Jump to content

Try and have a peaceful discussion,,,


Tigermike

Recommended Posts

Try and have a peaceful discussion.

UK Muslim Leader: Islam Not a Religion of Peace

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has released a review of its strategy in the war on terrorism. The report failed to even mention the word "Islam."

CBN News traveled to London to talk with Anjem Choudary, a leading Muslim radical who says Islamic teachings are what shaped his pro-jihad message.

Although both George W. Bush and Barack Obama have declared that Islam is a religion of peace, Choudary begs to differ.

A Religion of Peace?

"You can't say that Islam is a religion of peace," Choudary told CBN News. "Because Islam does not mean peace. Islam means submission. So the Muslim is one who submits. There is a place for violence in Islam. There is a place for jihad in Islam."

Choudary is the leader of Islam4UK, a group recently banned in Britain under the country's counter-terrorism laws. He wants Islamic Sharia law to rule the United Kingdom and is working to make that dream a reality.

While Islamic radicals in the United States usually prefer to speak in more moderate tones while in public, masking their true agenda, Choudary has no such inhibitions.

He has praised the 9/11 hijackers and has called for the execution of Pope Benedict. He also stirred controversy recently when video emerged of him converting a 10-year-old British boy to Islam.

Openly Praising Jihad

Choudary told CBN News his group is a "non-violent political and ideological movement" that resides in the UK under "a covenant of security."

Yet he openly praises violent jihad.

"The Koran is full of, you know, jihad is the most talked about duty in the Koran other than tawhid -- belief," he said. "Nothing else is mentioned more than the topic of fighting."

Several former members of Choudary's group have been arrested on terrorism charges.

"A very significant amount of former al-Muhajiroun people were involved in terrorist plots against this country," London-based terrorism expert Peter Neumann said. "A number of people have actually gone to Afghanistan, joined the Taliban and died fighting for the Taliban."

Choudary refuses to condemn acts of terror including 9/11 and the July 7, 2005 London bombings, which killed 52 people.

Islam More than Religion

CBN News asked Choudary for his thoughts on the 7/7 bombings on London's transport system, and whether he condemned them.

"For the people who carried it out, it was legitimate," he replied. "If you look at the will of the 7/7 bombers Mohammed Siddique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, they would be justified. And there are many verses from the Koran and many statements to say that's the Islamic argument. And that is a difficult Islamic argument to refute. And there are many scholars who support that argument as well."

Choudary says his group is merely following core Islamic teachings and that Islam is much more than a religion.

"This particular belief is more than just a religion," he declared. "It is not just a spiritual belief. It is, in fact, an ideology which you believe in and you struggle for and you are willing even to die for, because you believe in that: That is your whole life."

Choudary seems to relish being called Great Britain's "most hated man" and pledges to continue his rallies calling for the overthrow of the British system.

link

Islam and the "Killing of Innocents"

by Denis MacEoin

September 17, 2014 at 5:00 am

Last week, before the Islamic State beheaded its third Westerner, U.S. President Barack Obama announced that, "ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents."

Well, not exactly.

How often -- despite the current spectacle of the Islamic State [iS, ISIL or ISIS] in Syria and Iraq -- do we hear politicians and church leaders say that Islam is a religion of peace; that Islamic extremism is a modern innovation, a profound deviation from some imagined "true" Islam, and even that its very name, the word "Islam," means peace?

It is not just Muslims who say that Islam is a religion of peace: some Western politicians and churchmen repeat it too.

Britain's Prime Minister, David Cameron, emphasized it last week on BBC on Sept 13, in response to the beheading by ISIS of the British aid worker, David Haines.

Former U.S. President George W. Bush said so more than once, including in a

he delivered on September 17, 2001.

So too, said British Prime Minister Tony Blair: "There is not a problem with Islam. For those of us who have studied it, there is no doubt about its true and peaceful nature."

