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: What the West Needs to Know (full documentary)

page: 27
30
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by logical7
 


I wasn't asking your book....

I asked YOU directly...

Even Jesus said if something offends you cut it off... but it was meant metaphorically... He didn't mean we should go around hacking off body parts when we don't like what we see...

Lost a little respect there bud...

it a hadith (its not Qur'an) more like gospels by companions/wife.
So the hadith also gave the reason, how can i demand special treatment for my kid?
Btw, kids don't get punished.
They actually practice this double standard in saudi, they punish the poor and let the elite go free.




posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by logical7

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by logical7
 


I wasn't asking your book....

I asked YOU directly...

Even Jesus said if something offends you cut it off... but it was meant metaphorically... He didn't mean we should go around hacking off body parts when we don't like what we see...

Lost a little respect there bud...

it a hadith (its not Qur'an) more like gospels by companions/wife.
So the hadith also gave the reason, how can i demand special treatment for my kid?
Btw, kids don't get punished.
They actually practice this double standard in saudi, they punish the poor and let the elite go free.


I said your child.... meaning it doesn't matter what age he was... the product of you

SO... IF your child (of legal age) was condemned to get his hand chopped off... you would say...Yup you deserve it...

From that point on he would always struggle with finding work because not only is he literally branded as a thief... but your child would also struggle with finding work for the rest of his/her life because said person is now also handicapped

You think that is a valid punishment?


edit on 10-6-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 





Right. So how come we don't hear of Imams getting removed left and right?

because there is no central body appointing them.
Nobody is obliged to obey an imam.



You did answer one of my three examples, I guess that's a start. You do know that six British Muslims just confessed in court to planning a pipe bomb, shotgun, and sword attack on a gathering of at least a thousand people just for "blasphemy?" The only reason it didn't come off was because they got there too late. So the punishment for being "rude" is death by bombing?

anyone who is a non combatant is innocent, and nobody can just go and kill anyone in any place.

Are you deliberately making the discussion difficult?? A gang of muslims decide to do a criminal activity and got caught. Their reason could be anything, its basically intolerance and ignorance, wish they followed islam better.



No I didn't define it. I let the report define it. Have you got better statistics? Some reason to object to these other than "I disagree with them?"

it is just sensational, i have not seen the link or who made the report or what parameters were used to label an act as terrorism.
I would appreciate if you define it, then we may continue on to see who fits in that definition.

Well, then, do you condemn the Sunni sect?

wouldn't it be the same like condemning islam for some bombing? Maybe you agree with it.
How and why do you automatically consider actions of followers as teachings of a faith?
Is it for all faiths or only islam deserves that sepecial favour?


That's not a common word. It's a surrender demand. No one who is a Christian can deny Jesus is God's son. The presenter of the "common word" is either unimaginably ignorant about Christianity, or arrogant beyond all belief.

yes i do see the problem, as you can also understand that no muslim can accept a partner to God otherwise they would be nothing more than polytheists.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 





SO... IF your child (of legal age) was condemned to get his hand chopped off... you would say...Yup you deserve it... From that point on he would always struggle with finding work because not only is he literally branded as a thief... but your child would also struggle with finding work for the rest of his/her life because said person is now also handicapped You think that is a valid punishment?

Yup he/she deserves it. Although i hope he/she would come to me for any need before doing that act.

Its not the same if the punishment/consequence is known.
A skydiver knows the risks before jumping.

Would you steal a necklace from a shop if you knew you may lose your left hand(cut at the wrist)??

I don't think its a extremely disabling punishment. Unless the job is manual labour or operating any machines etc

The thing is that the responsibility is being put on a potential thief and there is a big deterrent to completely discourage it.

Its the same as jumping a red light,
if the fine was 10$ many would jump, make it 500$ and all obey traffic lights like robots!!

A hand is much more precious, don't you think?



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 



Yup he/she deserves it. Although i hope he/she would come to me for any need before doing that act.

Its not the same if the punishment/consequence is known.
A skydiver knows the risks before jumping.


That's cold brother...


Whatever though, clash of culture I suppose... What if this person is extremely poor, and only wanted to feed his family?


Would you steal a necklace from a shop if you knew you may lose your left hand(cut at the wrist)??


Nope... lol


I don't think its a extremely disabling punishment. Unless the job is manual labour or operating any machines etc


Which is the majority of the kind of work Men get... at least here


The thing is that the responsibility is being put on a potential thief and there is a big deterrent to completely discourage it.


Perhaps... though it may also encourage better thieves... and people willing to do anything in a desperate attempt to get away from being caught...

