surenderer said:Never did I say or post that it didnt Path....if I said otherwise please post it or stop trying to antagonize me with one liners
Relax, I wasn't trying to antagonize you just keep it in perspective.
surenderer said:Never did I say or post that it didnt Path....if I said otherwise please post it or stop trying to antagonize me with one liners
surenderer said:I know you think that terrorism and lies is something that only happens to the West
but in truth During World War I the British sought Arab support against the Ottoman Turks, who ruled much of the Arab world. In return for their support, the British promised the Arabs their long-sought independence. The British, however, also made promises about the same territory to the Zionists who sought to establish a Jewish state on the site of Biblical Israel. The Balfour Declaration, issued on November 2, 1917, stated that "His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object. . . ." Significantly, however, the sentence ended with the words, "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." (The U.S. Congress endorsed the Balfour Declaration, using similar language, in 1922.)(44) Toward the end of World War I, however, the Bolsheviks exposed a secret Anglo-French agreement to divide the Ottoman Empire between Great Britain and France. Arab independence had never been seriously intended. Meanwhile, Great Britain was preparing to allow Jewish immigration into Palestine.(45) please inform me where I am wrong and we can open a new thread debating this
So you conclude whatever is not illegal is morally acceptable and not indecent. Enacting/Revoking a law can change you moral or immoral or decent or indecent overnight.Michael said:morality and decency are for societies to decide – not for you to decide or for a book to decide. And, in the Netherlands, displaying the koran in what YOU consider the most offensive manner is not considered offensive in the least - else it would be illegal.
So it is actually morally acceptable and not considered indecent.
I don't know how many muslims there know such art form exists.When you choose to move to a country where displaying quotes from the Koran on a woman’s naked body is considered art – then don't bitch about it when it happens.
You can do that, i will not kill you.What if someone here takes out a pen right now and writes a quote from the koran across their arse and posts in on the net - should they be killed?
Michael said:“. . . .besides murder”. Interesting choice of words – seeing that “besides” means “in additional to” or “as well”
Anyway surrenderer, what’s your point? I’m not sure if you are disagreeing with me or not?
Also, I was wondering, according to the Qur’an:
1) Under what set of circumstances is a Muslim allowed kill?
2) Can a Muslim kill another Muslim?
3) How should Muslims treat with polytheists?
4) How are Jews viewed (negatively or positively)?
5) How are other non Muslims viewed?
6) According to the Qur’an should you respect another people’s religion (say Hindu or Shinto or Buddhist) or should you try to convert them to Islam?
7) According to the Qur’an, what should a Muslim do when Islamic land is lost to non-Muslim armies? (for example: Spain)
Regarding the Muslims that killed all those innocent school children:
1) What do you think about those Muslims? If it’s not too personal, what sort of emotional response did the incident have on you?
2) Do you think they were “true” Muslims?
3) What do you think it was in the Qur’an that was used to justify killing all those school children?
Regarding the revenge killing of the Buddhists priests last week:
1) What do you think about those Muslims? Again, if it’s not too personal, what sort of emotional response did the incident have on you? Any?
2) Do you think they were “true” Muslims?
3) What do you think it was in the Qur’an that was used to justify killing all those Buddhists priests?
path said:Relax, I wasn't trying to antagonize you just keep it in perspective.
Michael said:I read your post again, I don't see where you address "morality and decency are for societies to decide – not for you to decide or for a book to decide".
I’m saying that morality is a societal decision:
For Example:
1) In America it used to morally acceptable to purchase a slave and force them to work.
2) In Arabia it is morally acceptable to prevent women from driving a car.
3) In the Netherlands it is morally acceptable to print the Qur’an on a naked woman’s body and display her naked Qur’an written body to the public.
So you see following the Law is a little different. Most Muslims follow the Law – but don’t paint naked women’s bodies. Not all Americans agreed with slavery and as such didn’t buy slaves (even though they could have) and I’m sure many Arabian men let their wives drive a car when outside of Saudi Arabia.
