When they get through with their PR campaign asserting that they are a religion of peace - like, hey, we know you guys think religion is about peace, so know we are of peace...yeah...ok....

Could they please start a campaign about how they are all about American values and constitutional rights too?

Like freedom of speech, loving dogs, women are equal citizens, stuff like that?

Originally posted by skajkingdom


Are you not at least a little bit affraid that you WILL BE accountable for everything you write?

That sounds like a veiled threat.
Accountability as a consequence of failure to submit is the antithesis of peaceful.

Originally posted by 23refugee

Originally posted by skajkingdom


Are you not at least a little bit affraid that you WILL BE accountable for everything you write?

That sounds like a veiled threat.
Accountability as a consequence of failure to submit is the antithesis of peaceful.

You know i am talking about accountable before God.

Originally posted by hadriana

Could they please start a campaign about how they are all about American values and constitutional rights too?

Like freedom of speech, loving dogs, women are equal citizens, stuff like that?

For, never will the Jews be pleased with thee. Nor yet the Christians, unless thou follow their own creeds. Say: "Behold, God's guidance is the only true guidance." And, indeed, if thou shouldst follow their errant views after all the knowledge that has come unto thee. thou wouldst have none to protect thee from God, and none to bring thee succour.
(Qur'an, 2:120)

Originally posted by skajkingdom

For, never will the Jews be pleased with thee. Nor yet the Christians, unless thou follow their own creeds. Say: "Behold, God's guidance is the only true guidance." And, indeed, if thou shouldst follow their errant views after all the knowledge that has come unto thee. thou wouldst have none to protect thee from God, and none to bring thee succour.
(Qur'an, 2:120)

Of course, of course.

The Jews were and are misled by the Pharisees.

And the Christians were and are misled by the Pharisee Paul.

The purpose of the mission of Mohammed was to validate that Jesus was the messiah--as stated by the Christians; but that Jesus was not God (which the Koran refers to as a "monstrous blasphemy")--as has always been argued by the Jews.

And this involved also correcting their errors concerning the Pharisaical doctrine of the raising of a dead body from the grave.

Unfortunately, even the vast majority of Muslim religious 'authorities' have fallen into precisely the same trap as the Pharisees and the followers of Paul; who, however, claim to be followers of Jesus.

Michael Cecil

Originally posted by skajkingdom

Originally posted by 23refugee

Originally posted by skajkingdom


Are you not at least a little bit affraid that you WILL BE accountable for everything you write?

That sounds like a veiled threat.
Accountability as a consequence of failure to submit is the antithesis of peaceful.

You know i am talking about accountable before God.

Accountability before a diety as a consequence of failure to submit is still antithetic to peaceful.

Dear Reader,

I will start this conversation with Islamic greeting -

Assalamu-Alaikum.
May be peace and bleesings be upon you all.

Muslim's will be judged according to Islam, Islam will not be judged by the Muslims.

In othere words : One cannot predict about the religion of Islam by his followers.

Many thanks.

I am not well versed with the holy Quran so I would not like to pass judgement. However I am not entirely ignorant either and would like to point out that many concepts including the attire of the Burkha are in the bible too....however we understand that many of these concepts in the bible are anachronistic and would not be fitting in todays world where we have broader perspectives(This is just to give an example).

The problem perhaps lies with the interpretation and also the interpreter.



[edit on 14-7-2010 by Leonardo01]

Originally posted by babloyi
Hello again, nenothtu!

Greetings, babloyi!

It is not about Islamic or non-islamic perspective. It is about common sense. One would not, for example, make assumptions about the whole of Christianity based off the actions of the Ku Klux Klan. Or judge the Buddhist religion based off the actions of the Burmese government.

It's ALL about perspective! One cannot expect a non-muslim to use an islamic yardstick to judge the adherents, any more than one can expect a non-mason to use masonic standards to judge the actions of a mason. The fact is, people form their own opinions using their own standards. Muslims are no different in their dealings with westerners. They use their own standards to evaluate everyone else. So yes, it IS about 'perspective'.

If KKK members were perceived as 'christian', and that were the only knowledge one had of 'christians', then it would be perfectly normal that all christians were equated with klansmen. Such is not the case, however, so that particular argument is just a red herring.

The Burmese government is confined to Burma, and doesn't go through the world blowing up non-buddhists, or even buddhists who get in the way, or aren't the right 'kind' of buddhist. Therefore, that analogy doesn't apply, either.

