Muslim leader tells worshipers to expect questions from public

reply to post by grandmastersam2287


Your long winded Islamic apologist statements lead me to believe that you must be one of these peaceful followers of Mohammad. However, I wonder, if that is what you are, why in the world would you have an avatar of someone holding an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine?

I read most of the world's religious tomes, and after reading the Koran, it helped me choose to be a New Testament Christian. All I can say, like you do, is to do the research and come to your own conclusion, I certainly did.

It was nice to see that majority of posters including the OP have a good distinctions between Islam and the act of these two muslims. Hats off to all of you.

Originally posted by MichiganSwampBuck
reply to post by grandmastersam2287

 

Your long winded Islamic apologist statements lead me to believe that you must be one of these peaceful followers of Mohammad. However, I wonder, if that is what you are, why in the world would you have an avatar of someone holding an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine?

I read most of the world's religious tomes, and after reading the Koran, it helped me choose to be a New Testament Christian. All I can say, like you do, is to do the research and come to your own conclusion, I certainly did.

I have read the same tomes, and have come to my conclusion as well: both your the Bible and the Koran are exceptionally violent and perverse.

Remember to be careful when comparing your relgion to another. That whole "those who live in glass houses should not throw stones" mentality.

What really drove me Christianity was the Baptist University I attended.

Originally posted by Unferth
What kind of conspiracy theory website is this? Wait, it is not. See Awww.abovetopsecret.com...

Now, if you have your head out of the sand you will realize the following:

1. Of course Muslims are going to be upset and want revenge. Did Santa Claus kill million muslims in the middle-east.

2. Fundamentalist Islam (Salfism, Wahabism) overwhelmingly comes out of ONE country: Saudi Arabia. This country is also a key US alley which means many of these Jihadists such as OBL were trained by the CIA

3. Radicalization of US Muslims happens overwhelmingly by mosques that are given GRANTS by the Saudi government. You could start your own mosque right now and get funding from them. Guess what? They will tell you what to do and radicialze everything.

3. 9.11 was an inside job. That means muslims who want revenge are justified. They didn't start this war. The US did start this war.

edit on 20-4-2013 by Unferth because: (no reason given)

It always amuses me the idiots who think muslim extremist only started when American became a country.....

reply to post by Unferth


Ummm, no, US mosques do not receive grants directly from the Saudi government. Do you honestly think the Sauds make direct payments when they spread their money around?? Do you think that would be wise?

Of course, its well known that the house of Saud gives money to organizations which have been implicated in terrorism. For example, they give money to Hamas; they've been propping up the Muslim Brotherhood with grants for decades. CAIR (council for American-Islamic Relations), which has been indicted for conveying money to Hamas (and possibly contributing funds to radicalized mosques in America) have been receiving Saudi money for years.

The Sauds are deeply involved in promoting Islamic extremism, as Daniel Pipes documents in Militant Islam Reaches America, and his earlier book, In the Path of God. However, your naivete is in assuming that because America does business with Saudi Arabia, then the CIA (of course) must be colluding with the Sauds. That just doesn't add up when you scrutinize the pesky details.

No place on earth has as much oil as Saudi Arabia. Since the Sauds are well aware of the power they possess with the oil they have, whats to stop them from doing with their money what they want to do with it???? This is the dilemma created by free market economics in geo-political relations. Assuming (which is logical to assume) America doesn't want terrorist attacks happening, then logically, they should be able to control, or prevent the Sauds from promoting their Wahibist/Salafist ideology in the Islamic world, correct??? No, quite wrong. The leverage is on the side of the Sauds. The Sauds have something that America (and the western countries) desperately need in order to stay economically afloat: oil. This means they have no choice but to compromise with the House of Saud.

