how peaceful is islam ?

[I don't know]

you are completely wrong, I understand the view of the west,

- You just said you didn't.

however its based on fallacies. The main objection to this cartoon is the timing and its effects on people, this cartoon was meant to inspire hatred and abuse of muslim minorities in the west and degrade a culture of people.

- I really doubt the people working in that newspaper have such an instrumentalist view on things. But it may be somewhat close to the truth.

Just for the sake of having things in context, the article that the drawings were supposed to illustrate was about a man who was trying to get an artist for his children's book - but because he wanted a picture of Muhammed in this children's book, no artist dared do the job, because of fear of crazy "muslims".

It's different when this insult is actually against Muslims when America and its western allies has already devasted Afghanistan and Iraq and is threatening to invade Iran, its a broader cultural war against islam.

it's anger at denegration of culture and heritage of 1.7 billion people,carttons are a cultural tool used to increase hatred of muslims and make support for attacks against muslims.

- But the cartoons didn't harm islam at all, just like Piss Christ never harmed christianity. Piss Christ is also only one, among many, examples of christianity-bashing in the west. So if you believe this is a singeling out of islam and a special treatment of muslims, you are very very wrong.

What harms islam is people doing horrible things in the name of islam - the cartoons just made asses of the cartoonists, and don't deserve the attention they've gotten.

Among other lies, these posters have proclaimed: Muslims want to enslave others, Muslims can have intercourse with babies and animals, Muslims think of non-muslims as urine, Muslims are cultists, Muslims worship the moon.

- And you've, of course, corrected them by citing credible sources? Or have you just chewed their heads off for being bigoted and ignorant? :|

Do you expect me to be happy?

- I don't expect you to be anything - I'm just saying that acting reasonable is good, even if it's more than can reasonably be expected some times.

People can follow what they want. Majority of this forum is Athiest, and you see me posting on this forum and even agreeing with many of them on issues. Humans are one race.

- That's not really an answer to what I posted:

"'[Blasphemy] should be banned against all religions like Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrain. I believe a man has the right to say Islam is false, and the Prophet was wrong, however they do not have the right to say Islam is evil or Prophet is terrorist in an Islamic state, nor do they have the right to curse Buddha or Jesus or Moses, peace to them.'

Now, while I appreciate the universalist attitude (though I forgot to ask you about atheism, which you don't mention), I'd like to repeat what I said above: "it's better that people express their misdirected beliefs so they can be corrected", I also think I made some other comments in the thread about the cartoons :\"

The Muslim world should be governed by the laws which are popular among its people which is Islamic rule, and this our view of life, it should be reflected in our government and institutions.

- Not Democracy, then.

It's the act of confessing to it or engaging in intercourse which is punishable in the Islamic state.

- Mkay, so being homosexual, but pretending not to be and living in celibacy or with a wife is okay.

Kind of like the christian view (not shared by all christians, mind you), only you won't find many christians today who say it should be illegal.

These are big subjects that really should have their own topics, but... how do you feel it harms societies? Explain this.

The West can do whatever they want with their gays, I won't support it but I dont care if they are allowed to become this.

- And do you believe your view here is aligned with islam?

Public apostasy is a crime in an Islamic State because it decreases Islamic propagation which is the primary focus of the state.

- I see. Well, seems we've found another point to disagree on. IMO no government should propagate any religion over others.

The Islamic State only punishes those who pubicly display their apostasy and engage in preaching.

- And preaching of any non-islamic religion is to be illegal regardless, right?

Also, again, what do you mean by public display? If an appostate tells his friends, is that enough?

The state is not allowed to adopt practices which discourage Muslims from Islam. Other religionists can have their festivities in non-Muslim areas and in their religious temples, which the Muslim state will allow and give money for using Jizya (military exemption tax).

- How does publically practised non-islamic religion "discourage Muslims from Islam"?

