Religion of peace update...

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   
This thread is for those who wish to post and discuss articles showing the true nature of Islam.

From www.jihadwatch.org

WASHINGTON - When a believing Muslim is summoned to the United States due to life's circumstances, Saudi Arabian authorities disseminate through a network of major American mosques, like other religious directives, clear ways as to how one should act in his new surroundings. Take, for example, a document signed by the cultural attache at the Saudi embassy in Washington that instructs Muslims arriving in the United States not to initiate a greeting when meeting Christians or Jews, and never to convey good wishes marking a Christian or Jewish holiday. In general, the attache recommends that the Muslim believer avoid friendships with the infidels, be careful not to imitate their customs (e.g. not to wear a cap and gown at a graduation ceremony), and try not to remain in the country any longer than required. The Saudis feel that a good Muslim can stay in America only for two reasons: acquiring knowledge and capital to promote the objectives of jihad, and lobbying the infidels to accept Islam.
The aforementioned document and dozens of other papers and books are distributed for free at major mosques throughout the U.S. This is revealed in a recent study published by the Center for Religious Freedom, which is affiliated with Freedom House, an unaffiliated organization promoting political and economic freedom around the world, partly through research studies and information dissemination.




posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   
And, of course, the actions of the mosques is completely in line with the teachings of the Qur'an:

Sura 5:51. O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Islam in Saudi is intolerant of the expression of Love:

By Dominic Evans

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia's morality police are on the scent of illicit red roses as part of a clampdown on would-be St Valentine's lovers in the strict Muslim kingdom.

The Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, Saudi Arabia's powerful religious vigilantes, have banned shops from selling any red flowers in the run-up to February 14.

Florists say the move is part of an annual campaign by the committee -- whose members are known as "mutawwaeen" or volunteers -- to prevent Saudis marking a festival they believe flouts their austere doctrine of "Wahhabi" Islam.

"They pass by two or three times a day to check we don't have any red flowers," said a Pakistani florist in Riyadh's smart Sulaimaniya district. "Look, no red. I've taken them all out," he said pointing to a dazzling floral collection covering every color of the rainbow except one.

Saudi Arabia's purist version of Islam recognizes only two religious occasions a year -- the Muslim feasts after the fasting month of Ramadan and the Haj pilgrimage.

Celebration of the Islamic New Year or the Prophet Mohammad's birthday, common in other Muslim countries, is frowned upon in Saudi Arabia.

Valentine's Day (news - web sites), or the "Feast of Love" in Arabic, is beyond the pale in a country where women must cover themselves from head to toe in public and be accompanied by a male guardian.

"For the last week, we've had no red in the shop," said Ahmed, a flower shop manager. "You can't even have red cards."

Despite the prohibition, demand for the banned roses has been strong and unofficial business was booming, Ahmed said.

"Wait 10 minutes," he told one customer as an assistant slipped into the shadows to collect a bouquet of crimson flowers. At 10 riyals ($2.70) each they were double the usual price. "They would put us in prison for this," he smiled.

Another customer asked if he could deliver 30 red roses to Riyadh's diplomatic quarter, a potentially tricky mission which meant crossing a tight police security cordon. "No problem," Ahmed said. "That's the regular police, not the mutawwaeen."

The government-funded mutawwaeen patrol the streets of Saudi Arabia, particularly Riyadh in the Wahhabi heartland, ensuring women are covered and five daily Muslim prayers are observed.

Shopkeepers who fail to shut down for half an hour during each prayer risk a night in jail if they are discovered.

Despite government calls for them to show greater leniency, and some recent efforts to improve their own image, the bearded volunteers are not universally popular.

"The mutawwaeen are just backward," Ahmed complained. "It's the Saudi women who want these roses anyway."



