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 is an ideology, not a religion!

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 04:19 PM
link   


not wrong, just taken in wrong context. Strong imagery and wording has always been a part of arabic public speaking and, therefore, the writings in the Qur'an. i will say now, that I am not muslim, nor do I believe the teachings of the Qur'an any more than any other religion that claims to have the right answers. I am just pointing out that the strong language is NOT to be taken literally. Arabic has always been a language of strong expressions, but very little of them are to be taken literally. For example, a common expression of love used in the regional dialect of lebanon is 'tu'kabreeni ya sanadi!' which literally translates to 'i want you to bury me, my darling!'. It implies that the love is so strong, that it doesn't matter if you kill me right now and bury me, I would still love you. However, this phrase is used all the time, between mothers and daughters, between lovers, even between friends. It is actually a surprisingly common phrase. So, what I am saying is that what you have posted is a series of disjointed quotations, with no real understanding of their context in the arabic language.

[edit on 5-12-2004 by General Zapata]


OK General, so let's put the Qu'ran in historical context. Mohammed enforced Islam with the sword--that is to say; he killed those who refused to accept Islam. He used fear and intimidation, completely abrogating free will, to force people to follow Islam.

I believe you stated in an earlier post that Islam can only be understood when read in the original texts. Then I ask: How do you explain the stringent (extremist) belief held by the "terrorists", Taliban, and followers of Wahhabiism? Are they reading from other than the original texts? Are they interpreting from a Qu'ran that was translated into another language? I've read passages from 5 different interpretations of the Qu'ran and they are all similar (and violent) in the messages they send. And they are all very specific (little room for interpretation) on the responsibilities Muslims have regarding non-believers or followers of other belief systems. If what is written in the Qu'ran is only metaphoric hyperbole, why do so many Muslims follow this "extreme" form of Islam?




posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 05:32 PM
link   
your assertion that islamic rule has always been harsh and repressive is completely untrue. Before the coming of islam, tolerance of other religions was non-existant. examples:

Spain under the Umayyads and Baghdad under the Abbasid Khalifas: Christians and Jews, treated equally among muslims, were allowed into universities and schools, and lodged in hostels at the cost of the state. When the moors were driven out of Spain, the christians held a terrible persecution of the Jews. The fortunate who escaped fled to the Muslim empire, which was considered a refuge from the persecution of the Inquisition.

The two verses 2:255-256 of the Qur'an state that there is no compulsion to follow Allah. They state that the punishment is straying further and further from the light, which is considered punishment enough. Notice there is none of the scare-mongering present in the bible.

The Qur'an is by far the most progressive of the two texts, and it does NOT preach what you claim it preaches. Try reading it first in original Arabic, before passing judgement on something you clearly understand little about.

Also, 'so many' follow this extreme form of Islam? Ridiculous! The VAST majority of Muslims are in no way extremists.

[edit on 5-12-2004 by General Zapata]

[edit on 5-12-2004 by General Zapata]



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Aren't all religions ideologies?...



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by General Zapata
your assertion that islamic rule has always been harsh and repressive is completely untrue. Before the coming of islam, tolerance of other religions was non-existant. examples:

Spain under the Umayyads and Baghdad under the Abbasid Khalifas: Christians and Jews, treated equally among muslims, were allowed into universities and schools, and lodged in hostels at the cost of the state. When the moors were driven out of Spain, the christians held a terrible persecution of the Jews. The fortunate who escaped fled to the Muslim empire, which was considered a refuge from the persecution of the Inquisition.

The two verses 2:255-256 of the Qur'an state that there is no compulsion to follow Allah. They state that the punishment is straying further and further from the light, which is considered punishment enough. Notice there is none of the scare-mongering present in the bible.

The Qur'an is by far the most progressive of the two texts, and it does NOT preach what you claim it preaches. Try reading it first in original Arabic, before passing judgement on something you clearly understand little about.

