choose violence when someone burns the American flag in front of them?

Would they choose violence if someone spits at them?

Would they choose violence if someone was holding their girl friend's hand?

Would they choose violence if someone was cursing their family, "mom", "dad", or cursing America?


I haven't seen anything credible from this article.

And you haven't added anything useful to the discussion.

Sorry



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 




Ask any terrorists why they are doing the things they are doing, they won't say "because GOD told me to do so", they will name couple of American/Israeli oppression against Muslims, and show their anger in regards.


My comment was not directed to you, and my post involved more than just this passage, but individuals like you usually need half of the story to prove a points.

Sorry but you are mute from now.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by LittleSecret
 


I am trying to prove that quoting old books contributes nothing to this topic, and instead derails the discussion and turns it into a mud slinging match. It is why it was not until the bottom of page two that we get something that actually pertains to this matter:

post by skajkingdom

What?! The guy who conducted the study might have an agenda?!

I am trying to prove that your approach is all wrong. Trying to use scripture in a logical argument is counterproductive. Implying that you're going to prove once and for all that any religion is true or just, and by extension its detractors false or unjust, by quoting scripture is foolish because your source is only credible with people who believe the same as you. You'll just have to find another way.




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join