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 promotes Terrorism.

page: 10
16
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


No, there isn't. They have the freedom to be as repressive as they like. Whether they know it or not, they are exercising their freedom when they deny liberty.




posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 

Tell that to the Kashmiri muslims who are victims of state-sponsored murder, rape, harassment and to the sufferers of the violent censorship against the reporting of their plight.
See, things aren't always so cut-and-dry.


Anyhow, I've stayed mostly away from this thread until awake_and_aware's contributions became minimal, because, let's face it, s/he has no interest in a debate or discussion about Islam and terrorism, and would rather resort to tactics like "we don't need your kind here, go away".

The point I am trying to make here is that while people seem intent on connecting the Islamic Creed ITSELF with terrorism, when it is more like some people attempting to gain power using terrorist-like tactics and then hiding under the guise of Islam.

Another point....people don't seem to have a proper definition of "terrorism". When you define terrorism as "anything bad a muslim does", then obviously, this skewed definition will lead you to think "all muslims are terrorists" or "all terrorists are muslim".


I mean...this might be bad, but would it be considered an act of terrorism?

Christian man hurt in attack back at work, suspect freed
Masih said Tariq was a regular customer at his store and that Tariq had invited him to Tariq's birthday party last year.

On Friday, Masih said he and Tariq talked briefly at the shop when Tariq asked if he was Christian. Masih said he was.

"He said 'I kill you,'" Masih said. He said Tariq then pulled out a pocket knife and stabbed him.



Yes? No? Religionofpeace.com, which pretends to document acts of terrorism by muslims classifies it as one.


Well, the point is, I did a little creative editing. It was actually a muslim man who was stabbed by a christian. Now is it still terrorism?
edit on 8-2-2011 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


You have really warped definition of individual liberty. See here.

By the same logic, you must agree with EVERYTHING. Nazism, communism, slavery, even racism and xenophobia ironically
So can we also kill or deport all non-white immigrants, or use them as slaves? We would be just exercising our freedom to deny liberty, wouldnt we? You must also support this, otherwise you are internally inconsistent.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by purplemer
 


This thread is not regarding personal experience with individuals of faith. This is regarding the ideology of the faith itself.
edit on 7/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)


how can you seperate the two, life is not a test tube experiment. The ideology of the faith creates the personal experience and vice versa. Ideology in practise is a personal experience. I did post ideology as well countering the phobic claims of the thread title.
how on earth does islam promote terrorism, which nations in the last 50 years promoted global terror. they are not nations of islam but those with christian values. I may have given the thread some more credence had it been titles something like christianity promotes terrorism....

kx


Guess what - when your claimed 'holy book' devotes the majority of its content to demonising everyone else except muslims - then it kind of follows that they will be persecutors!


Case 2: The Kafir

There is a second division that overwhelms the reader of the historical Koran. A majority of the text concerns the kafir (unbeliever). It is not about being a Muslim, but about the kafir.

A note: most Koran translations use the word “unbeliever” instead of kafir, but kafir is the actual Arabic word. This term is so important and so unknown that the meaning of kafir must be defined. The original meaning of the word is one who covers or conceals the known truth. A kafir knows that the Koran is true, but denies it. The Koran says that the kafir may be deceived, plotted against, hated, enslaved, mocked, tortured and worse. The word is usually translated as “unbeliever” but this translation is wrong. The word “unbeliever” is logically and emotionally neutral, whereas, kafir is the most abusive, prejudiced and hateful word in any language.

There are many religious names for kafirs: polytheists, idolaters, People of the Book (Christians and Jews), atheists, agnostics, and pagans. Kafir covers them all, because no matter what the religious name is, they can all be treated the same. What Mohammed said and did to polytheists can be done to any other category of kafir. Islam devotes a great amount of energy to the kafir. Not only is the majority (64%) of the Koran devoted to the kafir, but also nearly all of the Sira (81%) deals with Mohammed’s struggle with them. The Hadith (Traditions) devotes 32% of the text to kafirs


www.politicalislam.com...



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


That is the same thing you hear everywhere. The Muslims always claim it is not them, but they are always the common factor, so when you claim Muslims are the ones being persecuted, it doesn't fly. Where ever Islam develops a presence, they become a violent problem.