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Call it "Eurabia" now. (I'm interested to hear opinions from those in Europe on the massive immigration of Arab Muslims)

Europeans do not see what is coming and like the Jews who in the 1930’s refused to see what their fellow countrymen throughout Europe had in mind for them, they face a fate that Bat Ye’or, the author of Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis ($49.50/$23.95, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, hard/softcover), calls "a civilization of dhimmitude."
It comes from the Arab word, "dhimmi." As Bat Ye’or explains it, "It refers to subjugated, non-Muslim individuals or people that accept the restrictive and humiliating subordination to an ascendant Islamic power to avoid enslavement or death." And then she adds, "The entire Muslim world as we know it today is a product of this 1,300 year-old jihad dynamic, whereby once thriving non-Muslim majority civilizations have been reduced to a state of dysfunctional dhimmitude."

Two nations stand against the worldwide Jihad being waged by Islamists in the name of all Muslims and they are the United States of America and Great Britain. And even today there are Americans who, like the European Jews barely a lifetime ago, do not fully comprehend how utterly determined Islamists are in their desire to destroy or enslave us.

In early February, Daniel Pipes, the director of the Middle East Forum, was continuing to warn Americans about the internal threat revealed in a recently published study, "Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques." The study was undertaken by Freedom House, a New York-based organization, founded in 1941 and dedicated to the spread of democracy and freedom around the world. This is the same freedom to which President Bush devoted his inaugural speech.

What Freedom House discovered was that American mosques are filled with writings, more than two hundred books and other publications disseminated by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, that espoused "an anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, misogynist, Jihadist, and (a) supremacist outlook." Somewhere among those categories is YOU.

If you’re an American Christian, the Jihadists hate you. If you’re an American Jew, the Jihadists want you dead. If you’re an American woman, the Jihadists want you covered from head to foot in a burka. In brief, if you are not a Muslim, you have no rights except those permitted to a dhimmi, an unbeliever under the control of Islam.

Aiding them in every way is France and the European Union whose hatred for Israel is as strong as its Muslim allies. So, while the air is filled with talk of "peace" or a "truce" between the so-called Palestinians and the Israelis, do not be deceived.

The Muslims divide the world between dar al-Islam, the world of Islam, and dar al-harb, the world of war, a region that must be conquered until the entire planet bows down to Allah and declares Mohammed his prophet. There are more than a billion Muslims worldwide. They are not all Jihadists, but they are all devoted to Islam.

As for any truce with the Israelis or with any non-Muslim nation, Islam limits such treaties to a period of 10 years, after which Jihad must resume. The wall Israel built between itself and the Palestinian Arabs remains its best defense. Ceding any land to them is a mistake.

Welcome home, Madame Secretary. France will betray you. Germany will do little to support the war on terrorism. Just as they did with the millions the European Union sent them each month, the Palestinians will take the forty million U.S. dollars we have given them and buy more weapons for the day when they can drive the Jews into the sea. The Iranians will continue to build their nuclear bombs. The Saudis will conspire against us. No diplomacy on earth will diminish the Jihad. Only our will to defeat it will save us from dhimmitude.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Coptic Christians leave Egypt because of the intolerant nature of Islam

By Jeff Diamant
Newhouse News Service
In Egypt, they lived as a Christian religious minority in a predominately Muslim country.

That, along with economic troubles in Egypt, is what led many Coptic Christians to immigrate over the last 40 years to the United States, where several hundred thousand now live, mostly in New Jersey, New York and California.

Copts are part of a religious tradition that broke with mainstream Christianity in 451 over a doctrinal dispute on the nature of Christ. Their current spiritual leader, Pope Shenouda III, is based in Cairo and visits the United States frequently.

Tensions that have strained relations between Copts and Muslims in Egypt also exist in the United States, but with far less potency than in Egypt, as Coptic Christians feel much more religious freedom here, several Copts said.

"I don't think that Coptic people in the U.S. suffer from anyone," said Mamdouh Abdelsayed, a Coptic Christian who lives in Kearny. "We are not a minority anymore as we are in Egypt. . Dealing with Muslim people, we don't have problems. I'm doing my job, they're doing their job."

In Egypt, Coptic Christians feel their minority status every day, said Monir Dawoud, 65, who moved to the United States from Egypt in 1975.

"The media is all owned by the government, and the media is all Muslim, praising Islam and minimizing Christianity, making it very tough for Christians to live," said Dawoud, a surgeon in Hudson County and acting president of the American Coptic Association.

The killings of 21 Coptic Christians in riots five years ago in Kosheh, Egypt, remain a vivid memory for many.