U.S. President Barack Obama has previously been just as unquestioning as he is today. In November 2010, in Mumbai, India, he said: "The religion [islam] teaches peace, justice, fairness and tolerance. All of us recognize that this great religion cannot justify violence."

Pope Francis I has made similar statements: "Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence."

British Islamist Anjem Choudary, for one, however, in a 2010 interview with CBN News flatly rejected such interpretations of Islam:

"You can't say that Islam is a religion of peace," he said, "Because Islam does not mean peace. Islam means submission. So the Muslim is one who submits. There is a place for violence in Islam. There is a place for jihad in Islam."

Choudary is right. Although the Arabic word for peace, salam and the word for submission (islam) come from the same three-consonant root, they have quite distinct meanings and come from different forms of the verb. No-one who knows Arabic could mistake one word for another.

Islam does not mean "peace." Islam means "submission." Its root, salam, means peace, but not in the Western sense of the word. It means the peace that will prevail in the world once mankind converts to Islam, although which branch of Islam is apparently still in dispute. [ 1 ]

What is curious is that no-one, so far as I know, has placed much or any emphasis on the earliest history of Islam. By any measure, this early history sadly demonstrates that Islam has never been a religion of peace and that modern jihadists, especially Salafis, take their inspiration directly from the actions of the first three generations of the faith, the Salaf (forefathers), the companions of the prophet, their children and their grandchildren. What is, or should be, worrisome, is that these figures serve as constructive role models for Muslims today.

The Qur'an is replete with injunctions to fight jihad; modern radicals themselves say they take their inspiration from it. There are estimates of some 164 jihad verses in the Qur'an. And those do not include innumerable passages commanding or describing holy war in the Hadith, or the prophet's biography. A few examples (translations by the author) include:

"Let those who sell this world's life for the hereafter fight in the way of God. For whoever fights in the way of God, whether he is killed or lives victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward." 4: 74

"I will cast fear into the hearts of the unbelievers. Therefore behead them and cut off all their fingertips." 8:12

"Slay the unbelievers wherever you come upon them, take them captives and besiege them, and waylay them by setting ambushes." 9:5

Regrettably it is impossible to re-interpret the Qur'an in a "moderate" manner. The most famous modern tafsir, or interpretation, of the holy book is a multi-volume work entitled, In the Shade of the Qur'an. It was written by Sayyid Qutb (d. 1966), the Muslim Brotherhood ideologue often regarded as the father of modern radicalism. His interpretation leads the reader again and again into political territory, where jihad is at the root of action.

The Qur'an contains many peaceful and tolerant verses, and these could well be used to create a genuine reformation -- something several genuine reformers have tried to do. But there is a catch. All these moderate verses were written in the early phase of Muhammad's career, when he lived in Mecca and had apparently decided to allure people. When he moved to Medina in 622, everything changed. He was soon a religious, political and military leader. During the next ten years, as his religious overtures were sometimes not welcomed, the peaceful verses gave way to the jihad verses and the intolerant diatribes against Jews, Christians and pagans. Almost all books of tafsir take for granted that the later verses abrogate the early ones. This means that the verses preaching love for all are no longer applicable, except with regard to one's fellow Muslims. The verses that teach jihad, submission and related doctrines still form the basis for the approach of many Muslims to non-believers.

One problem is that no one can change the Qur'an in any way. If the book contains the direct word of God, then the removal of even a tiny diacritical mark or a dot above or beneath a letter would be blasphemy of the most extreme kind. [ 2 ] Any change would suggest that the text on earth did not match the tablet in heaven -- the "Mother of the Book," much as Mary is the Mother of Christ -- that is the eternal original of the Qur'an. If one dot could be moved, perhaps others could be moved, and before long words could be substituted for other words. The Qur'an itself condemns Jews and Christians for having tampered with their own holy books, so that neither the Torah nor the Gospels may be regarded as the word of God. The Qur'an traps us by its sheer unchangeability.