Also, 'so many' follow this extreme form of Islam? Ridiculous! The VAST majority of Muslims are in no way extremists.

[edit on 5-12-2004 by General Zapata]

[edit on 5-12-2004 by General Zapata]


255. There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm hand hold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.

256. Allah is the Protecting Friend of those who believe. He bringeth them out of darkness into light. As for those who disbelieve, their patrons are false deities. They bring them out of light into darkness. Such are rightful owners of the Fire. They will abide therein.

No scare mongering? "Such are rightful owners of the Fire. They will abide therein". Sounds like another way of saying "They will burn in hell".

And then there's 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.

Forgiving and merciful only if you're Muslim.

And what is an idolater?

From dictionary.com:

I*dol"a*ter\, n. [F. idol[^a]tre: cf. L. idololatres, Gr. ?. See Idolatry.]
1. A worshiper of idols; one who pays divine honors to images, statues, or representations of anything made by hands; one who worships as a deity that which is not God; a pagan.

9;6 says

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.

Where is the peace and tolerance of this religion? Where is the individual free will? This is clearly only a religion of peace only if you're Muslim.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thorfinn Skullsplitter
Aren't all religions ideologies?...


From dictionary.com:

i·de·ol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-l-j, d-)
n. pl. i·de·ol·o·gies
1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
3. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
4. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

Because of the Sharia (Islamic law) Islam takes on the definition of an ideology. It is used as a means to subvert and control people through fear and intimidation. But the Islamic ideolgy is concealed behind the perception of religion.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 06:27 PM
link   


Freedom_for_sum


You sould like Ibn..

Well, as it were, you never refuted anything the good General stated, you just spouted the same tautalogous qoutes from the Qur'an you always do; all the time skipping over OTTS post.

The General brought up a good point, now refute that point.

Deep



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroDeep



Freedom_for_sum


You sould like Ibn..

Well, as it were, you never refuted anything the good General stated, you just spouted the same tautalogous qoutes from the Qur'an you always do; all the time skipping over OTTS post.

The General brought up a good point, now refute that point.

Deep


I have asked, in a previous post, for anyone to provide verses from the bible that contain expicit instructions, as they do in the Qu'ran, to kill non-believers. I don't deny the violent past of Christianity, Catholasism, etc. What I am saying is that people of that day commited violent acts, in the name of religion, without specific instruction to do so; at least that I'm aware of. I must profess that I am not very familiar with what the Bible says (since I'm not religious). I can assure you that if it were Christains blowing up children or flying planes into buildings, and doing so in the name of God, I would be much more familiar with what instructions are given in the Bible the fuels this kind of fervor. Since it's Muslims commiting these acts of atrocities, I decided to go to their source of religious information--the Qur'an. It turns out that these so called "extremists" are only following what it says in the Qur'an.

If you deny that "extreme" Islamic beliefs are limited to a small few, then you have your head in the sand. This is the fastest growing religion in the world today.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 07:33 PM
link   
An expression I learned from my girlfriend yesterday... "Bible quarterbacking", the act of quoting the Holy Book in a piecemeal manner, without regards to theological, historical or linguistic (translation, etc.) contexts.

The same applies to the Quran. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but people spend their entire studies and/or careers studying the Bible or the Quran. I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss these Books, but when it comes to levelling grave accusations such as "the Quran shows Islam is violent by nature", we should show more humility.


you just spouted the same tautalogous qoutes from the Qur'an you always do; all the time skipping over OTTS post.


No worries, ZeroDeep my friend... there's a saying in French - "There is no worse blind than he who doesn't want to see."



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Just one for freedom:

"O God, do not keep silent; do not be still, do not be quiet! Look! Your enemies are in revolt, and those who hate you are rebelling...

Do to them what you did to the Midianites, and to Sisera and Jabin at the Kishon River. You defeated them at Endor, and their bodies rotted on the ground.....