A similar situation exists with the Chinese. How come the world is obsessed with the supposed human rights abuses of Israel, yet mostly ignore the far larger human rights abuses of the Chinese? Because the Chinese have leverage - economic primacy - while the Israelis do not. Furthermore, while the Chinese are allowed to freely oppose dissidents of the communist party, and over-zealous promoters of western style democracy, Israel - a full democracy - has to deal with the economic fortitude of the predominantly Islamic OPEC countries: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya, Egypt, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, who with their economic leverage, are able to put the unfavourable situation of their fellow Arabs (Palestinians) on the forefront of the international agenda. This again is due to leverage. It's on their side. Because it is on their side, countries who would otherwise occupy themselves with the facts of the Israel-Palestine conflict, have no choice but to promote the view narrated by the Arab countries. Why? Because these countries - the Europeans, Americans, in particular - have massive oil contracts with them.

Back in the 80's the Philippines (which also deals with Islamic extremism) decided to establish economic ties with Israel, which in turn led them to support the Jewish state. What was the response from the OPEC countries??? They decided not to renew their oil contract with the Philippines. That was more than enough to get the Philippines to check themselves, abjure their support for Israel, and condemn the Israeli treatment of Palestinians.

Fact is, the west, due to the living standards it has become accustomed to, is simultaneously weakened in the international arena by those 3rd and 2nd world countries which trade with them. Who do you think would suffer more in the case of an Saudi oil embargo against America? America, or Saudi Arabia?? The Sauds have potential clients in the Chinese and Indians. Right now, however, a great deal of their business is with the west. Whether we like it or not, as the current situation stands, they have a certain latitude when it comes to what they want to do with their money. If they want to advance Islamic radicalism in the Muslim world, there's nothing America can really say about it. Their hands are tied. If they turn one way, defend their morals, they risk the economic backlash from the Sauds (and the Sauds do not like, just as the Chinese do not like, being overtly vituperated by America); if they compromise their morals, they maintain strong economic ties with the Sauds, and thus the Free Market system which supports entrepreneurial growth at home. However, they have to deal with those who criticize their morals, or, as conspiracy theorists are won't to do, accuse them of controlling Al Qaeda, despite the fact that Salafism, Wahabism, and the spectrum of Islamism which combines politics with religion, develops quite naturally on Islamic soil.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I would rather believe the words of Christ over the words of Mohammad. I don't put my faith in the Old Testament, just the words of the Prince of Peace. IMO, as far as what I've read, it the best bet on available established religions. If you don't stand for something, then you'll fall for anything.

Granted, turning the other check has gotten me beat up and ripped off, but at least I didn't have to lie, steal, cheat, torture and dismember unbelievers as Mohammad would have you do. As far as pitting one religion against the other, true Christians on earth don't stand a snow flake's chance in hell against Islam, but J.C. only promises suffering in this world for spiritual rewards in the here after.

ETA: My fifth grade teacher was a hard core southern Baptist who keep a Bible on his desk and a wooden paddle by his side. That guy didn't spare the rod either. He certainly put me in my place when I mentioned evolution during science period. So I do sympathize with you Big Furry.

reply to post by adjensen


There are radical muslims and there are normal everyday muslims. Just like there are radical and everyday christians. People need to learn the difference.

-SAP-

reply to post by MichiganSwampBuck


my avatar comes from the movie malcolm x and it represents a quote"liberate our minds by any means necessary"

reply to post by MichiganSwampBuck


any true follower of mohammed is peaceful, mohammed never beat a woman nor a child, for years he faced attrocities from the pegans arabs and yet he had belief that his kindness would change the world. After years of suffering under the pegans arabs it was finally after revelation he fought back and fought for justice and equality. In the west less then a 100 years ago women were not allowed to vote nor work, mohammeds first wife hired him and asked for his hand she was a wealth business woman and trusted him because of the reputation he earned as the trustworthy. Many muslims do not study Mohammed and all the other prophets because if they did they would never harm innocent people nor animals nor would they harm the enviroment because these are main parts of islam, as muslims we believe in christianity and judaism and have to respect them like our brothers they are people of the book and also we must learn from those prophets who came before mohammed this is the essence of islam, most muslims are culture followers and traditionalists and stray far far from the true religion, so please distinguish between muslims and muslims by names.

reply to post by grandmastersam2287


I won't go on about how I feel about Islam and I'm glad that you're following Mohammad's peaceful teachings.