The besetting sin of modern Western politicians, church leaders, and multiculturalists is their ready acceptance of ignorance and their promotion of their own ignorance to the rank of expertise. Islam is one of the most important topics in human history, but how many schoolchildren are given details such as the ones mentioned above in their history classes? How many textbooks paint an honest picture of how Islam began and how it continued as a background to how it continues today?

Furthermore, how many real experts are denied contact with government and politicians so that lies are not made the basis for governmental decisions in the West? How many times will truth be sacrificed to fable while Muslim extremists bomb and shoot and behead their way to power?

These facts do not come from modern Western accounts; they are there in the founding texts of Islam, in the histories of al-Waqidi and al-Tabari. No-one is making any of this up. Muslims who avoid their own history should be brought face to face with it in all future discussions.

Unfortunately, even many moderate Muslims still fail to see the reality behind some of the most elementary aspects of their own religion. Just after the 7/7 bombings in London, in July 2005, the Guardian newspaper asked several people for their views on the attacks. One, an amiable young Muslim leader, said he had been horrified by the murders committed by four of his co-religionists. He said that if only young Muslims were to read the Qur'an, they would back away from all forms of violent extremism.

All the world's jihadi fighters constantly read and quote from the Qur'an, where they find more than enough justification for violent assaults on non-Muslims, apostates and "hypocrites" (munafiqun — a word taken straight from the Qur'an, meaning something similar to backsliders).

Apart from the Qur'an, the six books of Hadith and the biography of the prophet (the Sira) represent a world born of violence. Muhammad, after taking up residence in Medina, led his followers into battles and on raids into tribal areas. He fought in major conflicts like the battles of Badr, Uhud, and al-Khandaq. Ibn Ishaq, his biographer, says he fought in twenty-seven battles. In addition, he sent out lieutenants to raid caravans -- raids are known as ghazwat. About 100 such raids took place, primarily to call Arabs to Islam. If they deviated from the true faith -- as we are seeing in the Islamic State today – backsliders, like pagans, were to be fought until they either accepted Islam or were killed.

Muhammad ordered or supported some forty-three assassinations of opponents, including several poets who had challenged him in verse. Better known are his reprisals against three Jewish tribes, two of whom were expelled from Medina, while the men of the third, the Banu Qurayza, were condemned to death by Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, whose judgement was endorsed by Muhammad. As many as 900 male members of the tribe -- including boys of thirteen and upwards -- were beheaded; the women and children were sold into slavery, or else the women were made concubines for the Muslim men. [ 3 ] The Medinan period is nothing but rounds of violence piled on violence, all ordered or carried out by the "Prophet of Peace."

Muhammad died in 632, and was to be succeeded either by his father-in-law Abu Bakr (d. 634), regarded by Sunnis as the first Caliph, or by his son-in-law 'Ali, regarded by Shi'is as the first of the twelve Imams -- thus placing the main split between Sunnis and Shi'is in Islam within days of Muhammad's death.

The first undertaking on which Abu Bakr embarked as Caliph was to launch a series of attacks across the Arabian Peninsula. The Bedouin tribes, who had followed their custom of withholding allegiance once the leader of an associated tribe died, apparently believed their fealty to Islam had ended when Muhammad departed this world. Abu Bakr treated this as apostasy and sent out cohorts to force the tribesmen back into the fold of Islam. These Wars of the Ridda resulted in fifteen battles. Once this had been settled, Abu Bakr sent Muslim armies out to conquer Iraq (a province of the Persian Sasanid Empire) and the Levant (part of the Christian Byzantine Empire).

When Abu Bakr, an old man, died of fever in August 634, he was succeeded by 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (d. 644). Under his rule, the entire Sasanid Empire and two-thirds of the Byzantine Empire were conquered for Islam. Battle followed battle, bloodshed came after bloodshed. In 644, a group of Persians, outraged by the conquest, conspired to kill 'Umar and succeeded when a former slave best known as Abu Lu'lu' assassinated him during prayers.