In the United States, leaders of Egyptian Muslim and Coptic communities have tried to soothe relations, meeting several times at the Egyptian embassy in recent years.

"We can show we are the American-Egyptian family. We're all living here as foreigners," said Mohamed Younes, president of the American Muslim Union, a New Jersey group. "If we live in peace together, we give a good impression to people back in Egypt."

Yet some Copts and Muslims say distrust still exists.

"At the job, I talk to them, but (they) don't go inside my house," said Ashraf Paul, a Coptic Christian who drives a taxi in Jersey City. "I don't trust them."

Abdal Aziz, a Muslim taxi driver in Jersey City, offered the same sentiment.

"Most of the taxi owners in Journal Square are Christian. They don't help us. We don't need their help, and we can't trust them."

In Egypt, diplomacy between Coptic and government leaders is a delicate affair.

The main Coptic leader in the northeast United States, Bishop David, acknowledged in a recent interview that Copts want more religious freedoms in Egypt but stressed that the government is improving on that front. In recent years, for example, television has begun airing Christmas and Easter Masses.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Oh...looks like only two of us here and s/he's reading the news. I better be quiet then - shhhh. *Takes a seat, sips coffee and starts reading a book*



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Oh...looks like only two of us here and s/he's reading the news. I better be quiet then - shhhh. *Takes a seat, sips coffee and starts reading a book*


So what's your point Saint?

I have opinions and provide support for those opinions. I suspect you, like most others are weak to provide counterpoints (ie: if you believe that Islam is a peacefull religion, then say so and provide supporting evidence).



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
So what's your point Saint?

I have opinions and provide support for those opinions. I suspect you, like most others are weak to provide counterpoints (ie: if you believe that Islam is a peacefull religion, then say so and provide supporting evidence).


No point really, just ah...wondering where the discussion is. I don't know much about Islam and don't have any evidence one way or another. I'm learnin' stuff but don't know what it looks like from any other angles except for the articles posted here. Just letting you know I'm here, kinda waiting for the others to join in.


[edit on 15-2-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 05:51 AM
link   
Ello Freedom
You said you want to have a discussion. I hope you mean it, and are not solely doing this for the purpose of denigrating Islam.
First of all, you are taking stuff from jihadwatch. That information is hardly likely to be unbiased.
Another thing is, just because a certain country does something, and it claims to be muslim, doesn't mean that that is the way a muslim must act.
The passage from the Quran you quoted may be the only valid arguement that you have, but even that has been misinterpreted. Muslims should not seek protection of the Jews and Christians, instead, get protection from other Muslims. Islam is a VERY tolerant religion with regard to other religions. Muslims are not allowed to burn non-muslim worshipping places, they have to treat non-belligrents with equity (60:8), be kind to them (31:15), speak kindly to them (17:53), bear what they say in patience (6:34, 20:130), help them when they need it (9:6). There is no "subjugation" of non-muslims living under muslim rule allowed.
I don't know where you got the idea that treaties need only last 10 years for muslims, it is not in any muslim scripture. Also, fighting is only allowed if the persons family, beliefs or land are being oppressed. Just because some fanatical religious sect declares holy war, it doesn't necessarily make it holy.
About Coptic Christian persecution by Muslims, you picked a rather strange example. All religions are treated in a VERY liberal way (they would have to, it is a tourist nation). Having lived 5 years in Egypt when I was in high school, I would have to say that there is NO persecution. I had many Coptic friends, teachers, etc. There was never a case, during my entire time there, where there was any kind of enmity between 2 Egyptians because of their religion. The coptics used the "Islamic" greeting ("Peace be upon you"), were kind enough not to eat infront of Muslims during Ramadan etc. All the Coptic holidays were celebrated as well as the Muslim holidays. The media is all Muslim? Ridiculous! There were MANY prominent Coptic Newscasters, radio hosts, reporters etc.
If you wish to know the "true nature" of Islam, it is a better idea to read the Quran than to go to some Anti-Islam websites.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Thanks bablyoi. I had a few questions if you don't mind.