 

[I don't know]

I believe the Koran encourages well treatment and freeing of slaves, but doesn't specifically oppose slavery. You should read about the Mamluk dynasties for an interesting account about slaves under islam

The original post you responded to is on page 17. Looking at it now I don't think we really have a huge amount of disagreement, since you said you don't subscribe to the idea of Universal islamic tolerance. I think I mostly was confused by your opening comment here.



Which you must admit isn't one of you clearest

- Well, you might want to clarify what you meant by "universal islamic tolerance", because, while I certainly don't believe there has ever been such a thing as an islamic administration that was acceptably tolerant according to my own very strict standards, I certainly don't think that such a thing would be impossible (it obviously wouldn't be against sufi islam, I also think it could be harmonized with sunni islam, but I don't know enough about Shi'aism, and I know next to nothing about the Khawarij - maybe you could teach us about them, Diamondhearts?), nor that most muslims would oppose such a government more than they oppose the current governments of the middle east.

If all those governments do not serve the people why don't the people rise up and overthrow them? We see in many places that muslims are fully capable of violent actions when they perceive some slight against islam yet when it comes to thier own governments there seems to be very little action.

- Because the governments of the middle east have become very good at preventing this from happening. Seems to me, most of them rely on a carefully established balance of populism, fear and propaganda. People dislike their governments, but not always enough to risk life, freedom and health in actively working against them.

that's not to say there are no anti governmental movements in the ME, though. Some of the more palatable ones include the "Kifaya" movement and the Egyptian islamic brotherhood.

 

[Sock puppet path]

I believe the Koran encourages well treatment and freeing of slaves, but doesn't specifically oppose slavery. You should read about the Mamluk dynasties for an interesting account about slaves under islam

I have read about the mameluks and am familiar with thier history. Yes The path to social and political advancement was not closed to them but the bottom line is they were slaves and a few happy endings do not whitewash a program of systemic slavery. I think it is a major shortcoming of the quran that it didn't forbid slavery, it was supposed to be the final message from god for all time and it left slavery in place, historic opportunity missed.

- Well, you might want to clarify what you meant by "universal islamic tolerance", because, while I certainly don't believe there has ever been such a thing as an islamic administration that was acceptably tolerant according to my own very strict standards, I certainly don't think that such a thing would be impossible (it obviously wouldn't be against sufi islam, I also think it could be harmonized with sunni islam, but I don't know enough about Shi'aism, and I know next to nothing about the Khawarij - maybe you could teach us about them, Diamondhearts?), nor that most muslims would oppose such a government more than they oppose the current governments of the middle east.

I meant a belief that islamic governance is inherantly more tolerant than other forms (something akin to what Diamond believes). I believe that the most tolerant period for the Caliphate was when the Mutazili school of thought was dominant, unfortunately this only lasted some 100 years.

- Because the governments of the middle east have become very good at preventing this from happening. Seems to me, most of them rely on a carefully established balance of populism, fear and propaganda. People dislike their governments, but not always enough to risk life, freedom and health in actively working against them.

Right, the more I read about the middle east, it's history and islam the stronger my suspicion becomes that it is no accident that most muslim countries have autocratic leadership. Islam itself is very autocratic even more so than christianity I believe.

that's not to say there are no anti governmental movements in the ME, though. Some of the more palatable ones include the "Kifaya" movement and the Egyptian islamic brotherhood.

I am aware of the opposition movements in the middle east the point is that they seem rather toothless when it comes to accomplishing any changes where they are found, question is why? Do they lack support in the general populace or are they just inefficient?

 

[Buddha1]

Islam is perfect and without error.

Muslims are human beings, hence subject to fault.

Where Muslims are to blame, they are wrong. Where Non-Muslims are to blame, they are wrong.

People are the same everywhere.

There is good and bad in every human being.

There is good and bad in every human group.

But it is the system or the ideology that they live under which tends to bring out the best or the worst in them.

Islam does tend to promote the traits of irrational aggressive violence, fanaticism/ blind faith and intolerance amongst its adherents.