Even though the third of the four "Rightly-Guided" Caliphs, 'Uthman ibn 'Affan (d. 656), was already 65 on his ascension, battles to conquer or bring into line half of the known world took place during his reign. His conquests stretched as far as modern-day Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Dagestan, Turkmenistan and Armenia. Sicily and Cyprus were captured. Armies moved into North Africa, and later into the Iberian Peninsula and southern Italy.

Towards the end of his life, however 'Uthman became unpopular with many. Medina, where he had his capital, became a hotbed of intrigue and unrest. In 656, an armed revolt broke out, and 1000 rebels, with orders to assassinate the Caliph, headed from Egypt to Medina. Some entered his house and assassinated him, after which his supporters turned on them and fighting broke out. The religion of peace was still on the march.

'Uthman was followed by Muhammad's son-in-law, 'Ali (d. 661), the last of the four Rashidun (Rightly-Guided) Caliphs. Almost immediately, 'Ali was caught up in a quarrel that ended in civil war. He faced the prophet's wife, A'isha, at the Battle of the Camel in 656, when reportedly 10,000 were killed. He also faced the forces of Mu'awiya (later the first of the Umayyad Caliphs) at Siffin (657), where 'Ali lost 25,000 men and Mu'awiya 45,000. 'Ali himself was assassinated in his capital of Kufa by a Muslim extremist during prayers in 661.

The Umayyads took power and established their long-lived capital in Damascus. But violence swiftly followed. In 680, when Mu'awiya's son Yazid (d. 683) assumed the Caliphate, a grandson of Muhammad, Husayn the son of 'Ali, rebelled and raised forces to attack Yazid. The two sides met at Karbala in 680; in the fighting, Husayn, his family and his followers all perished. This marks the most crucial moment in the split between the Shi'a (for whom Husayn is the third of their Imams) and the Sunni majority.

699.jpg

In the Battle of Karbala, depicted in Abbas Al-Musavi's painting, Husayn, the son of 'Ali and grandson of Muhammad, was killed along with his family and all his followers by the armies of the Umayyad Caliphate. It was the most crucial moment in the split between Shi'a and Sunni Islam. (Image source: Brooklyn Museum)

The rest of Islamic history is marked by annual jihads, wars between different Muslim rulers and empires. In India alone, between sixty and eighty million Hindus may have been put to death during the centuries of invasions by Muslim armies from 1000 to 1525 [ 4 ] Is this simply to be forgotten?

So long as the Qur'an is on the shelves of every mosque and Islamic bookstore, young men and women in their thawbs and hijabs can find in it the perfect justification for their continuing endeavours in the path of jihad and the killing of innocents.

[ 1 ] See http://www.religioustolerance.org/faisal01.htm; http://www.al-islami.com/islam/religion_of_peace.php;

http://d1.islamhouse.com/data/en/ih_books/single/en_Islam_Is_The_Religion_Of_Peace.pdf

http://www.studymode.com/essays/Islam-a-Religion-Of-Peace-212736.html

[ 2 ] The dot or nuqta is of enormous importance in Shi'ism, where the Imam 'Ali asserted that he is the dot beneath the letter b at the very beginning of the first word of the Qur'an, bismillah, which makes him the first of all created beings. Sects such as the Nuqtavis and Babis in Iran have read deep meanings into this. It may be a dot, but it can mean the world.

[ 3 ] See William Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina, pp. 208-216, Oxford, 1956, the definitive study of this period. The present writer was a student of Watt's in the 1970s.

[4] K.S. Lal, Growth of Muslim Population of Medieval India (1000-1800).

link

Who is Denis MacEoin?

Denis MacEoin

Distinguished Senior Fellow, Gatestone Institute

Denis MacEoin is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute. He first graduated with a B.A. and an M.A. in English Language and Literature from Trinity College, Dublin, followed by a second 4-year M.A. in Persian, Arabic, and Islamic Studies from Edinburgh and a PhD in Persian/Islamic Studies from Cambridge (King's College).