Hmmm....

Here you get jail time, a big fine, and then probation basically restricting what you can do freely... to a point.

Which seems worse to you honestly?

disabling someone... Or... moderate punishment

I find chopping limbs to be extremely excessive punishment...


Its the same as jumping a red light,
if the fine was 10$ many would jump, make it 500$ and all obey traffic lights like robots!!

A hand is much more precious, don't you think?



I wonder if corporate thieves get the same punishment in your country?




posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 

Dear logical7,

Just as we seem to be having difficulty in determing if "A Common Word" is actually a common word, we seem to be having difficulty with the word "conversation."


because there is no central body appointing them. Nobody is obliged to obey an imam.
This makes me think that an Imam could say anything he wanted and there is no religious authority to tell him to stop, or make an announcement that he is wrong. Basically, then, it is conceivable that each Imam could create his own religion, if his only limit is that people won't follow him.


A gang of muslims decide to do a criminal activity and got caught. Their reason could be anything, its basically intolerance and ignorance, wish they followed islam better.
They did it to punish blasphemers, people whose only offense was that they were rude. They got that idea from Islam somehow, I suppose they must have all interpeted the verses incorrectly. Doesn't every Muslim either know or have instant access to the verses? This was not just a criminal act, it was a terror plot inspired by their understanding of Islamic verses. Are they that hard to understand?


it is just sensational, i have not seen the link or who made the report or what parameters were used to label an act as terrorism. I would appreciate if you define it, then we may continue on to see who fits in that definition.
It is far from sensational, but if you want me to repost from two or three pages ago, I will.

It does no good to say Christians and Muslims are equally at fault in the terrorism game.

Sunni extremists accounted for the greatest number of terrorist attacks and fatalities for the third consecutive year. More than 5,700 incidents were attributed to Sunni extremists, accounting for nearly 56 percent of all attacks and about 70 percent of all fatalities. Among this perpetrator group, al-Qa‘ida (AQ) and its affiliates were responsible for at least 688 attacks that resulted in almost 2,000 deaths, while the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan conducted over 800 attacks that resulted in nearly 1, 900 deaths. Secular, political, and anarchist groups were the next largest category of perpetrators, conducting 2,283 attacks with 1,926 fatalities, a drop of 5 percent and 9 percent, respectively, from 2010.
If we're talking about religious terrorism in the world, we're really talking about Muslim terrorism. 80% of the attacks were either Sunni or non-religious.
www.state.gov...
(Emphasis added)

As for definitions, that was at the beginning of the report:

Title 22, Section 2656f of the United States Code (U.S.C.) requires the Department of State to include in its annual report, "to the extent practicable, complete statistical information on the number of individuals, including United States citizens and dual nationals, killed, injured, or kidnapped by each terrorist group during the preceding calendar year." In compiling the figures of terrorist incidents that are included in the CRT, NCTC uses the definition of terrorism found in Title 22, which provides that terrorism is "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents." (See, 22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d)[2]).

NCTC maintains its statistical information on the U.S. government's authoritative and unclassified database on terrorist acts, the Worldwide Incidents Tracking System (WITS). The primary function of WITS is to provide terrorism statistics to the Department of State for preparation of its annual report. WITS uses a well-defined methodology that involves documented coding practices for categorizing and enumerating relevant statistics. WITS is accessible on the NCTC Web site, www.nctc.gov, providing the public with a transparent view of the NCTC data. The data posted to the website is updated on a quarterly basis, pursuant to a rigorous 90-day review and vetting process.


If there's a terrorist attack in the world, chances are it's a Sunni operation. Christian terrorist attacks are nothing compared to the Sunni's. Doesn't that lead you to think that perhaps Sunnis are dangerous? Perhaps, even, that it is Christianity which is the "Religion of Peace" (Trademark - Osama bin Laden)

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7 or anyone else
 

Dear logical7,

I've got another question for you. I understand that your position is that any Muslim who does an un-Islamic thing is not really a Muslim.

I've heard that there are 57 Muslim states in the world. Surely 10% of them must be properly Islamic. Could you give me the names of six Muslim countries which are truly Islamic?