There are equally bad people who follow other religions or don't follow any religion at all. But their faiths do not give them an excuse to play out, leave alone encourage their inhuman tendencies.

 

[I don't know]

I have read about the mameluks and am familiar with thier history. Yes The path to social and political advancement was not closed to them but the bottom line is they were slaves and a few happy endings do not whitewash a program of systemic slavery.

- It was more than that. Under the Mamluks, you could, in fact, not become a ruler at all unless you were a first-generation slave. I believe there was only one time this rule was not followed. Sure, they were slaves, but in such a completely different way than what we associate with the concept. It's not unlikely most of them were glad to be slaves.

Not that I would support such a system of rule, I'm just saying.... well... mostly because it's a fun thing to consider.

I think it is a major shortcoming of the quran that it didn't forbid slavery, it was supposed to be the final message from god for all time and it left slavery in place, historic opportunity missed.

- Does any other major world religion explicitly forbid slavery? I'm not disagreeing with you, just wondering :\

I meant a belief that islamic governance is inherantly more tolerant than other forms (something akin to what Diamond believes). I believe that the most tolerant period for the Caliphate was when the Mutazili school of thought was dominant, unfortunately this only lasted some 100 years.

- Well, it obviously isn't. Plain old liberal democracy is far more tolerant (again, officially) as a government than any other government I know has existed (except maybe some anarchist communes here and there maybe. I really should read more up on Pre-Fascist Spain....)

Right, the more I read about the middle east, it's history and islam the stronger my suspicion becomes that it is no accident that most muslim countries have autocratic leadership. Islam itself is very autocratic even more so than christianity I believe.

- It may be part of the old desert morality. A group of bedouin in the desert need a leader, and need to follow this leader almost unquestionably. They also have an intense feeling of dependance on each other (you try to live in the desert alone, and you'll die) following from which there is a strong sense of solidarity and a thinking of "what's best for the group" over "what's best for the individual". Now, while those kinds of societies are dying out today, islam has a strong root in these "values of the desert" as my history teacher calls them.

Now that kind of "group over individual" rhetoric has led socialists to be seducted by authoritarianism and may have led muslims to the same.

I'm just blindly theorising here, though.

I am aware of the opposition movements in the middle east the point is that they seem rather toothless when it comes to accomplishing any changes where they are found, question is why? Do they lack support in the general populace or are they just inefficient?

- Hehe, there's a silly old man who sits around on my way to the university who'll always shout the best his mix of english and egyptian arabic can communicate on how much he loves Europe and hates Mubarak

Generally, I get the feeling most people dislike the government of Egypt, though. A lot because they've been snuggling up to the US and Israel, but also because the democracy is a joke. I've stumbled across two demonstrations, and purpously gone to one, all three for the free Ayman Nour movement, which is connected to the Kifaya movement, all of them had very few participants (maybe 100 people), and a marked presence by the police. Both plainclothes and in uniform with mp5s or AK47s, especially the one I saw today had busloads of the boys in blue several blocks in every direction (especially many towards the government building at Midan Tahrir, understandably enough), probably because of labour day.

So the govt is certainly worried, but I don't know if that answers your question :l

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Diamondheart, more on slavery and abuse of women in the Islamic world,"Slaves" In Saudi: The Muslim World's Shame
By Naeem Mohaiemen, July 22, 2004

On July 15, Human Rights Watch issued a report on the condition of Foreign workers in Saudi Arabia. The revelation that "Guest Workers" are systematically abused in Saudi Arabia should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with that region's history. What a shame that it took Sarah Whitson, executive director of HRW's Middle East and North Africa Division, to finally speak the unpalatable truth. "We found men and women in conditions resembling slavery," said Whitson in the press conference announcing their findings. The report described "the pervasive abuses foreign workers endure...the abysmal and exploitative labor conditions many workers face, and the utter failure of the justice system to provide redress." The real question is this - why did the Islamic world not uncover these human rights abuses, so close to the holy city of Mecca? Based on interviews taken in Bangladesh, India and the Philippines, HRW found abysmal and exploitative labor practices, wanton rape of women workers, and beheading of guest workers accused of crimes without proper legal process. Anyone who has visited Saudi Arabia knows the racism with which many ordinary Saudis treats the brown and black-skinned masses that come for Hajj. Like hundreds of Bangladeshis every year, my parents endured these indignities during their recent pilgrimage. When he returned from Mecca, my father told me, "To them, we will always be miskeen (beggar). Doesn't matter what we do, or where we come from. They see our skin and don't need to see more."
The name of the author is Muslem? no zionist connection.