He has lectured in Arabic and Islamic Studies at Newcastle University, and written several academic books and numerous articles, as well as many pieces of journalism. Recently, he has written reports on hate literature, Shari'a Law, and Islamic schools.

He has worked as a writing tutor as the Royal Literary Fund Fellow at Newcastle University, where he has also taught a short course in creative writing ('Writing in Genre'). He was for some years the editor of a US-based journal, The Middle East Quarterly. In 1992, HarperCollins published a volume of his journalism under the title New Jerusalems: Islam, Religious Fundamentalism, and the Rushdie Affair.

He runs a small company offering editorial and proofreading services for undergraduate and postgraduate students and academic staff.

link

Link to comment
Share on other sites





The enemy is clearly defined. THEY must be stopped...NOW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great. You found a random yahoo to prop up your bigotry.

As usual you have nothing to offer.

Show where he's wrong fool.

The only bigot here is you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great. You found a random yahoo to prop up your bigotry.

You are correct. If wanting to protect my Country and my children from proud murder-rapists-thugs makes me a bigot. You are right Mr Chamberlin...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great. You found a random yahoo to prop up your bigotry.

You are correct. If wanting to protect my Country and my children from proud murder-rapists-thugs makes me a bigot. You are right Mr Chamberlin...

689fac91dad71d753b8e7919199c1c24b98ed900ad4dc06fccd0c595d1f6f02d.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great. You found a random yahoo to prop up your bigotry.

You are correct. If wanting to protect my Country and my children from proud murder-rapists-thugs makes me a bigot. You are right Mr Chamberlin...

689fac91dad71d753b8e7919199c1c24b98ed900ad4dc06fccd0c595d1f6f02d.jpg

On this thread it's more like idiots everywhere. And the chief idiot is serving as spokesman. Hahahaha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great. You found a random yahoo to prop up your bigotry.

As usual you have nothing to offer.

Show where he's wrong fool.

The only bigot here is you.

He had a thought once, but alas, it escaped him. ;-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great. You found a random yahoo to prop up your bigotry.

You are correct. If wanting to protect my Country and my children from proud murder-rapists-thugs makes me a bigot. You are right Mr Chamberlin...

In which branch of the military are you serving?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great. You found a random yahoo to prop up your bigotry.

You are correct. If wanting to protect my Country and my children from proud murder-rapists-thugs makes me a bigot. You are right Mr Chamberlin...

In which branch of the military are you serving?

If I told you...well... :-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great. You found a random yahoo to prop up your bigotry.

You are correct. If wanting to protect my Country and my children from proud murder-rapists-thugs makes me a bigot. You are right Mr Chamberlin...

In which branch of the military are you serving?

If I told you...well... :-)

So you don't want to protect anyone, you need someone to protect you. Tough talk from someone who isn't planning on doing any fighting. We can use more like you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We seem to want to bury our head in the sand about these people but it is the religion itself. Go back and read the things that Mohammed himself said and did. He wasn't about peace. Islam is not a religion of peace. You won't find baptsits or catholics or hindus or buddhists doing this stuff. Want to make a joke about any of these people? You might get a slight rebuke but you won't get your head lopped off like if you draw a cartoon about Mohammed that these people don't like. These other religions don't have anything resembling sharia law. I'm proud to be a bigot against these people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tough talk from an anti military lib. Next?

So, your cause isn't worth your life but, worth the lives of others. How brave, how patriotic.

Yeah, you love the institution of the military, you just have no regard for the lives of the people in the military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tough talk from an anti military lib. Next?

So, your cause isn't worth your life but, worth the lives of others. How brave, how patriotic.

Yeah, you love the institution of the military, you just have no regard for the lives of the people in the military.

You make no sense at all. I grow weary of you. Grow a brain...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tough talk from an anti military lib. Next?

So, your cause isn't worth your life but, worth the lives of others. How brave, how patriotic.

Yeah, you love the institution of the military, you just have no regard for the lives of the people in the military.

You make no sense at all. I grow weary of you. Grow a brain...