When an Islamist refers to the Nation of Islam, is it only referring to the the people of the religion or does it have any ties to a literal state/country? You'd mentioned when the homeland is being attacked they have the right to defend, but what is considered the homeland?

Also, do you feel the U.S. and related countries utilize their knowledge of the religion to antagonize Islamist countries if they don't want to 'play ball'?

Finally, you'd stated the Quran quoted previously in this thread was misquoted. Can you expand on that?

I apologize for asking for a thesis, but I think these questions may clear up a lot of things for ATSers.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Hey Saint
The "Nation of Islam" being referred to is not an actual nation. The word is "Umma", but I don't think it has a direct translation into English. I suppose it could be called "The body of Islam", or "The people of the religion of Islam". It is not the "Homeland" exactly, when I said land, I meant literally your own land. As in if someone is bulldozing your house and telling you to get lost. However, if your homeland (country) is being attacked, you have every right to defend yourself. Of course, this does not mean that you attack every country that just might have the capability to attack you somewhere far in the future.
As to fighting for your beliefs, that means that if you are forcibly being prevented from fulfilling your duties as a muslim (eg. not being allowed to go to the mosque to pray, or not being allowed to go for Hajj)
What I meant when I said it was misinterpreted was just that it should not be "don't be friends with Jews and Christians", it was "Don't seek Jews and Christians for protection".
Not sure what you meant by the countries utilizing their knowledge to antagonize Islam. The fundies are already doing a good job of putting Islam in a bad light, and media is picking up on that to make it seem that Islam is a violent religion. A much better way of battling the fundamentalists is a propaganda campaign (propaganda in a good way
) to show how these fundamentalists are going against the true way of Islam (much like what the US did during the Cold war to put down communism and promote capitalism and democracy).

[edit on 16-2-2005 by babloyi]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 07:34 AM
link   
I think that explains a lot. I'd always seen the 'nation' figuratively and not literal land. Looks like the whole Middle East region takes it literally from my perspective.


The only thing though about the verse:

Sura 5:51. O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.

It does say (paraphrase) 'don't hang with the Christian and Jews, they're not doing the right thing'. Am I being too literal, missing the context of the whole message, or do Islamist not take a lot of things word for word in the Quran? I'm a bit confused.


[edit on 16-2-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Thank You babloyi;

I do appreciate your input in this thread. My responses to the points you madewill be forthcoming once I have time to formulate logical counterpoints (my schedule is pretty full right now). BTW: I don't get my opinions strictly from jihadwatch.org. They are fornulated bsed on info from multiple sources. That said, however, Robert Spencer, of jihadwatch, asks very pointed questions based on his over 20 years of studying Islam. And I believe his points have merit because he is able to back his positions with references from the Qur'an, Hadith, and the Sharia.

I will be back soon to respond in more detail.

Thank You.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Hey Saint
Like I said, it should be "Friends and Protectors". Meaning don't seek them out to give you protection, and don't try to be like them. "Friends" in this case means "one of their group".
Hey Freedom. I'd be interested and waiting for your reply.
About the Valentines day thing, well, yeah...the Saudi's took it a bit too far. I mean banning everything that is red?

However, Islam IS against promiscuous behaviour, premarital sex, etc. However, there would have been nothing wrong with a married couple using Valentines day as an excuse to have some fun. Or for someone to use it as an occasion to propose. You know what I mean...
About the covering of women from head to toe....there is some debate about that. While the Quran says only that muslims should dress modestly, it does not mention head covering. This is taken to mean you definitely SHOULDN'T dress up in some sort of skintight leather outfit (not that I know anyone who would want to
). Dressing with intent to be seductive is also not acceptable (at least in public). The thing is, that the important muslim women of the time of the Prophet DID cover their hair (Kind of like the scarf women used to wear in the 60s, not a tent with only a slit for the eyes), and the Prophet is attributed saying that their example should be followed (not specifically for this case, but for everything). It is compulsory during prayer to cover everything from (and including) the knees to the elbow (to the wrist for women). While covering the hair is not compulsory for men, it is for women. However, your face MUST be showing (so none of that ninja mask style covering).