 

[DiamondHearts]

Based on interviews taken in Bangladesh, India and the Philippines, HRW found abysmal and exploitative labor practices, wanton rape of women workers, and beheading of guest workers accused of crimes without proper legal process. Anyone who has visited Saudi Arabia knows the racism with which many ordinary Saudis treats the brown and black-skinned masses that come for Hajj. Like hundreds of Bangladeshis every year, my parents endured these indignities during their recent pilgrimage. When he returned from Mecca, my father told me, "To them, we will always be miskeen (beggar). Doesn't matter what we do, or where we come from. They see our skin and don't need to see more."
The name of the author is Muslem? no zionist connection.

The Saudi government is an exploitive monarchy completely contrary to the Islamic beliefs. This family is responsible for many excesses in the Holy Land including jailing of Islamic dissidents, abuse of minorities, massacring of the holr scholars, destroying the houses and the historic places of Sahabah and Rasulullah (s), and also supporting Western hegemony against the Muslim world.

The Saudi royal family never represented Islam, and never will. Their members drink wine, engage with prostitutes, spend money in excess, keep money from the poor, and punish Islamic dissidents. They came in power with the help of the British and French and fought and massacred people in the Holy Mosque while they were praying.

The Saudis guest worker program is very exploitive of other individuals, where the sponsor has the right to deny you your rights, this wrong practice is yet another reason why these people are so hated in their own country and indeed the Islamic world.

The Saudi royal family hardly represents the ordinary Saudi citizens, many of whom are against the rule of the family due to their hoarding of the people's wealth and ruling with such a heavy hand.

The Saudi family treats many people like trash compared to themselves, I am personally aware of incidents where the mayor of the city of Makkah was wlaking in the streets and pushed people out of the way. He pushed an old Saudi in the street because he was in his way, and many Saudis who were watching and many pilgrims started protesting, but little can be done when the Saudi family walks around with gunned bodyguards and American soldiers to protect them and their rule.

Peace

 

[Kawika]

If Islam is a religion of Peace, then why is this statement 1,000 percent true.

Not all Muslams are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslums (Note: 19/21 of the 9/11 were of Saudi lineage)

1970's - Muslums violate international law and hold captive 318 Americans
1970's - Muslum terrorists kill (by throwing over board a wheel chair bound American) an American - Achilia Laura cruise ship
1980 - Muslum terrorists kill American Service member (U.S. Navy diver) and torture him, then throw his lifeless body out of the aircraft (civillian).
1980's - Mulsums blow up Beruit Marine Barracks killing 220 of my Brothers in arms
1990's - Mulsum terrorists hit the USS Cole and kill twenty two of my Brothers in Arms
1990's - Mulsum terrorists attack various African, European, and other "infidel" embassies
2000's - Muslum terrorists (simotaneously) attack over 300 (yes, that is three hundred) French Cities and burn vehicles. French Security Agencies discover at least five "bomb factories". These factories have over one hundred molative cocktails in various degrees of manufacturing. In almost every French City, at least one such factory was discovered by the French Security agency. If any one thinks that a simotaneous attack on 300 French Cities is "just a work of disgruntled [mulsum] youths, then you think the simotaneous Blitzkrieg of Poland was just a WWII German Military maneuver.

Let us now compare this with Judiasm, Toaism, Christianity, Buddism, Sikh, etc..