Chickenhawks.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great. You found a random yahoo to prop up your bigotry.

Ben, it would seem you've not even tried to research this topic; if you had, you would have found a centuries old analysis of this very topic. The first to write on this topic were not "recent yahoo's" from England...but the leading imam's of the earliest muslim writings...abrogation (or the naskh in Arabic), the differences in the Meccan vs Medinan suras,the umma needing live in perpetual war until all are muslims, Qur'an 9; the Verse of the Sword, etc. Also, read the writings of early westerners who lived for extensive times in muslim lands. You will find their views and the views of the imam's in perfect alignment. How about choosing not to remain willfully ignorant on the topic and do some scholarship.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not so much willfully ignorant. Libs are just not very smart. Otherwise, they would not be libs...:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not so much willfully ignorant. Libs are just not very smart. Otherwise, they would not be libs...:-)

Great. You found a random yahoo to prop up your bigotry.

Ben, it would seem you've not even tried to research this topic; if you had, you would have found a centuries old analysis of this very topic. The first to write on this topic were not "recent yahoo's" from England...but the leading imam's of the earliest muslim writings...abrogation (or the naskh in Arabic), the differences in the Meccan vs Medinan suras,the umma needing live in perpetual war until all are muslims, Qur'an 9; the Verse of the Sword, etc. Also, read the writings of early westerners who lived for extensive times in muslim lands. You will find their views and the views of the imam's in perfect alignment. How about choosing not to remain willfully ignorant on the topic and do some scholarship.

Are you suggesting this is cause for us to go and slaughter them? I acknowledge the practical side of your "might makes right" view of the world. However, I detest the hypocrisy of it. Surely, you will acknowledge that almost every culture, every religion is guilty of barbarism at some point. "Do some scholarship"? Maybe you should think about how prejudice and bias undermine intellect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. If only those Americans that were beheaded had tried reasoning with those fine upstanding muslims......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not so much willfully ignorant. Libs are just not very smart. Otherwise, they would not be libs...:-)

Great. You found a random yahoo to prop up your bigotry.

Ben, it would seem you've not even tried to research this topic; if you had, you would have found a centuries old analysis of this very topic. The first to write on this topic were not "recent yahoo's" from England...but the leading imam's of the earliest muslim writings...abrogation (or the naskh in Arabic), the differences in the Meccan vs Medinan suras,the umma needing live in perpetual war until all are muslims, Qur'an 9; the Verse of the Sword, etc. Also, read the writings of early westerners who lived for extensive times in muslim lands. You will find their views and the views of the imam's in perfect alignment. How about choosing not to remain willfully ignorant on the topic and do some scholarship.

Are you suggesting this is cause for us to go and slaughter them? I acknowledge the practical side of your "might makes right" view of the world. However, I detest the hypocrisy of it. Surely, you will acknowledge that almost every culture, every religion is guilty of barbarism at some point. "Do some scholarship"? Maybe you should think about how prejudice and bias undermine intellect.

Wow, I can't even begin to figure out where to point out the wholes in this childlike argument...but, you set a low bar; so let's see.

  • First, I made no recommendation as to a course of action...so I can't begin to fathom your leap to my alleged "might makes right" view of the world comes from.
    • The discussion was how bogus the religion of peace assertion is...and how it is supported by muslim theology and centuries of muslim writings
    • and yes, western writers with knowledge of the topic...
    • thanks for conceding the relevant point

    [*]Second, you detest the hypocrisy of my argument...I detest lazy, childlike arguments...you seem to want to hang on to the old "since you once sinned; you have no right to call out the sins of others" fallacy; or take action to distance your self from the sins of others. That approach would have civilization still running around naked gathering berries and buggering each other in caves. Learning from mistakes; and not repeating them, is what experience is all about...so you basically assert we can't learn from experience and call others to turn away from bad behavior...in this case mass murder, genocide, misogyny, etc. I assume you have taken that approach with your kids?