This is why Islam is disliked everywhere.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 

Insofar as the innocent Kashmiris go, it DEFINITELY isn't them. Notwithstanding any outside influence (and there hasn't really been any in the past 5-10 years, if that), the muslims of Kashmir definitely ARE being oppressed. I suppose the women who were raped were responsible for being raped?

Anyhow, your excuse doesn't fly. Replace the word "muslim" in your post with "jew", and the sentiment stays exactly the same, but suddenly, the whole world understands the bigotry. Are you suggesting it is okay to persecute muslims/jews because "wherever they go, they cause a problem"?



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi

Replace the word "muslim" in your post with "jew", and the sentiment stays exactly the same, but suddenly, the whole world understands the bigotry. Are you suggesting it is okay to persecute muslims/jews because "wherever they go, they cause a problem"?


Are you still doing your Dawah, babloyi?
How much do you get paid?

It is always possible to argue against any interpretation, luckily facts speak louder than words. 

I know of no Christian, Jewish, Buddhist people who strap themselves with bombs and indiscriminately kill innocent people.  

I know you have seen this before, but for the sake of this thread:

Funny:

Yes, it is very funny that all the while revering a stone, Muslims do not believe that they are worshipping it.
It is very funny that all the while claiming that pre-Islamic humanity was in zahilia, Muslims fail to show anything good which is unique to Quran.

It is very funny that even while following the same book, prophet and religion, Muslims hardly ever agree on any issue.

It is very funny that Muslims fail to see any contradictions in Quran which are glaringly apparent to all the non Muslims.

It is very funny that all the while following many pagan customs and rituals, Muslims ridicule and belittle pagans.

It is very funny that all the while cursing and criticizing the western countries and cultures, Muslims prefer them over their own Islamic paradises.

It is very funny that Muslims keep claiming that all the other scriptures are corrupt while using them to authenticate Quran.


Not so Funny:

What is not so funny is that all the while claiming that Islam is a religion of peace, Muslims continue to kill all the time.

What is not so funny is that all the while claiming that Islam teaches human rights and equality, Muslims continue to violate human rights of non Muslims in their countries.

What is not so funny is that Muslims are not ready to accept the same treatment for themselves which they mete out to non Muslims in Islamic countries and as prescribed in their scriptures.

What is not so funny is that Muslims are stuck in 7th century groove and wish to impose the same barbaric laws and customs on the whole world.

What is not so funny is that Muslims justify the expulsion of all the non Muslims from their holy lands, yet cannot tolerate a tiny Jewish state in their midst.

What is not so funny is that in spite of claiming that lying is forbidden, except in extreme cases, in Islam they keep lying to the kaafirs.

What is not so funny is that instead of integrating in their host countries and culture, they keep hating them and expect the hosts to adopt their ways.

Wassalam.



edit on 9-2-2011 by Ersatz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Ersatz
 

Ersatz!

How you been? Haven't seen you in a couple of months!

I don't get paid anything at all, but the antics on the ATS forums are more than enough to keep me laughing. And while I thank you for your compliment, I don't attempt any converting here on ATS, just clarifying issues that many people get wrong (For those who do not know what me and Ersatz are talking about, he asked about me doing "Dawah" i.e. inviting people to islam).

I'm not sure I've seen that list before, but it looks pretty familiar. I guess all this anti-islam literature sort of merges into one thing, seeing as how it keeps harping along the same lines.

You know, you just gave me an idea. I have some basics knowledge of programming, so I was thinking, I could collect all these "lists" and generic posts that anti-islamists keep posting (they're so formulaic, I'm pretty sure I could create a structure), and program an anti-islamist robot. Just for the fun of it! And it'd be almost exactly like most of the anti-islam posters here on ATS, who you can't tell are real people, paid dis-info agents or just robots who keep parroting the same stuff over and over no matter what the response.
I believe someone made a creationist bot a while back with similar functionality.

Anyhow, is there any purpose in responding to the meat of your post? I dunno. What so-called "muslims" do is hardly indicative of Islam.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi

the muslims of Kashmir definitely ARE being oppressed. I suppose the women who were raped were responsible for being raped?