For this to be similar, the following would have to happen

Judiasm - there would have to be an international Jewish organization and or organizations that specifically, and daily attack non-jews. these organizations would have to have at least one Jewish State
1. training
2. arming

Jewish "freedom fighters" to fight non-jewish peoples and demand a Jewish State in every place that these people establish a synagoge.
the Same would have to apply to Christianity, Buddism, Taoism, Sikh etc..

If any one on this thread can categorally prove absolute evidence to the above statement, then email it to me and I will gladly attempt to authenticate it (by tripple checking it with other sources.)
So far, only Islam fits this bill and has for over 1600 years.

 

[Quigly]

How Peacful is Islam?

Throughout the history of Islam, they haven't proven a good track record for themselves.

 

[S.A.M.]

If Islam is a religion of Peace, then why is this statement 1,000 percent true.

Not all Muslams are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslums (Note: 19/21 of the 9/11 were of Saudi lineage)

1970's - Muslums violate international law and hold captive 318 Americans
1970's - Muslum terrorists kill (by throwing over board a wheel chair bound American) an American - Achilia Laura cruise ship
1980 - Muslum terrorists kill American Service member (U.S. Navy diver) and torture him, then throw his lifeless body out of the aircraft (civillian).
1980's - Mulsums blow up Beruit Marine Barracks killing 220 of my Brothers in arms
1990's - Mulsum terrorists hit the USS Cole and kill twenty two of my Brothers in Arms
1990's - Mulsum terrorists attack various African, European, and other "infidel" embassies
2000's - Muslum terrorists (simotaneously) attack over 300 (yes, that is three hundred) French Cities and burn vehicles. French Security Agencies discover at least five "bomb factories". These factories have over one hundred molative cocktails in various degrees of manufacturing. In almost every French City, at least one such factory was discovered by the French Security agency. If any one thinks that a simotaneous attack on 300 French Cities is "just a work of disgruntled [mulsum] youths, then you think the simotaneous Blitzkrieg of Poland was just a WWII German Military maneuver.

Let us now compare this with Judiasm, Toaism, Christianity, Buddism, Sikh, etc..

For this to be similar, the following would have to happen

Judiasm - there would have to be an international Jewish organization and or organizations that specifically, and daily attack non-jews. these organizations would have to have at least one Jewish State
1. training
2. arming

Jewish "freedom fighters" to fight non-jewish peoples and demand a Jewish State in every place that these people establish a synagoge.
the Same would have to apply to Christianity, Buddism, Taoism, Sikh etc..

If any one on this thread can categorally prove absolute evidence to the above statement, then email it to me and I will gladly attempt to authenticate it (by tripple checking it with other sources.)
So far, only Islam fits this bill and has for over 1600 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres#Pogroms_and_religious_massacres

Why don't you tell me?

Remember, there are two categories:

The Christians who fight FOR Christianity

Those who happen to be Christians and fight.

Just as there are Muslims who fight for Islam and those who just happen to be Muslim but are fighting for political reasons.

 

[S.A.M.]

Diamondheart, more on slavery and abuse of women in the Islamic world,"Slaves" In Saudi: The Muslim World's Shame
By Naeem Mohaiemen, July 22, 2004

On July 15, Human Rights Watch issued a report on the condition of Foreign workers in Saudi Arabia. The revelation that "Guest Workers" are systematically abused in Saudi Arabia should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with that region's history. What a shame that it took Sarah Whitson, executive director of HRW's Middle East and North Africa Division, to finally speak the unpalatable truth. "We found men and women in conditions resembling slavery," said Whitson in the press conference announcing their findings. The report described "the pervasive abuses foreign workers endure...the abysmal and exploitative labor conditions many workers face, and the utter failure of the justice system to provide redress." The real question is this - why did the Islamic world not uncover these human rights abuses, so close to the holy city of Mecca? Based on interviews taken in Bangladesh, India and the Philippines, HRW found abysmal and exploitative labor practices, wanton rape of women workers, and beheading of guest workers accused of crimes without proper legal process. Anyone who has visited Saudi Arabia knows the racism with which many ordinary Saudis treats the brown and black-skinned masses that come for Hajj. Like hundreds of Bangladeshis every year, my parents endured these indignities during their recent pilgrimage. When he returned from Mecca, my father told me, "To them, we will always be miskeen (beggar). Doesn't matter what we do, or where we come from. They see our skin and don't need to see more."
The name of the author is Muslem? no zionist connection.