How about Islam on slavery? I don't want to hear about how it was a form of charity either, I've heard that one before. Once the Christian movement in the colonies stopped the enslavement of Native Americans, the slave owners turned to the Muslim slave trade and started using African slaves. Not Christian, I know, but it doesn't sound like charity to me on Islam's part. Of course the Muslims were not racist, they enslaved everyone that wasn't a believer.

reply to post by SloAnPainful


That's a meaningless sleight of hand.

How many Christian terror organizations exist? How many Christian terror attacks have you heard of?? The answer to both these questions is a big fat nada.

Christian "extremism" and Islamic extremism are by no means comparable, either in number, or event.

This is due to a whole host of factors. For one, Christianity has a slew of canonical verses which render it apolitical, such as 'render unto caeser that which is caesars". Conversely, Islam has always been identified with, at one level of another, with political rule. This makes the martial and violent statements in the Quran arguably more than mere metaphor and allegory.

It's true that despite this situation, Islam has rarely if ever been applied in the strict by-the-book way that the extremist fundamentalists want it to be applied - just look at Iran, and see how fundamentalist can scarcely stay afloat. At the same time, because there IS a basis for political rule in the Quran, and that the Umma (collective Islamic community) has historically seen themselves as determining the laws in the society they live in, Islam, far more than Christianity, will have the potential to go to greater and more extreme lengths to secure political power.

These maniacs, the 50 + % organizations regarded as terror organizations by the state department, have this delusional idea, based in a extreme, and mostly mythological interpretation of the Quran, that despite all evidence to the contrary, that they can terrorize non-Muslims into accepting Muslim superiority.

Most Muslims living in the west realize the folly of this idea, not only because it is unfeasible, but because it is barbaric, and contradicts everything that the human spirit instinctively strives after, namely, a peaceful existence.

As the uncle of the 2 murderers said, and I think he was right on when he said it: ""Being losers; hatred to those who were able to settle themselves.". That's the problem. When Muslims have difficulty acclimating themselves to non-Islamic social conditions, they turn away with resentment, which in turn prepares some of them for accepting radical ideas. Whether in Egypt, or Iran, or Indonesia, its not those Muslims able to embrace the modernity whom we have to worry about, but the insecure, envious, and socially disenfranchised Muslim youth who turn to chauvanistic doctrines to help explain why their world is the way it is.

So to summarize: Certain fundamentalist christians may be undeniably stupid and backwards in their thinking, but they are by no means as violent and dangerous as radical Muslims. To say so is calumny, and wreaks a tad bit of the same type of baseless intolerance that fundamentalists show for others they disagree with.

reply to post by dontreally


Don't Really,

I think that your posts here are excellent and I think your perspective on the subject is really good - very close to the truth. I going to star all of them right now. Thanks.

reply to post by dontreally


While that was a nice and informative read, it doesn't relate to Sloanpainful's post at all. What Sloanpainful was saying is that there is a difference between people with an without a radical view. Simply.

But to your point of the differences between Islam and Christianity....yes there are difference. And no, Christianity is not currently being misused to the violent effect of others. But that was not always so. Despite all the differences you mention.

reply to post by dontreally


So, you believe the Saudis and Gulf Arabs are independent actors? As independent actors, they have the freedom to engage in Islamic fundamentalism? As independent actors, they can invite the US government to their soil to protect them against their Muslim neighbors. Yeah, they invited an infidel army to protect them against their neighbors. Does that make them independent?

No, that makes them slaves. Every petrodollar they have is reinvested in the west. In exchange, they get protection from them.

The fact that they engage in support of Islamic fundamentalism and are puppets of the west is the stuff of conspiracy theories.

If you can't see a possible, hidden connection there then well...um don't hurt yourself thinking. Heh.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


For the sake of clarification I wanted to show how utterly inappropriate the equivalence she made with the word "radical" was.