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
Hey Saint
Like I said, it should be "Friends and Protectors". Meaning don't seek them out to give you protection, and don't try to be like them. "Friends" in this case means "one of their group".


But...isn't it God's job to protect? Would you be my friend?


Originally posted by babloyi
Hey Freedom. I'd be interested and waiting for your reply.
About the Valentines day thing, well, yeah...the Saudi's took it a bit too far. I mean banning everything that is red?


Does that include AK-47's? Kidding! Please kidding, they have our arms too...



Originally posted by babloyi
About the covering of women from head to toe....there is some debate about that. While the Quran says only that muslims should dress modestly, it does not mention head covering.


I'd heard the head-to-toe garb was moreso enacted as a result of controlling misogynistic rule than an act of religion. Would you be able to speak to that a little bit?



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

But...isn't it God's job to protect? Would you be my friend?

I did not mean protection in that way. Protection for example military protection etc.
Heheh...sure, I'll be your friend. I checked up various translations of the verse in question, and the word varies from "friends" to "friends and protectors" and "allies". So I checked up the actual word in arabic. The word was annassara, which roots from ansar, meaning helper. The Yusuf Ali translation I have has a footnote for this: "..you should not generally seek them out for help or protection". The Yusuf Ali version had the words translated as "friends and protectors".


Originally posted by saint4God
I'd heard the head-to-toe garb was moreso enacted as a result of controlling misogynistic rule than an act of religion. Would you be able to speak to that a little bit?

I am not sure how the head-to-toe garb came about. You just might be right, some people just took the "be modest" part a bit too far, thinking that women are naturally immodest and need to be controlled. Seriously, I have met people like that
. It is definetly not what Islam asks for. Like I said before, all the Quran said was to be modest, and evidence of the early muslim women shows that they used to have their hair covered, none of this extreme "walking tent" attitude

[edit on 17-2-2005 by babloyi]

[edit on 17-2-2005 by babloyi]



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
Heheh...sure, I'll be your friend.


Excellent, I look forward to some nice discussions then my friend.


Originally posted by babloyi
I checked up various translations of the verse in question, and the word varies from "friends" to "friends and protectors" and "allies". So I checked up the actual word in arabic. The word was annassara, which roots from ansar, meaning helper.


Aha! Helper, allies. This is making sense to me now. I'm at a bit of a disadvantage not knowing arabic and only reading the Quran once with study.


Originally posted by babloyi
The Yusuf Ali translation I have has a footnote for this: "..you should not generally seek them out for help or protection". The Yusuf Ali version had the words translated as "friends and protectors".


Footnote helps explain too. Thanks for doing the leg-work on the research.


Originally posted by babloyi
I am not sure how the head-to-toe garb came about. You just might be right, some people just took the "be modest" part a bit too far, thinking that women are naturally immodest and need to be controlled. Seriously, I have met people like that
. It is definetly not what Islam asks for. Like I said before, all the Quran said was to be modest, and evidence of the early muslim women shows that they used to have their hair covered, none of this extreme "walking tent" attitude


Admittedly I do have some insight from someone who spent a great deal of his life in Pakistan. He was under the impression through his observations that it was about supression and not religion.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
You said you want to have a discussion. I hope you mean it, and are not solely doing this for the purpose of denigrating Islam.

I look at what's happening around the world and am dismayed by the actions of so-called "extremist Muslims". When I read the text from the Qur'an what I find is that these actions are mostly supported by the teachings of these texts. This "extreme" form of Islam is indeed the fastest growing religion in the world; especially throughout Southeast Asia. It is not I denigrating Islam. What I find interesting is that people who ask tough questions are often labeled "Islamophobes" while the "moderate" Muslims rarely ever (at least publicly) vociferiously speak out against the actions of "extremists". I suspect the reason this is is that their actions are supported by the teachings of the Qur'an and in compliance of Sharia law.



Islam is a VERY tolerant religion with regard to other religions.


There are approximately 30 references (Pikthal translation) similar to the following:

"O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites ! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end."