May they be defeated and terrified forever; may they die in complete disgrace."

-Psalm83

then, there is the infamous story of the man who broke sabbath because he was collecting firewood. when moses asked god what to do with him, god replied, "The man must be put to death; the whole community is to stone him to death outside the camp."
-numbers15:32

granted, most of the bible preaches peace, love, acceptance, and wisdom. but it has its moments of evil, like all books. i dont believe the bible is an "evil" book whatsoever, nor do i think the koran is "evil." I think they have evil points in it, but more importantly, those who follow them blindly and use them to strike down others instead of lifting them up are the largest evil any book could cause.

i misworded my original post, i meant it to be more broad.i said "religions" when i meant "peoples." im sorry for the typo



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 09:35 AM
link   
To Islamic appologizers, I ask these questions:

Why is it that so many clerics (Islamic leaders) in the US and abroad have stated publicly that what these "extremists" are doing is justifiable while so many so called "moderates" have been quiet on this subject? Why have so few moderate Muslims spoken out against the terrorists who have "hijacked" their religion. To me, their silence is deafening! How is it that this particular religion is able to take disenfranchised youth (Adam Gadahn, John Walker to name a couple) and turn them into jihadists while you never hear the same about other religions recruiting young fighters?

Taking disenfrachised and lost youth and feeding their heads with backwards and damaging information is something that most religions don't do. It is, however, something that other ideologies have done (White supremists, Arian nation etc). To me. this is part of what makes Islam an ideology, not a religion.

I'm not here to defend any religion--in fact, to me, all religions are bad. There are some who say that religion is benign--and that it's what bad people do to religion. I say that instead, it's what bad religion does to people.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Why is it that so many clerics (Islamic leaders) in the US and abroad have stated publicly that what these "extremists" are doing is justifiable while so many so called "moderates" have been quiet on this subject? Why have so few moderate Muslims spoken out against the terrorists who have "hijacked" their religion. To me, their silence is deafening! How is it that this particular religion is able to take disenfranchised youth (Adam Gadahn, John Walker to name a couple) and turn them into jihadists while you never hear the same about other religions recruiting young fighters?


1) where did you get 'so many' from? Is it perhaps because your media only chooses to show you the ones preaching murder and not the ones preaching peace? Do you think that maybe there is some sort of motive there? It is easier to invade a country and crap all over sovereignty when most believe that that nation is one of terrorists. Their silence is indeed deafening, but not because they aren't speaking, but because you are not listening.

2) other religions do recruit fighters. Christianity, at least fundamentalist christianity, is always recruiting people in the fight against the gay lifestyle.


I'm not here to defend any religion--in fact, to me, all religions are bad. There are some who say that religion is benign--and that it's what bad people do to religion. I say that instead, it's what bad religion does to people.


Then say that! Don't sh*t all over islam just because you don't understand it!



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 04:36 PM
link   
This is Politics @ ATS, the rules still apply. Please don't circumvent the censors.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 06:51 PM
link   
my apologies intrepid. If you feel it necessary, please modify my post. I am unable to do so, since for some reason the edit button is missing on my posts.



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 12:11 PM
link   


1) where did you get 'so many' from?


The expression "so many" is used as a relative expression; ie: there are so many clerics justifying murdering inocents vs. so few moderates who speak out against it.



Is it perhaps because your media only chooses to show you the ones preaching murder and not the ones preaching peace? Do you think that maybe there is some sort of motive there?


I get very little information on this subject from the US media. In fact, our media tends to be very liberal and actually under-reports on this subject. It is interesting, however, that a least one in the US media has covered problems stemming from the clash of cultures of Muslims in Europe and has even given a nick-name to Europe to describe the problem: Eurabia. The US has had some clash of culture as well. We've had instances where Muslim women refuse to remove their [scarves] when getting their picture taken for a driver's license. In this country, driving is a priviledge; not a right. Yet these women instead try to impose their culture and beliefs on our laws. This is a problem because if a state allows people to shirk laws then anarchy becomes a risk.