A "radical" Christian is someone who takes the Bible hyper-literally, and might annoy you with his holier-than-thou condemnations of your lifestyle. A radical Muslim will try to kill you.

As you can see, there is no 'equivalence' in any shape or form between these two ideas, yet they were drawn together by sloanpainful (who probably meant well) in a sort of careless way.

As for the history of Christianity, it's surprising just how much the gospels had to be misinterpreted for the Church to amass the power that it had.

If you've read Doestevskys 'The Brothers Karamazov", I think the Grand Inquisiter chapter succinctly explains the rationale of the leaders of the Catholic Church. Like your typical temporal rulers, most of them were hardly religious, most of them seemed to abide by a pagan ethic (which would make the location of the Church in Rome apropos), which explains why they did what they did.

All that can be said with certainty is that the Christian gospels - the bare text - hardly justified the way it was interpreted by those who sought to convert or control others.

In a similar way, the Hebrew scriptures contain material that could justify an assortment of political evils, but the Rabbis, probably because of their subordination to non-Jewish powers, sought an interpretation that moralized the immoral events found in their scriptures.

This is what Islam needs. Unfortunately, unlike Judaism, which had 1500 years to build this exegetical edifice, Islamic scholars - from the Asharites, Al Ghazali onwards - have fashioned a mode of exegesis that supports a worldview that can hardly be described as rational. In any case, this is what many modern Muslims are trying to do: in order to effect change at the ideological level, change must be established at the metaphysical and epistemological level by Islamic theologians. Otherwise the fundamentalists will continue rearing their ugly heads over and over again by referencing the works of authorities who have dictated Islamic thinking for centuries.

As you can probably imagine, this is a very difficult issue, which may take decades, perhaps centuries, to work itself out.

reply to post by Unferth

Yeah, they invited an infidel army to protect them against their neighbors. Does that make them independent?

First, it's a truism of international relations that all countries are to one extent or another a "independent actor" i.e. pursuing their own interests.

As for your other claims about them "inviting the US government to their soil", what are you talking about here? Are you referring to the bases they have in UAE and Qatar? Or the weapons contracts they have with Saudi Arabia, and Egypt? These are compromises. Just as the US has to 'take' the evils generated by the house of Saud, so too does the UAE and Qatar realize it has to accept the help of the "infidel" Americans, if of course they want to feel secure amidst a bellicose enemy like Iran right next door.

Regardless of religion, everyone knows personal interest takes precedent in all matters. The naive are willing to "trust" that God, or Allah, or whatever abstract force they trust in is far less dependable than concrete relationships established with other temporal actors. In short: the UAE is more safe having American bases and defense shields in the emirates than 'believing', despite the nobility of the thought, that Muslim solidarity will be all thats needed to overcome enemies with advanced military technology.

As beautiful as the spiritual may be, all intelligent people realize that tangible, physical things is what insures safety - not faith alone.

The fact that they engage in support of Islamic fundamentalism and are puppets of the west is the stuff of conspiracy theories.

It's actually the precise opposite. What you're suggesting is in fact, conspiracy theory. Actual scholars, university educated political writers, professors of political science, its common knowledge that this is how politics works. You give and you give way. The Sauds have oil, which gives them a measure of power, which means that they have the clout to get what they want in some matters - such as promoting their stone age religious fundamentalist abroad..

How you even have trouble understanding this, despite its rudimentary logic, is laughable.

The Sauds are no more puppets of the "west" than Canada is a puppet of the states, or a more apt analogy, a heroine addict is a puppet of his heroin addiction.

The Sauds are addicts. They are wanton, gross, gluttonous pigs who indulge their appetites with the dollars they recieve from oil. Are they "puppets" of the west? Or are they victims of their own greed? But since all matters cannot be simplified to just one perspective, at the same time, the west and America are dependant on the Sauds (and other OPEC countries); they tolerate their tyrannical regimes; they tolerate their nefarious promotion of radical ideology. They feel pressured not to mention them when they are the party chiefly implicated by terrorism.