  • Third, other cultures have been guilty of barbarism...they turned away from it and condemned it. .. loudly, in doctrine, in writing, in practice, in teaching, adding punishments for those who continued the bad behavior....I could go on...the facts are 1300 years later, the Muslims are not doing that...they are doubling down on barbarism...because it is at the core of what their founder did; and what their teachers teach.

Happy to have another discussion on "what to do" when people are trying to kill you and are hell bent on eliminating your way of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not so much willfully ignorant. Libs are just not very smart. Otherwise, they would not be libs...:-)

Great. You found a random yahoo to prop up your bigotry.

Ben, it would seem you've not even tried to research this topic; if you had, you would have found a centuries old analysis of this very topic. The first to write on this topic were not "recent yahoo's" from England...but the leading imam's of the earliest muslim writings...abrogation (or the naskh in Arabic), the differences in the Meccan vs Medinan suras,the umma needing live in perpetual war until all are muslims, Qur'an 9; the Verse of the Sword, etc. Also, read the writings of early westerners who lived for extensive times in muslim lands. You will find their views and the views of the imam's in perfect alignment. How about choosing not to remain willfully ignorant on the topic and do some scholarship.

Are you suggesting this is cause for us to go and slaughter them? I acknowledge the practical side of your "might makes right" view of the world. However, I detest the hypocrisy of it. Surely, you will acknowledge that almost every culture, every religion is guilty of barbarism at some point. "Do some scholarship"? Maybe you should think about how prejudice and bias undermine intellect.

Wow, I can't even begin to figure out where to point out the wholes in this childlike argument...but, you set a low bar; so let's see.
  • First, I made no recommendation as to a course of action...so I can't begin to fathom your leap to my alleged "might makes right" view of the world comes from.
    • The discussion was how bogus the religion of peace assertion is...and how it is supported by muslim theology and centuries of muslim writings
    • and yes, western writers with knowledge of the topic...
    • thanks for conceding the relevant point

Then you can understand why it was phrased as a question. What are you promoting?

  • Second, you detest the hypocrisy of my argument...I detest lazy, childlike arguments...you seem to want to hang on to the old "since you once sinned; you have no right to call out the sins of others" fallacy; or take action to distance your self from the sins of others. That approach would have civilization still running around naked gathering berries and buggering each other in caves. Learning from mistakes; and not repeating them, is what experience is all about...so you basically assert we can't learn from experience and call others to turn away from bad behavior...in this case mass murder, genocide, misogyny, etc. I assume you have taken that approach with your kids?

That is just ludicrous rambling. Talk about "lazy" and "childlike". If we are of superior intellect and/or morality, if we have evolved from animals in caves, wouldn't a more thoughtful, strategic approach be possible? Shouldn't there be something other than simply escalating violence? The idea that we "aren't cavemen but, let's act like cavemen", is void of any logic.

  • Third, other cultures have been guilty of barbarism...they turned away from it and condemned it. .. loudly, in doctrine, in writing, in practice, in teaching, adding punishments for those who continued the bad behavior....I could go on...the facts are 1300 years later, the Muslims are not doing that...they are doubling down on barbarism...because it is at the core of what their founder did; and what their teachers teach.

This culture does not deserve to mature as others have? Is it simply not possible? Is their time up? You are aware of the violent acts and rhetoric of other religions, aren't you? You are aware of the hypocrisy in your statement, aren't you?

Happy to have another discussion on "what to do" when people are trying to kill you and are hell bent on eliminating your way of life.

Your experiences with Muslims are different from mine. None have ever tried to kill me. I have gone to school with them, socialized with them, been friends with them, been educated by them, dined with them, worked with them. Not one has ever tried to harm me. Perhaps your statement is another based in fear, prejudice, and bias?

Your "might makes right philosophy" serves no one but those who are content with perpetual war but, you tell me, is Lindsey Graham correct, are "they" going to kill us all? Is it time to act like hysterical children? Or, is this situation so bad that you are you preparing to enlist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...