While you're thinking along those lines, how about the names of a few famous leaders who are properly Islamic?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
Just because the majority of a country have certain religion it doesn't automatically entitles them as a religious system....Can you say England is a christian state or china is a Buddhist country or Russia or Egypt,etc....Iran was the only country in modern times that based it's government on Islamic laws,and it is not even 50% Islamic yet...I think most religions need to be modified by today's standards,if there is a wish to use them as a practical and fair system to run a country,and that is kind of what is happened in Iran to a certain degree....Even Vatican is not entirely ruled by real Christianity....Jesus,Mohammad and Moses would have been ashamed of what the rulers have done throughout the history using their names and their religions to fulfill their own earthly desires.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by shapur
 

Dear shapur,

I don't have words for how confused I am.

Among other things, every source I've checked gives the Muslim population of Iran as 95% or higher. I can't believe it's ever been 50%

Consider the other Islamic countries. If they have a majority Muslim population (as many do), then the Muslims determine the government. Why in the world would Muslims want a non-Islamic government? They want to spread Sharia, as I understand it, don't they want it for themselves?

If Iran is based on Islamic laws, and Islam is the perfect religion, wouldn't Iran have the most ideal government on Earth? Or are non-Islamic governments better?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

Dear Charles...Perhaps I couldn't explain myself clear enough duo to my lack of complete demand on English language...What I meant was,that Iranian government is not operating fully under Islamic laws and not every action is taken strictly based on Sharia laws,...I am not sure even if Saudi Arabia is fully Shariatized!...More than 90% of Iranians ,Israelis And many other nations in the world belong to their dominate religion,but that doesn't neccessarely labels them as a religious state...This rhetoric about Islamic khalifas wanting to force the Sharia laws upon other nations in the world is a totally fabricated myth by the west to change peoples minds towards their certain agenda,which I am sure most people are aware of by now.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by logical7
reply to post by Akragon
 



SO... IF your child (of legal age) was condemned to get his hand chopped off... you would say...Yup you deserve it...

Yup he/she deserves it. Although i hope he/she would come to me for any need before doing that act.


More proof that Sharia is disgusting. The government would force people to be handicapped for the rest of their lives for a relatively minor crime .. and those people following it don't know any better so they accept it without issue. And parents approve of the handicapping of their children. My god ... :shk: ... save us from religious extremists ....



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by shapur
 

Dear shapur,

I don't have words for how confused I am.

Among other things, every source I've checked gives the Muslim population of Iran as 95% or higher. I can't believe it's ever been 50%

Consider the other Islamic countries. If they have a majority Muslim population (as many do), then the Muslims determine the government. Why in the world would Muslims want a non-Islamic government? They want to spread Sharia, as I understand it, don't they want it for themselves?

If Iran is based on Islamic laws, and Islam is the perfect religion, wouldn't Iran have the most ideal government on Earth? Or are non-Islamic governments better?

With respect,
Charles1952


I will give you something to think about and if you willing to learn, you can find other source everywhere.
When someone said or you said sharia law, let me ask you, which sharia were you talking about?
I will give a small example about 2 opinion of sharia. To calculated the time when ramadhan start, in general some people using hisab, some using rukyat. Other than that, some using hisab rukyat with satelite, some using deduction day from the day of first ramadhan last year, some using pure calculation that part of hisab but fully mathematic, which one is the right sharia, and what sharia each belong to.

What i said might looks simple, but if you really think about it and learn, lots of your question will be answered by itself.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 





What if this person is extremely poor, and only wanted to feed his family?

no, the state is obliged to provide the basic needs from the 2.5% charity that muslims give.


Which seems worse to you honestly? disabling someone... Or... moderate
punishment I find chopping limbs to be extremely
excessive punishment...

you have what i may call a post act mentality(what to do when its already done), yes then its excessive punishment.

Islam bases its criminal law on a pre act mentality, how to prevent it.
The punishment will never/rarely be used as it is enough horrifying to discourage all but hard headed thieves and criminals.

I wonder if corporate thieves get the
same punishment in your country?

corporate thieves are worst and ya they will be dealt the same.

My country does not have sharia law, i live in a muslim minority country.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


I expected he would not answer that one.

I know that you, Akra, as yet are not a parent. But here you demonstrat that you have the ability to empathize with the parent's desperation to prevent such a horrific thing as "maiming."

I've also pointed out to logical7 that until he becomes a parent, he won't understand the "love" his personified God is supposed to be, or the mercy, patience, and justice of a Father for his Children.

Makes me wonder. I wonder if he also thinks that the "untouchables" or the maimed, crippled, starving Hindus must "deserve it".

Yeah, the "system" he describes is Utopian - and doesn't exist. Anywhere. So, all the pieces will not EVER be in place to make it "all systems go". Therefore, more limbs chopped off - as the Islamists did the the innocents in Mali only VERY recently. I saw a really disturbing video about how the once-happy and thriving people of moderate Timbuktu were oppressed, segregated by sex, forbidden to talk, maimed, tortured, etc. by these invaders.