What are the Americans doing about this:


As many as 50,000 women and children from Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe are brought to the United States and forced to work as prostitutes or servants. In the United States during the past two years, the government has prosecuted cases involving fewer than 300 victims. In other countries where this problem is frequent, the prosecution rate is even lower.


Child sex tourism is a growing phenomenon in today's rapidly shrinking world, as access to and information about other countries becomes easier and easier to obtain. More than two million children are enslaved in the child sex trade. The demand for child prostitutes comes both locally and internationally. Reports indicate that perhaps 25 percent of sex tourists are Americans.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/09/10/child.exploitation/index.html

"The three-year study, funded in part by the U.S. Department of Justice, analyzed the problem of sexual exploitation -- particularly commercial sexual exploitation -- of children in the United States, Canada and Mexico.

"Child sexual exploitation is the most hidden form of child abuse in the U.S. and North America today," said Richard J. Estes, co-author of the study. "It is the nation's least recognized epidemic."

He said the findings debunked many myths about what kind of children are involved in sexual exploitation.


Study summary
Among the findings of a study titled "The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in the U.S., Canada and Mexico":

# 325,000 children are sexually exploited in the United States annually. Of that figure, 121,911 ran away from home and 51,602 were thrown out of their homes by a parent or guardian.

# 25 percent of exploiters of children are other children.

# Children who engage in prostitution can earn between $200 and $1,500 per day.

# 75 percent of children who are victims of commercial sexual exploitation are from middle class backgrounds.

# 40 percent of the girls who engaged in prostitution were sexually abused at home, as were 30 percent of the boys.


"Seventy-five percent of the children we met on the streets are children from working class and middle class families and the simple majority of them are white," Estes said.



The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency estimates that 50,000 people are trafficked into or transited through the U.S.A. annually as sex slaves, domestics, garment, and agricultural slaves.

http://www.gvnet.com/humantrafficking/USA.htm

"

 

[Vega]

What are the Americans doing about this:


As many as 50,000 women and children from Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe are brought to the United States and forced to work as prostitutes or servants. In the United States during the past two years, the government has prosecuted cases involving fewer than 300 victims. In other countries where this problem is frequent, the prosecution rate is even lower.


Child sex tourism is a growing phenomenon in today's rapidly shrinking world, as access to and information about other countries becomes easier and easier to obtain. More than two million children are enslaved in the child sex trade. The demand for child prostitutes comes both locally and internationally. Reports indicate that perhaps 25 percent of sex tourists are Americans.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/09/10/child.exploitation/index.html

"The three-year study, funded in part by the U.S. Department of Justice, analyzed the problem of sexual exploitation -- particularly commercial sexual exploitation -- of children in the United States, Canada and Mexico.

"Child sexual exploitation is the most hidden form of child abuse in the U.S. and North America today," said Richard J. Estes, co-author of the study. "It is the nation's least recognized epidemic."

He said the findings debunked many myths about what kind of children are involved in sexual exploitation.


Study summary
Among the findings of a study titled "The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in the U.S., Canada and Mexico":

# 325,000 children are sexually exploited in the United States annually. Of that figure, 121,911 ran away from home and 51,602 were thrown out of their homes by a parent or guardian.

# 25 percent of exploiters of children are other children.

# Children who engage in prostitution can earn between $200 and $1,500 per day.

# 75 percent of children who are victims of commercial sexual exploitation are from middle class backgrounds.

# 40 percent of the girls who engaged in prostitution were sexually abused at home, as were 30 percent of the boys.


"Seventy-five percent of the children we met on the streets are children from working class and middle class families and the simple majority of them are white," Estes said.