It is easier to invade a country and crap all over sovereignty when most believe that that nation is one of terrorists.


Easier than what? What sovereign nation are you talking about? Would it be Bosnia where the Serbs were systematically engaged in ethnic cleasning of the Bosnians (Muslim) whom we were there to protect? Or are you talking about Afganistan where the Taliban were providing a safe refuge for terrorists who made the biggest attack on innocent civilians on US soil since Japan's unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor. Or maybe you're talking about Iraq whose megalomaniac brutal dictator clearly had a penchant for invading other soveriegn nations (Iran, Kuwait) because he believed he had rightful rule over those nations. A dictator who used chemical weapons on Iraqis. A dictator who thumbed his nose at the mile-long list of UN resolutions and whom we KNOW had, at one point, weapons of mass destruction and clearly posed a threat (based on German AND Russian intelligence) of providing WMD to terrorists.

Who else can we depend on to curb this scourge? France? Germany?

People seem to forget that had we not intervened and scrificed thousands or our soldiers in WWI we might all be speaking German today.

But I digress as this is going way off the original topic.



Their silence is indeed deafening, but not because they aren't speaking, but because you are not listening.


Really? Please provide references (names/sources) of those Clerics and Imams who do speak out publically against these extreme fundamentalist Muslims.



2) other religions do recruit fighters. Christianity, at least fundamentalist christianity, is always recruiting people in the fight against the gay lifestyle.


Interesting. Are these fundamentalists Christains killing gays; cutting there heads off, etc? Are they killing them and saying that it's God's will? Are they killing innocent heterosexuals and childeren in the process? Are they being arrested and tried for their crimes?



Then say that! Don't **** all over islam just because you don't understand it!


Then make me understand it! You claim to have read the untranslated form of the Qu'ran and that these "lame" translations bastardize the true, peaceful, teachings of the text. Instead of picking apart the words in my posts (ie: so many) try answering my questions. Explain to me how "extremist" Muslims are acting against the "peaceful" intent of the Qu'ran. Explain why this "extreme" form of Islam is currently the fastest growing "religion" in the world. Explain why Islamic nations treat women like second class citizens (can't leave the house without a family male escort; must remain covered at all times, can't drive etc). Show me an islamic nation where it's OK to practice religions other than Islam without being punished someway under the Sharia. I'm fully aware that there are moderate Muslims all over the world; but show me how they are practicing Islam within the teachings of the Qu'ran. Please quote a sura where tolerance of other beliefs/religions is acceptable.



[edit on 7-12-2004 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 08:53 PM
link   
the militancy in Islam does not stem back to the beginning of the religion. It is very much a modern day phenomenon, a reactionary knee-jerk outcome of the rise of Zionism and the growing power of the West since the second world war. The teachings of Islam were shamelessly bastardised and misinterpreted in order to justify dispicable sentiment and action. Do not judge Islam by the militant seperatists, I implore you.

oh, and here's a source: www.campus-watch.org...

what I meant before is that you have no basis for saying 'so many' of the clerics are as militant as you claim. The only ones that reach Australian television are the ones that preach damnation of the west, because its an emotional issue that gets people watching, and far more exciting than some moderate sheik preaching tolerance and peace, and they are out there. I can only assume that the situation is similar in the US, but I am not sure since I do not watch any US television.



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 10:26 AM
link   
General Zapata:

Based on what I do know and the information in part that I provide in this post, I see more than just a “clash of cultures” on the horizon; I see a “religious war”. Unless western countries can somehow shift the paradigm of Islam being a religion to one of a political ideology we will be dragged into this religious war—and it will be ugly.

"Mohammed explained his view that the Koran itself emphasizes religious tolerance of Jews and their God-given right to the land of Israel."