To my recollection, Timbuktu and the other city in the vid (can't recall - I'll try to find the video again) were oases of very peaceful, happy, relaxed people. Then these Sharia law monsters came in and ruined their lives. Sickening.
The French went in to help - and the extremists were said to have "scattered into the desert" - this, however, did not REPLACE the missing HANDS from the two men interviewed who had been maimed by them.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 





This makes me think that an Imam could say anything he wanted and there is no religious authority to tell him to stop, or make an announcement that he is wrong. Basically, then, it is conceivable that each Imam could create his own religion, if his only limit is that people won't follow him.

people know the basics of their religion and will replace an imam who tries to misleads them.




They did it to punish blasphemers, people whose only offense was that they were rude. They got that idea from Islam somehow, I suppose they must have all interpeted the verses incorrectly. Doesn't every Muslim either know or have instant access to the verses? This was not just a criminal act, it was a terror plot inspired by their understanding of Islamic verses. Are they that hard to understand?

not hard to understand at all but i guess you mean i should accept your opinion that islam is somehow responsible. Islam in Qur'an guides how to behave when violence becomes inevitable and how to not back down and be brave without fear of death when fighting for a right cause against the ones who deserve it because they are agressors.
If its misused then the teachings are not being followed. How does that reflect badly on the perfect teachings?

terrorism is
"premeditated, politically motivated
violence perpetrated against
noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."

does it include carpet bombing knowing that it will kill hundreds of noncombatant or they are just filed under acceptable collateral damage?
Does it also include using depleted uranium knowing acute and long term genetic defects and cancers it will cause?

I am not a US citizen to have special love to cover up their war crimes.
I just see the No 1 terrorist in the world who wins hands down in atrocities.
If you acknowledge this, then yes i will also acknowledge that muslims are involved in small scale terror acts.
However i don't agree with bombings happening in war zones as terror acts, if taliban kills american/nato soldiers by an explosion then its just war, right?



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 09:12 AM
link   
double post
edit on 10-6-2013 by logical7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 



people know the basics of their religion

Um...well, according to YOU, no, they don't. That's what you claim is the cause of violence perpetrated by Muslims - repeatedly.

and will replace an imam who tries to misleads them.

Forgive me, but is this statement not the REVERSE theory of "well, those violent Muslims are ignorant of 'real' Islam"?
If they listen to even ONE Imam that encourages THEIR "incorrect" thinking, then it's a green light for them to go ahead.

BESIDES the fact that since ANYONE can claim to be an "Imam" - there is no QUESTION that SOME RADICAL EXTREMISTS will decide to self-appoint, then get like-minded, violent Muslims even MORE fired up to do what you are doing here -
BLAMING THE WEST.

No wonder you haven't addressed my questions about retracting your blame of "Western Culture" for immorality.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


When islam was adopted as a religion in many territories, the local traditions and cultures got assimilated and over centuries became impossible to distinguish without having a good knowledge of Qur'an and hadiths.

In reviewing various threads and posts regarding Islam and its various "interpretations", it occurred to me that one of the problems with this "statement" of yours is absolute PROOF that there WILL BE Imams in those 'culturally-embedded' countries who SUPPORT what those countries do that is against Islam.

So that shoots down the "people know their religion" argument that you later offered - that "they would reject that Imam."

Again, back to your insistence that people committing atrocities don't "know real Islam" - so how in the hell are they supposed to "know" that the Imam who spouts the same stuff as they do isn't a "real" Muslim, logical7?? That's not logical.

It's one or the other - "people know their religion" so they can identify a false Imam statement -
OR
"people don't know Islam and are ignorant" so they CAN'T identify a false Imam statement.

I think three things could be done to "reform" Islam (I haven't watched your vid completely through yet, but I will)

First, like I requested earlier, help those of us who are NOT Muslim, and do NOT "know the Quran" to be able to identify WHICH OF YOU "really" know Islam. Since there is no centralized oversight committee or "license distribution" based on common standards, they are all suspect.

In the West a person must have a license to "practice" medicine, or counselling, or law - they are bound by adherence to the established "code of conduct and ethics" of their chosen field of practice, and if they blatantly dsregard that code, they are STRIPPED of their license to practice. Also, anyone holding a license is REQUIRED to attend "continuing education courses and seminars" with each practice deciding its own "minimum number" of ongoing study and learning. This is to maintain "best practice" standards across the board.