Not wanting to interupt this thread at all but you do see the irony of this statement when women are being severely and barbarically punished throughout the Islamic world for nothing more than being the victims of rape as they are indeed, by some perverse form of logic, adjudged responsible if they are raped according to Sharia courts.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 

As I said to Ersatz above, what so-called muslims do is not necessarily indicative of what Islam is.

Seeing as it is a fairly complex issue, with people attempting to simplify it to "being punished for being raped", let me clarify:
In those few countries where such laws are in place, they consider rape to be a form of adultery, thus requiring similar evidences as adultery (4 witnesses to the act itself).
It is a law when making an accusation of adultery that if you make the accusation and don't have 4 witnesses to back it up, then you get whipped for bearing false witness.
Since they've equated rape to adultery, and since the woman usually doesn't have 4 witnesses to the crime (obviously), they end up getting whipped.

But see, as I again mention, what muslims do is not necessarily indicative of what Islam is. In this case, rape is not considered the same as adultery in Islam. In fact, there is a hadith where the prophet condemned a man on the basis of just the victim's accusation. In today's world, it is fairly easy to see when a woman has been raped, so it would be all the easier.

So if the thread was called "Some people who claim to follow the religion of Islam promote terrorism" (or something less wordy
), then it'd be a lot more true.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


But surely Sharia Law, as dictated by the divinely inspired / dictated Koran, IS representative of Islam and it is Sharia Law that determines the punishment for rape victims.

Everything else you posted was obfuscation.

In light of this you can't see the irony in your post about rape victims in Kasmir?



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 

If I didn't know better, I'd think you were the one practising the obfuscation
.

You are going about it backward. Shariah (literally "the way", I think), as dictated by the Quran and Hadith is what all muslims should follow, is representative of the Islam through the Quran. Whatever laws people make up for their countries, and wish to call "Shariah" is NOT representative of the Quran. If I say that "everyone must eat cucumbers on Friday" and insert this into the law of some islamic country, that doesn't suddenly mean that Islam requires you to eat cucumbers on Friday.

"Shariah Law" isn't some formalised, codified set of laws that are standard for all muslims. It'd be like saying something like "Christian Law". Such a thing may possibly exist, but each persons understanding of it would be different depending on how they approach the subject, except for a few things which are clearly written.

Aside from a few points (such as stealing and adultery, for example), the Quran/Prophet Muhammad didn't one day sit down and rattle off a list of "This is good, this is bad, this is the punishment for doing the bad thing". These laws are usually derived from the words of the Quran, and the recorded actions and sayings of Muhammad about those or similar things.



edit on 9-2-2011 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


But Sharia is, allegedly, taken directly from The Koran, which, again allegedly, was written down verbatim from Mohammed who, if I remember correctly, was instructed in the word and laws of God by The Angel Gabriel.

Me, obfuscation?
Never!

Just pointing out some irony.
Nothing more, nothing less.

ETA.
Just one example.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The rapist had been found guilty before and was punished by being forced to marry his victim.
His victim had no say in the matter!
edit on 9/2/11 by Freeborn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 

Theoretically, yes, the concept of Sharia is taken (or derived) from the Quran and Hadith. As I mentioned, however, the Quran/Hadith don't just have a list of rules for every single thing that is good, bad or punishable. Also, the hadith need to be reviewed with respect to the times. So many people make a lot of stuff up, or assume a lot of things, and decide to put this into the "Shariah"- so as a result, if you asked some muslims (learned or not) to "Okay, please write out all of the Shariah", probably none of them would match with each other.

So you end up having hugely distorted ideas and laws:

Like, in your example, being forced to marry the rapist- This has no precedent in Islam.

Like, for example, requiring 4 witnesses to be able to accuse the rapist- this goes contrary to the hadith.

Like the punishment for homosexuality- no punishment has been set for this in Islam, yet some say they should be stoned to death, some say they should be dropped from a height...point is, this is all outside of the Quran and Hadith.

Like, for example, the punishment for public drunkedness- there is no punishment for it in Islam, yet someone decided it should be equivalent to "bearing false witness" which I believe is 100 lashes and never accepting their testimony again.

Like, for example, death for apostasy- according to the hadith, death was prescribed for treason (the act of betraying and going to war against the community), not simply for leaving the religion. Thus you have examples of people who left Islam in the Prophet's time, and nothing was done to them.