“Professor Mohammed advocated a return of Muslims to the earlier, more tolerant Koranic traditions…”

Where in the Koran are the “earlier, more tolerant Koranic traditions” he speaks of described?

“…and concluded that there can be no peace in the Middle East until Muslims reject anti-Semitic teachings and accept the right of the Jews to a state in their ancestral homeland as specified in the Bible and the Koran.”

This will NEVER happen due in large part because of what this survey by Al-Arabia network website reveals:

www.jpost.com.../JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1101356023257

Statement from Robert Spencer:

“Tiny minority of extremists update: a survey shows that almost three-quarters of the Arab world wants the violent jihad terrorist group Hamas, which has boasted of its murders of civilian non-combatants, to take over for Yasir Arafat.”

It also says in the article you provided General:

“No one who keeps abreast of world events can deny the alarming rise in worldwide violence committed in the name of Islam.”

Yet despite the “vast majority” of moderate Muslims we have yet another very revealing survey:

www.etaiwannews.com...

And here is another little peace of nugget from your pad on the pond General:

www.news.com.au...

Statement from Robert Spencer:

“Ain't it always the way? These inept, bumbling officials mistranslate these subtle texts, leading them to think (of all things!) that they teach ... hatred and violence!
I get this all the time. Muslim spokesmen say: "You are quoting a translation. You can't understand what is being said except in the original Arabic." This is an effective tactic, since I can't very well quote the Arabic on a radio or TV show, and so the non-Muslim looks like an "ignorant Islamophobe" misunderstanding these magnificently nuanced texts. But of course, all this falls to the ground because of the plentiful and readily available texts translated by Muslims for Muslims. Are we to believe that Muslim translators also abused these texts?
As for Leghaei's notebook, I haven't seen it, but based on what is below I doubt it is a mistranslation. His notes that I have put in bold type are standard jihad doctrine, echoed in a thousand Islamic sources.”

About Robert Spencer of www.jihadwatch.org:

ROBERT SPENCER, the director of Jihad Watch, is a writer and researcher who has studied Islam for more than twenty years. He is the author of Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West (Regnery) and Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith (Encounter). He is coauthor, with Daniel Ali, of Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics (Ascension), and editor of the essay collection The Myth of Islamic Tolerance (forthcoming from Prometheus Books).
Spencer (MA, Religious Studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) is an Adjunct Fellow with the Free Congress Foundation. He has written seven monographs on Islam that are available from the Foundation: An Introduction to the Qur'an; Women and Islam; An Islamic Primer; Islam and the West; The Islamic Disinformation Lobby; Islam vs. Christianity; and Jihad in Context.
His articles on Islam and other topics have appeared in the New York Post, the Washington Times, the Dallas Morning News, Canada's National Post, FrontPage Magazine.com, WorldNet Daily, Insight in the News, Human Events, National Review Online, and many other journals. He has discussed jihad, Islam, and terrorism on CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, PBS, and C-Span, as well as on numerous radio programs including Michael Savage's Savage Nation, The G. Gordon Liddy Show, the Michael Medved Show, The Michael Reagan Show, The Larry Elder Show, Vatican Radio, and many others.



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 04:36 PM
link   
the article also says 'Whether or not one accepts Mohammed's thesis of a direct relation between distortions of the tenets of Islam and the heinous acts perpetrated in its name, at the very least his scholarship deserves to be heard, discussed and debated'. See? I can pick quotes to fit my viewpoint, too.



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by General Zapata
the article also says 'Whether or not one accepts Mohammed's thesis of a direct relation between distortions of the tenets of Islam and the heinous acts perpetrated in its name, at the very least his scholarship deserves to be heard, discussed and debated'. See? I can pick quotes to fit my viewpoint, too.


I agree with you 100%. In fact, isn't that what we're doing here (discussing, debating)? Quoting from articles is exactly what one should do when trying to convey, in part, the message of that article.



new topics




 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join