In religion, it doesn't work like that. Although MANY Christian denominations DO require their clergy to have certain credentials, education from accredited teaching institutions, and integrity to teach and uphold THE BELIEFS and STANDARDS of the denomination,
the "non-denominational Mega-Church" pastors are, like your Imams, self-appointed, and the size of their following determines how rich they become, and how powerful they become - DO NOT. Whether or not they actually understand Christianity and all its finer points, nuances, theories, history, and scholarly research. Therefore, they are not to be considered "real" Christians, but other "real" Christians like the messages they are hearing BECAUSE IT REINFORCES WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR.

That's the Very Same Thing you keep asking everyone here: "Do you want to know Islam, or do you want to just get confirmation of your ideas of it?"

Well, if cultural traditions have, as you explain, been "merged" with Islam in certain areas, AND there's a charismatic, charming public speaker who TEACHES that those embedded "incorrect" traditions ARE correct - then how are those people going to turn away from him? They aren't, because they are being "confirmed" in their ideas.
THAT is my problem with "no centralized authority". The most dangerous Christians are THOSE WHO FOLLOW WAR-MONGERING preachers - and there are 10s of 1000s of them! THEY want "war" with Syria, THEY want to defend Israel, without knowing much at all about "real" Christianity.

So. Item One:
ESTABLISH A CENTRALIZED OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE and require LICENSURE of Imams, based on "best practice."
Item Two: ESTABLISH A METHOD OF DISTINCTION for non-Muslims to know which followers are using those "best practices".
Item Three: UPDATE THE QUR'AN AND HADITHS -
Either use only the "most recent" of the "revelations." -- Or get rid of everything in the Qur'an and Hadith that are KNOWN to be violent, aggressive, intolerant, and totalitarian. That means WIPING OUT ALL incorrect Islamic 'verses'.
Because, as long as ANYONE can use the Quran to back up ANYTHING they want to do - and ANYONE can claim to be an Imam -- it's a mess. And what about the women? Why do they not go to "sermons"? Why are they not Imams?

SAME WITH CHRISTIANITY. If what is in the Bible no longer applies, then remove it from current "best-practice" texts and relegate it to "former history". If people are "memorizing" the whole Qur'an, it's simply a way for them to be able to back up any thing they want to do!
edit on 10-6-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 





Forgive me, but is this statement not the REVERSE theory of "well, those violent Muslims are ignorant of 'real' Islam"? If they listen to even ONE Imam that encourages THEIR "incorrect" thinking, then it's a green light for them to go ahead.

muslims should read and understand Qur'an and not follow an imam blindly.
Ignorant people will always be mislead by people with an agenda, be it an imam, the video in OP or the MSM.




SOME RADICAL EXTREMISTS will decide to self-appoint, then get like-minded, violent Muslims even MORE fired up to do what you are doing here - BLAMING THE WEST.

is there any factor precipitating that kind of extreme behaviour?
Why not ask a basic question, Why are some Muslims resorting to violence??
If you think they just want to be violent then you are far from the truth.
Why would even a taliban fighter want to leave his family and go to war?

Try to understand the problem 1st before offering solutions. Thats a big cause of most problems in the world!



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


muslims should read and understand Qur'an and not follow an imam blindly.

READ? You want them to READ? What if they are ILLITERATE?
And they don't speak Arabic? Any translation of the original (hearsay-based) texts is suspect. Mistranslation is a SUPER EASY thing to accomplish in order to 'corrupt' ANY text.

Try to understand the problem 1st before offering solutions. Thats a big cause of most problems in the world!

sigh.

If my efforts to "understand the problem" are not good enough for you, I don't know what to tell you. I have already acknowledged that I understand it better now - and that I blame both sides. YOU consistently seem to simply brush off the daily horrors as "ignorance" and "extremism" --

How about if YOU, being so knowledgeable and the self-appointed "Johnny-on-the-Spot" Muslim representative of "Real" Islam suggest some solutions of your own BESIDES BLAMING THE WEST?

is there any factor precipitating that kind of extreme behaviour?
Why not ask a basic question, Why are some Muslims resorting to violence??
If you think they just want to be violent then you are far from the truth.

Yeah?
Ask the Muslims in England - a country that allowed them to come in as refugees. Who are now butchering innocent people in broad daylight, and encouraging people to record it on video. Travelling in "gangs" intimidating Westerners and spreading HATE against the very government that is protecting them. There are SEVERAL threads by citizens of the UK giving their OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE of the Muslim plague in their country.


edit on 10-6-2013 by wildtimes because: typos



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join