This, and others like it, are very specific as they describe the ultimate destiny of those who don't follow Islam. This is INTOLERANCE! Whenever a group a people are perceived to be inferior they are treated as such--unless they have some form of protection. Under Islam, this protection is Dhimitude; whereby non-believers must pay a tax (Jizya) to ensure their protection. In addition, they are not allowed to build Churches or publicly stae their religious preferences. Now, whether or not this Jizya is enforced in the Arab nations--I honestly don't know. But the Qur'an says that this is the way it should be.


Muslims are not allowed to burn non-muslim worshipping places, they have to treat non-belligrents with equity (60:8),


The problem is the definition of "non-beligrents". Most arab Muslims view our presence in the Holy lands as beligerent. We bring the "stench" of apostates and our being there confirms Zionism (in their view).

31:15. But if they strive with thee to make thee ascribe unto Me as partner that of which thou hast no knowledge, then obey them not. Consort with them in the world kindly, and follow the path of him who repenteth unto Me. Then unto Me will be your return, and I shall tell you what ye used to do.

This means: Do not obey those who have no knowledge of me (Allah). Associate and be kind, and follow the path of those who [repent unto Allah (Muslim). In other words: Be kind to fellow Muslims.

17:53. Tell My bondmen to speak that which is kindlier. Lo! the devil soweth discord among them. Lo! the devil is for man an open foe.

This means: Tell my slaves to speak kindly [to one another]. The devil spread will [spread tension and strife from disagreement] among them.
This has nothing to do with dis-believers and idolators.

6:34. Messengers indeed have been denied before thee, and they were patient under the denial and the persecution till Our succour reached them. There is none to alter the decisions of Allah. Already there hath reached thee (somewhat) of the tidings of the messengers (We sent before).

This means the messengers who have been denied were patient until [assistance] reached them. Again--nothing to do with non-Muslims.

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

They are protected if they are willing to hear the word of Allah. What happens if they don't?: (you had to expect this)

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.

[
There is no "subjugation" of non-muslims living under muslim rule allowed.


From Sahih Muslim Book 019 Number 4294:

www.usc.edu...

"If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya (tax on non-Mulsims). If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them."

[
If you wish to know the "true nature" of Islam, it is a better idea to read the Quran than to go to some Anti-Islam websites.


I believe the "true nature" of Islam is revealed in the Qur'an, Sharia, Hadith and most certainly, not the least of which, should also include world events. BTW: I'm not saying all Muslims are evil barbarians. Far from it. But when Some Muslims can blow themselves up (along with innocent women and children) and fly planes into buildings all the while proclaiming they're doing this in the name of Allah, one hs to wonder where they get their guidance. One also has to wonder why the so-called "moderate Muslims" are relatively quiet on this subject in a public forum.

I would be remiss if I didn't include, in the spirit of this thread, today's ROP Update:

Translated from: frontpage.fok.nl...

Holland: Hindu temple under attack by Muslims

A Hindu temple in The Hague, the Ram Mandir, is frequently being attacked by a group of Moroccan youth.

Young Hindus are so fed up with the situation they want to take matters into their own hands. Morrocans shove dog feces through the mailbox and have broken into the temple twice, stolen a statue, urinated inside and stolen money from the moneybox. Mister S. Ramdhani, a Hindu priest, says: “They spit, don’t let visitors pass through, robbed two elderly ladies and then threatened them not to press charges. Our secretary was attacked with a stick.”

Ramdhani doesn’t want young Hindus and Moroccans to clash. “If groups start fighting each other we get a very bad situation. We can’t have that here in Holland.” Ramdhani is very embittered about the case. Last year he was given a ribbon by the queen for his contribution to the integration of foreigners in the neighbourhood. Every year thousands of students from The Hague come to the temple to learn more about the Hindu faith; it’s also a haven for troubled teens. Since 9/11 Ramdhani has been trying to reach out to Christians and Muslims.

The trouble caused by Moroccan youth has made a dent in Ramdhani’s idealism. He’s thinking about no longer attending the 9/11 meetings. “I feel discriminated against. Why they have to choose our temple? There is a mosque nearby. Why don’t they go over there to cause trouble? They must hate the Hindu faith. Otherwise I don’t know.”