Originally posted by nenothtu
The fact that the Qur'an condones such activities by allowing the killing of anyone perceived by the killers to be blocking islamic rule or violating it doesn't make them any less innocent in the eyes of the west.

The Quran certainly doesn't condone any such thing. There are very strict and well defined rules about when muslims are allowed to fight.

Rather than quote the same things over and over again, I'll let the readers determine the validity of that from what has already been quoted near to death and discussed. I say it DOES, you say it DOESN'T, and we'll just have to let it stay where it lay.

Anyone here is welcome to pick up a Qur'an and investigate it for themselves. They're freely available in America, and much of the world.

Originally posted by nenothtu
So the judgment standards you apply here apply ONLY to muslims. The rest of the world thinks on their own, and are capable of making up their own minds.

Let us hope they do so, then, instead of letting the tv make it up for them.

My opinions weren't formulated by TV, they were gained by thrashing around the world. When they were formed, western TV had not even noticed islam.

Boy oh boy, have they ever noticed NOW, though!

The extremist voices are the loudest because that is what the mainstream media wants. I'm sorry that you think that it is the reality, but it is not so. A simple google will show you that the MAJORITY of muslims condemn the acts of the extremists, and very, very few condone them. Islam is not a monolithic structure with a CEO and a PR branch that it can be "policing" itself. It is a way of life as defined by it's scriptures, not its so-called adherents.

Well now, if the voices of the moderates are not being heard, then they are not the loudest. Surely they have every bit as much ability to start their own media outlets as the extremists, don't they? Yet they don't. Until they make themselves heard, things will stay as they are.

What good is "a way of life defined by it's scriptures" if those same scriptures are ignored by it's adherents? That sort of nullifies the scriptures. In that event, islam need not be evaluated at all, as it becomes irrelevant. The only thing left, then, is to evaluate the adherents themselves.

That's exactly what is happening.

In order to change that, the peaceful muslims will HAVE to raise their voices in condemnation of the radicals. Raise them loud enough to be heard over the din of the explosions and the sight of the blood smears and body parts that islam is, unfortunately, getting a name for.

Until the peaceful are every bit as strident, and even more so, as the radicals, islam will be known as it is in the west. There is hope, however. The recent bombings in Uganda have been condemned by the Ugandans. It's a start. Even Idi Amin would have never allowed something like that to go unpunished. How much more so should a peaceful religion such as islam rise up and voice it's condemnation around the world?

[edit on 2010/7/14 by nenothtu]

[edit on 2010/7/14 by nenothtu]

You can find both violent and peaceful passages in the Holy Books of most modern Religions. The thing is the number of Muslims that are taking part in these acts of violence (by using the Quran as their motivation) appears significantly higher than the number doing the same in other religions. The most violent passages in the book are being used as justification for carrying out violence against those deemed a threat to Islam.

Most Muslims do not fit this category, but the percentage of those that do is high enough to cause widespread pain and misery in many parts of the world. Now, we can turn a blind eye and say "there is no problem, there is no problem" but the longer this happens, the more the reputation of average Muslims will suffer and the more danger non-Muslims will face.

[edit on 14/7/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Originally posted by nenothtu
It's ALL about perspective! One cannot expect a non-muslim to use an islamic yardstick to judge the adherents, any more than one can expect a non-mason to use masonic standards to judge the actions of a mason.

But that is exactly my point. It ISN'T about perspective. It isn't about an "islamic yardstick". When Abuaisha in the previous post said that it is silly to judge an ideology based off what some of its supposed adherents may do, he wasn't quoting some Islamic ruling. He was talking about common sense.

Originally posted by nenothtu
If KKK members were perceived as 'christian', and that were the only knowledge one had of 'christians', then it would be perfectly normal that all christians were equated with klansmen. Such is not the case, however, so that particular argument is just a red herring.

If all that a person knew about Islam was of it's extremists, then they be unfortunately, and woefully ignorant.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Well now, if the voices of the moderates are not being heard, then they are not the loudest. Surely they have every bit as much ability to start their own media outlets as the extremists, don't they? Yet they don't. Until they make themselves heard, things will stay as they are.

Is it the fault of the moderates (such a silly word. The "normals" would be a more descriptive term, but it is probably just as silly) that western media chooses to ignore them? That the media believes that loud, angry and antagonist people sell more papers than the normal, peaceful ones? That the newspaper photographer chooses to zoom into the one protester who is carrying a "DEATH TO AMERICA" board among the sea of otherwise normal, peaceful protesters (and as a result, that is all that most people see of that protest)?