Like, for example, death for blasphemy- this is again not from Islam.


So no, "Shariah", as you probably understand the term, isn't this monolithic, eternal, fixed, set "thing", which has been directly laid down by God to be followed by all muslims for all eternity.
edit on 9-2-2011 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


But surely something as serious as rape is legislated for in The Koran and Hadith?

Surely such an all knowing trio as Allah, Gabriel and Mohammed wouldn't forget or negate to provision for the punishment of rapists when considering the all controlling and encompassing nature of Islamic teachings.

There must be something that has determined the punishment for rape victims.

I am not trying to be arguementative here, I am honestly trying to understand.

Do Sunni's and Shia's view Sharia differently and as a result view rape differently.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 

But that is what I am trying to say. Islam doesn't lay out an entire list of "this is good, this is bad, this is the punishment" for everything. It isn't "all controlling and all encompassing" in this sense.

There is one instance of rape mentioned in the hadith that happened in the time of Muhammad. In it, the perpetrator was put to death when the woman made her complaint to the Prophet.

As I mentioned earlier, there isn't a punishment for rape victims. This situation has arisen because some groups have grouped together adultery and rape as the same kind of crime, thus applying the punishment for adultery as the punishment for rape, and the requirements for the accusation of adultery as the requirements for the accusation of rape (4 witnesses to the actual act taking place).
This grouping together is NOT from the Quran or Hadith, and as I'm sure you can see, is highly illogical and absurd (if 4 people witnessed a rape taking place, and did nothing about it, then they would most likely be in on it).
edit on 9-2-2011 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


I'm not stupid but I'm struggling with this.

How did this become incorpotated into religious law allegedly based on the word of God via Mohammed and Gabriel?

Surely this discredits and invalidates the whole concept of Sharia?

And why does it need four witnesses, surely one or possibly two would suffice providing they were reliable enough?

Why anyone would freely allow themselves to be subjugated to such laws is quite beyond me.
Suppose some would say the same about some of our more inane and assinine laws.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
How did this become incorpotated into religious law allegedly based on the word of God via Mohammed and Gabriel?

It didn't (except to the people who put those laws into place and are attempting to propagate the idea that it is true). Even putting aside the fact that the Quran or Hadith have no punishment at all for the rape victim, and the Hadith suggest that the rapist be sentenced to death, even the majority of the "classical" jurists agree that no punishment is deserved by the victim, and the rapist would be put to death. You can check the references given here for more detailed information.



Originally posted by Freeborn
Surely this discredits and invalidates the whole concept of Sharia?

If one views or understands "Shariah" in such a simplistic and inaccurate sense as "the laws in place in Saudi Arabia" or "the laws in place in Iran", then yes, this would certainly be discredited and invalidated. The point I was trying to make from the beginning is that that isn't what Shariah is!



Originally posted by Freeborn
And why does it need four witnesses, surely one or possibly two would suffice providing they were reliable enough?

One or two witnesses for adultery?



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


You state that this isn't what Sharia is, but it is quite clearly what Sharia has become.

The countries that have 'Sharia' based legal systems cross the broad spectrum of Islamic cultural and denominational differences yet the similarities are overwhelming.

The punishments and rulings handed out by predominantly Persian Shia's in Iran are almost identical to those of Arabian Wahhabi Sunni's in Saudi Arabia.or the African Sunni's in Sudan.

Surely this isn't coincedence but something inherent in Islam or Sharia?
Or is it something else?



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi

The point I was trying to make from the beginning is that that isn't what Shariah is!


What do you think it is then?
Declaration of Human Rights...it is not.

The word sharia means "the path to a watering hole".
It denotes an Islamic way of life that is more than a system of criminal justice.
Sharia is a religious code for living, Islam is firmly stuck in the seventh century and suffers from chronic immobility. Sharia law suffers from the same problem.

Sharia should be opposed for its imposition of theocracy over democracy, its abuse of human rights, its institutionalized discrimination, its denial of human dignity and individual autonomy, its punishment of alternative lifestyle choices, and for the severity of its punishments.

www.americanthinker.com...

Wslm.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join