The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency estimates that 50,000 people are trafficked into or transited through the U.S.A. annually as sex slaves, domestics, garment, and agricultural slaves.

http://www.gvnet.com/humantrafficking/USA.htm

"

Wow!! you have been doing your homework!!!

 

[S.A.M.]

Wow!! you have been doing your homework!!!

Not done yet!

 

[S.A.M.]

Mossad Death Squads :

http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/zionism/mossad/mossad_death_squads.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossad

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/04/07/NZ_230704_loyalty.html

Fake Al-Qaeda
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fakealqaeda.html

How Mossad got America to bomb Libya and fight Iraq
http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/libya.html


Mossad's chequered past:

http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-terrorists-mossad.html

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1032


Some Mossad operations:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/BoD/Mossad/

 

[S.A.M.]

What do non-Muslims say about Mohammed?

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/prophet/lifeofprophet.html

http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/quote1.html

http://www.evangelist.org/year2000/0520jesu.htm

http://www.amaana.org/ismailim.html

 

[Satyr]

Any civilization or culture at its peak of power has the magnanimous pretension of appearing tolerant and open-minded.

It is when a culture, a meme, is at its lowest point that it struggles for survival and ascension and it discards its mantle of ‘civility’ and becomes brutal and vile towards those that confront it.

It wasn’t long ago when Christianity was no less honest that Islam is today and one day, when it wanes and tumbles, it will, once more, return to its past methods.

How easy it is for a man with his belly full to proclaim the virtues of asceticism and generosity.
Take away his food and his certainty and he turns gluttonous and selfish…in other words: pure.

 

[GeoffP]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres#Pogroms_and_religious_massacres

I'm sure it has not escaped your notice that the list corresponding to Christian terrorism is tiny, tiny indeed.

 

[GeoffP]

What do non-Muslims say about Mohammed?

What, precisely, are these links meant to provoke, Sam? That non-Muslims occasionally, under the delusion of ecumenicality, compliment Mohammed on a few of his lighter impulses?

It might be more apt to ask what the general impression of islam and Mohammed is among non-muslims. I imagine that that perspective is becoming more and more negative the more people hear about life under islam and sharia, and as they begin to read more about islam itself.

 

[Kawika]

nuns all wear the same catholic clothes are they part of a cult? buddhist monks have been known to light themselves on fire in protests in india, are they part of a cult?

:

Nuns are not part of a cult.
Reasons:
1. If a nun wants to leave the Sister hood, they are allowed. they do not fear leaving the sister hood (they are not targete for death or any other reprocussions.)
2. Nuns are allowed to voice thier opinions and that opinion is allowed to be viewed properly
3. Not all nuns wear the same "uniform". this "uniform" was designed to separate and identify these nuns as "off limits" during any major catastrophy.
4. These "uniforms" also allow nuns to walk where even the most hardened combat veteren would not dare follow. the idea is that these nuns represent the Catholic Church and that they have safe passage.
5. the Catholic Church allows free thought and expansion of religious ideas (within reason).

Since I do not know enough about Buddism, it would be unfair to espouse any ignorance regarding that religion.

 

[WildBlueYonder]

Duendy you must have seen muslims praying in mosques, do you consider it normal practice for everyone to move & chant as one, & to bob up and down like a chicken eating corn in unison.

this is mob psychology, like happens to people at football games (both kinds), were fans do the "wave" yell, scream, cry, laugh, (as if it really mattered in their lives)

I have nothing against muslims, i hate mind control, & muslims are being manipulated by there religon.

I think conformity was an early goal of this religion, else why enforce 5 daily prayers, why is 7th century arabic culture the standard? & the names? what with that? What was that dude's name that invited us on video to convert to islam? was it Joe Doe? or Mustapha al bin Zarkawi?