Originally posted by nenothtu
What good is "a way of life defined by it's scriptures" if those same scriptures are ignored by it's adherents? That sort of nullifies the scriptures. In that event, islam need not be evaluated at all, as it becomes irrelevant. The only thing left, then, is to evaluate the adherents themselves.

But it is not ignored by its adherents. It is ignored by a tiny segment, and for some bizarre reason, much of the western media decides to use THAT particular segment to exemplify the entire religion.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Until the peaceful are every bit as strident, and even more so, as the radicals, islam will be known as it is in the west. There is hope, however. The recent bombings in Uganda have been condemned by the Ugandans. It's a start. Even Idi Amin would have never allowed something like that to go unpunished. How much more so should a peaceful religion such as islam rise up and voice it's condemnation around the world?

But once again, I say, IT IS voicing its condemnation. As you can see (if you tried my google thing). To say that "The recent bombings in Uganda have been condemned by the Ugandans. It's a start." is silly. It isn't "a start", it is what has always happened. Except for the group that performs those extremist acts, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who actually condones what they did.

The fact that so many followers of western media choose to remain ignorant, and believe inaccurate information isn't in any way the fault of the regular muslims everywhere. They already DO condemn the actions of these extremists. Check ANY of the press releases after a disaster. Or ask any of them! Or do you expect them to go around the entire day repeating "I condemn the extremists, I condemn the terrorists, I condemn this group, I condemn the people who did this thing, I condemn the perpetrators of the actions on this day, I condemn, I condemn"?

[edit on 14-7-2010 by babloyi]

Originally posted by babloyi

Originally posted by nenothtu
It's ALL about perspective! One cannot expect a non-muslim to use an islamic yardstick to judge the adherents, any more than one can expect a non-mason to use masonic standards to judge the actions of a mason.

But that is exactly my point. It ISN'T about perspective. It isn't about an "islamic yardstick". When Abuaisha in the previous post said that it is silly to judge an ideology based off what some of its supposed adherents may do, he wasn't quoting some Islamic ruling. He was talking about common sense.

Please explain your conception of 'common sense' to me then. Where I come from, 'common sense' must have a basis in reality. Common sense tells us that an 'ideology' is nothing at all beyond mere words apart from it's adherents. Common sense dictates that an ideology be judged precisely by the individuals it produces.

Originally posted by nenothtu
If KKK members were perceived as 'christian', and that were the only knowledge one had of 'christians', then it would be perfectly normal that all christians were equated with klansmen. Such is not the case, however, so that particular argument is just a red herring.

If all that a person knew about Islam was of it's extremists, then they be unfortunately, and woefully ignorant.

Yet none of the rest of islam is interested in presenting a better example. That by itself is pretty interesting.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Well now, if the voices of the moderates are not being heard, then they are not the loudest. Surely they have every bit as much ability to start their own media outlets as the extremists, don't they? Yet they don't. Until they make themselves heard, things will stay as they are.

Is it the fault of the moderates (such a silly word. The "normals" would be a more descriptive term, but it is probably just as silly) that western media chooses to ignore them? That the media believes that loud, angry and antagonist people sell more papers than the normal, peaceful ones? That the newspaper photographer chooses to zoom into the one protester who is carrying a "DEATH TO AMERICA" board among the sea of otherwise normal, peaceful protesters (and as a result, that is all that most people see of that protest)?

"Western media". "Mainstream media". Where is the moderate islamic media to counter any of it? Let's assume for the moment that the "western media" is indeed ignoring the alleged overwhelming voice of mainstream islam. as I pointedly asked above, and was equally pointedly ignored in, what exactly is it that is preventing mainstream islam from finding it's OWN voice to counter this alleged bad reporting?

With all of the allegations that islam is a "religion of peace", going all the way back to the dismal Bush administration, if such reporting were available, one would think that they would have pounced upon it and held it high, to prove their case.

You are correct, people see what is reported. That is limited by what is AVAILABLE to report.

Originally posted by nenothtu
What good is "a way of life defined by it's scriptures" if those same scriptures are ignored by it's adherents? That sort of nullifies the scriptures. In that event, islam need not be evaluated at all, as it becomes irrelevant. The only thing left, then, is to evaluate the adherents themselves.