Rabin Baldewsingh, a member of the city council for the social-democrats, asked mayor Deetman for help. The police says it’s ‘on the agenda’.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I look at what's happening around the world and am dismayed by the actions of so-called "extremist Muslims". When I read the text from the Qur'an what I find is that these actions are mostly supported by the teachings of these texts. This "extreme" form of Islam is indeed the fastest growing religion in the world; especially throughout Southeast Asia. It is not I denigrating Islam. What I find interesting is that people who ask tough questions are often labeled "Islamophobes" while the "moderate" Muslims rarely ever (at least publicly) vociferiously speak out against the actions of "extremists". I suspect the reason this is is that their actions are supported by the teachings of the Qur'an and in compliance of Sharia law.

I am also dismayed. I very openly speak against the extremist muslims, check my other posts. No, they are NOT following Islam or the Quran. Extremist Islam is thankfully NOT the fastest growing religion, plain ol' Islam is. I am not calling you an Islamophobe, I am just wondering about your "open-minded discussing attitude". I mean, when I explained all the points you raised up, your reply was "Thanks, now wait a while for me to come up with more counterpoints". But please don't think I am insulting you. Bring forward these points.


Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
There are approximately 30 references (Pikthal translation) similar to the following:

"O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites ! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end."

Come on, my friend. You can do better than that! Post one of these referrences.


Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
non-believers must pay a tax (Jizya) to ensure their protection. In addition, they are not allowed to build Churches or publicly stae their religious preferences. Now, whether or not this Jizya is enforced in the Arab nations--I honestly don't know. But the Qur'an says that this is the way it should be.

Jizya is not tax to ensure anybody's protection. That is like saying you pay welfare taxes to ensure your protection. Muslims are obligated to pay Zakat (charity). If there are non-muslims under muslim rule, it is expected for them to contribute to this charity as well. About not building churches and stating religious preferences, while some COUNTRIES may have it so, Islam says no such thing, in fact, as it says "There is no compulsion in religion"



Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
The problem is the definition of "non-beligrents". Most arab Muslims view our presence in the Holy lands as beligerent. We bring the "stench" of apostates and our being there confirms Zionism (in their view).

The Quran defined it very well. Read the passage I quoted. (60:8) says:

(60:8)
Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.


It seems strange you then went on to provide the translation of the passages from the Quran along with your translation of the translation. But hey, alright, I am game:


(31:15)
"But if they strive to make thee join in worship with Me things of which thou hast no knowledge, obey them not; yet bear them company in this life with justice (and consideration), and follow the way of those who turn to me (in love): in the end the return of you all is to Me, and I will tell you the truth (and meaning) of all that ye did."

This means don't obey those who make you worship things other than God, but "bear them company in this life with justice (and consideration)


(17:53)
Say to My servants that they should (only) say those things that are best: for Satan doth sow dissensions among them: For Satan is to man an avowed enemy.

This means that muslims should only say those things that are good. Don't bad mouth ANYONE. I find it has very much to do with non-muslims.


(6:34)
Rejected were the apostles before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those apostles.

This means to bear with patience those who reject the message of Islam. Very much to do with non-muslims.


(9:6)
If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

It doesn't say protect them only if they listen to you about God, it says protect them and tell them about God.


Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I believe the "true nature" of Islam is revealed in the Qur'an, Sharia, Hadith and most certainly, not the least of which, should also include world events.

I would be remiss if I didn't include, in the spirit of this thread, today's ROP Update:
Translated from: frontpage.fok.nl...


You can try to find the true nature of Islam in current world events, but like I said, just because someone calls themself a muslim and does something, it doesn't mean that all muslims should do that.
I could start up a thread to follow the most recent exploits of pro-life killers, pedophile priests etc. and use this to condemn all christianity, but I wont, because I know that is a generalisation, and that those things go against the true spirit of Christianity.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Sorry for the campy nature of them, but this is new info for me:

Do you attend an Islamic Temple/Church? If so, what day to they meet? What's the name (if you don't mind) and what does a typical service involve? Do you find they have very similar viewpoint or interpretation of the Quran?

Is 3-times a day prayer required? Have you been on a pilgrimage? Have you run into problems of prejudice (other than here on ATS :lol
in daily life?

[edit on 18-2-2005 by saint4God]





 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join