It all makes sense. You just need a well organized mind to understand it.

Originally posted by dontreally
A "radical" Christian is someone who takes the Bible hyper-literally, and might annoy you with his holier-than-thou condemnations of your lifestyle. A radical Muslim will try to kill you.

I beg to differ -- if we have Christians like Eric Rudolph and Scott Roeder, two of those I cited in the OP, those are radicals on a par with radical Islam, though far less prevalent and notable, of course.

You seem to be equating Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism with Radicalism, and I think that's a misrepresentation that can lead to the diminishment of the evils that perverted or deluded Christians can do "in the name of God."

reply to post by dontreally


See you are under mass propaganda which prevents you from seeing reality. This brainwashing occurs all throughout the United States from young ages the youth are indoctrinated into saying things such as "freedom for all" while they oppress and terrorize people throughout the world. This propaganda is getting worse day by day. You are brainwashed into believing capitalism is superior to socialism, while socialist countries are forcefully oppressed with armies and militaries throughout the world by the west. Sure socialist countries face problems, the biggest problem they face is the west tries to destroy them.

The CIA and the US military ARE the western terror organizations. Why don't you look into their activities throughout the world. They go around stealing material resources throughout the world, overthrowing regimes all around the world for their economic reasons, ill throw out some examples if you are unaware of what they do. Look into what they did in Iran, Chile, Guatemala, Venezuela, and I could go on and on and on.

When you have a poor people like the people of Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq etc. who really have no military you resort to fighting in any way you can, and that is called terrorism by the west. Let me ask you a question, if the U.S. was occupied by a foreign country's military who was stealing resources, bombing and killing civilians, conducting raids all throughout the country. How do you think U.S. citizens would react to such activity by a foreign military? Do you think there wouldn't be rebellions? And people upset, using whatever means they have to fight back?

The U.S. needs to learn to respect other peoples beliefs and cultures, whether those beliefs are religious or economic, and they need to permeate that in their foreign policy. Until they hold onto notions of superiority to the rest of the world, and continue fighting wars left and right, nobody in the world will like them, and there will be plenty of people ready to blow themselves up against what they see as an evil imperialistic monster of a country.

reply to post by dontreally


Great post, and fair response.

The only thing i would add is that from a zero sum standpoint, the reasons behind the violence don't matter. The fact that it has existed is the basis of Sloanpaintful's response.

reply to post by adjensen

though far less prevalent

It's impossible to overstate how "far less prevalent" Christian terrorism is. For one, the motives are different, they're organization is different, and the program itself - to usher in a Christian society based on Christian law - is without scriptural precedent.

The reason why Islam produces Islamism and terror attacks, suicide bombings, etc, is because Islam is uniquely equipped to create such aberrant offshoots.

I'm of course not saying that Islam doesn't have a good side. I myself am quite fond of Sufism. But Islams political minded scriptures blurs the lines between religion and state, and thus the boundaries between what qualifies as 'spiritual' and 'banal'.

Extremists somehow manage to interpret terror attacks and suicide bombings as acts of martyrdom, as acts of piety, done for the sake of Allah and the Umma (who are one is some abstract sense).

I equated fundamentalism with fundamentalism, which, you're right, appears quite differently in Christianity than it does in Islam. I should also clarify that fundamentalism comes in different forms; there is what we can call 'moderate' fundamentalism, in which the person follows the basic, literal interpretation of the law, but tempers it with a spiritual quietism. Then theres a hard-lined fundamentalism that is sometimes indistinguishable from a fascist political movement.

Christianity has yet to produce a 'militant christian' doctrine with an explicit political agenda, whereas Islam has arguably had one from it's very beginnings, and has been regenerated by Wahibism, Salafism, the writings of Hassan Al Bannah, Sayd Qutb, Mohommad Iqbal, Ayatollah Khomein, movements like the Muslim Brotherhood, and a swath of terror organizations, both Sunni and Shia, like Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda.

It's like comparing an ant hill to a skyscraper when you compare Islamic and Christian terrorism.