But it is not ignored by its adherents. It is ignored by a tiny segment, and for some bizarre reason, much of the western media decides to use THAT particular segment to exemplify the entire religion.

Yes, for some "bizarre" reason. Perhaps that is because the "vast majority" of peaceful muslims are not commanded by the Qur'an to preach peace and condemn violence and injustice? If they ARE, and they are following the philosophy, why are things as they are? Where are those voices? Why can they not get their message out by their own efforts if they so distrust the western media? Why do they not stop this tiny, violent minority if it truly is so tiny, and going against their sacred book? Have they that little respect for the writings of their prophet, that they allow people to do these things claiming to do them in his name, yet knowing it's wrong?

Originally posted by nenothtu
Until the peaceful are every bit as strident, and even more so, as the radicals, islam will be known as it is in the west. There is hope, however. The recent bombings in Uganda have been condemned by the Ugandans. It's a start. Even Idi Amin would have never allowed something like that to go unpunished. How much more so should a peaceful religion such as islam rise up and voice it's condemnation around the world?

But once again, I say, IT IS voicing its condemnation. As you can see (if you tried my google thing). To say that "The recent bombings in Uganda have been condemned by the Ugandans. It's a start." is silly. It isn't "a start", it is what has always happened. Except for the group that performs those extremist acts, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who actually condones what they did.

Nope. I didn't do the google thing. I've walked the ground, and will trust my own experiences over googling. What I have found is people CLAIMING to condemn the actions, yet then going on to justify them. Uganda IS a start, but let's see if they DO anything about it.

The fact that so many followers of western media choose to remain ignorant, and believe inaccurate information isn't in any way the fault of the regular muslims everywhere. They already DO condemn the actions of these extremists. Check ANY of the press releases after a disaster. Or ask any of them! Or do you expect them to go around the entire day repeating "I condemn the extremists, I condemn the terrorists, I condemn this group, I condemn the people who did this thing, I condemn the perpetrators of the actions on this day, I condemn, I condemn"?

[edit on 14-7-2010 by babloyi]

I don't generally scour the press releases for islamic condemnation of these sorts of events. We can't trust the western media, remember? What I DO do is ask them in the street, in the course of conversation, or when I'm visiting with them. The most usual reply I get is along the lines of "Oh yes, that was terrible. A terrible, terrible, thing, but what else can they do? They are so weak. This is what they must do to get their point across."

NO. They don't have to go around chanting a mantra of any sort. Seeing justice DONE would be a good start, or, failing that, massive protests against the terrorists perverting their religion, rather than just whining about how they are SO misunderstood.

Let the world see them turn strongly against the terrorists who they allege are perverting their religion, then perhaps the world will begin to believe. If their conviction is that islam calls for peace, let's see them demonstrate that conviction, rather than just paying it lip service.

It should be a pretty easy thing to do, IF the 'radicals' are indeed such a small minority.

I wonder how Christianity is painted in the Middle East or in the Koran, is it just what people want to hear or is there a religious political or even militant bias in which way Jews, Christians and leavers of the faith are seen and treated? Is there equality in those areas in faith or a big dividing line with never ending laws which seperates the rest of the world?

Even prisons can be peaceful, does not mean they let you out in the sun.

When it comes to Islam, don't let millions and millions of bad apples spoil the bunch.

Seriously, it's a violent religion.

---

---

Originally posted by PunisherSupreme

Originally posted by hinky
Not all muslims are murder bombers, but why are ALL murder bombers muslims?

Religion of peace, yeah right.... I've got a bridge to sell also.

Last I checked it was 1 million killed in Iraq by US murder bombers.

But Cool Story, Bro.

[edit on 4-7-2010 by PunisherSupreme]

REPLY: One million??? The worlds largest international groups haven't even been able to verify 100,000.

Of the places in the world today where blood is flowing in the streets, 85% of it is caused by Muslims. Go ahead, do some research. In all the countries where Muslims are in charge, virtually every one was taken control of by force, as the Quran tells them to do. When was the last time you heard of a Christian suicide bomber? Islam is the religion of hate, subjugation, sexism, discrimination and tyranny. And, no, those are not "racist" comments, as Islam is not a race any more than being a Mexican. An ethnic group, yes, bet there is no "anti-ethnicity" law.

As for the "million man muslim (doesn't deserve a capital "M") march due in D.C. on the 4th of July, isn't there a way to have chemtrails in a very, very small area?