I'm saying that society decides what is moral by it's norms - I gave a bunch of examples of how morality changes over time. OK, it used to be moral to own a slave in the ME and under the Ottoman Empire, Kurds were especially renowned for selling Arabic as slaves. And Arabs were renowned for selling East Africans as slaves – and guess what, they were ALL Muslims and it was considered normal. And even God itself - in the Good Book Qur’an lays out guidelines for treating with slaves – wow how nice of it.everneo said:So you conclude whatever is not illegal is morally acceptable and not indecent. Enacting/Revoking a law can change you moral or immoral or decent or indecent overnight.
Thanks for that response. I'm sure you are peaceful and you read into the Qur'an as such.surenderer said:Peace to you :m:
Yes, it was morally correct at the time. It changed because society changed. It isn’t up to the individual or a book to say what is morally correct.surenderer said:Well personally I dont think that morality is for society to decide as you have said that at one time it was legal to purchase slaves in America.....so was that right? Society said it was....but people fought against it and now things are different.
What about in the city? Come on. PM said SA is one of the safest places on earth (next to Singaporesurenderer said:As far as Arabia is concerened the reason Woman arent allowed to drive cars there is because there are long stretches of roads between towns and woman (they werent always not allowed to drive) would get abducted or kidnapped while traveling between them...so outside of Arabia would be different But I dont hold Saudi up as the textbook example of Islam either
Michael said:Thanks for that response. I'm sure you are peaceful and you read into the Qur'an as such.
But what is it in the Qur'an, that other people, take out of context? What versus are used? As you know there’s a lot of killing going on in Gods name by Muslims – and so there must be some sort of set of verses that motivate people?
I’ve read about Martyrs getting in good with god (I personally find this baffling) that verse in particular seems to motive young children to do some crazy stuff? Maybe that is what I’m talking about.
Also, did Mohammed ever fight in any wars? If so why - against whom?
If Islam is a religion of peace – as you suggest it is.
i) Why were the Persians conquered?
ii) Why were the French fought in northern Spain?
iii) Why fight and occupy the Greeks?
iv) Why were the northern Indians conquered?
v) Why were the Armenian Christians all but exterminated?
All of this was done by Islamic peoples – wasn’t it?
There’s the old adage: “actions speak louder than words”, you’ll have to explain these sorts of actions before I can agree Islam is a peaceful religion. I personally see it as the ultimate culmination of government and religion – started by the Egyptian Pharos and carried on through Islam.
In this, the actions of Islamic peoples are no different than that of ANY other countries. Over the past 1400 years they’ve fought one another as much as they fought non-Muslims. If Islam and the Qur’an were to have ANY sort of an effect in regards to peace, one would think that the areas that are manly Islamic would be peaceful, but for the past 1400 years that just isn’t the case – is it? What does that say to you? History doesn’t lie. What does that mean to you in regards to Islam? Why in 1400 years under Islam hasn't anything chnaged? Personally, I think it’s just mixing into the pot of national fervor that of religious zeal – all of which is used to motivate people, and you get the same old bullshit propaganda there always is.
Nothing has been particular special in terms of human development and peaceful succession in the ME under Islam as before Islam. The place has been volitile - yet also very creative. As a matter of fact, other than a change in religion there doesn’t seem to be much of any change in the region. What does that say to you? You would think it would be more peaceful wouldn’t you?
I often think of the Chinese and how they hold such a grudge against the Japanese for the WWII atrocities. Some of the Japanese I talk to say they were just trying to bring the Chinese up to modern times so that the East could stand against the West – basically it was for the Chinese own good. The Chinese seem to say similar bull when talking about Tibet, and funny enough many still adore Mao, even though he ultimately is responsible for 10s of millions of more Chinese deaths than the Japanese could have managed. I see the ME in a similar light – if you’re Arab and you visit Iran you’ll find a sort of prejudice that exist in all peoples - even if the world is Islamic this will never change – and the ME is a prime example, because it is Islamic and it hasn’t changed in 1400 years.
Anyway, even Proud Muslim used to mutter something about “we don’t turn the cheek, we hit back . . “ or some such none sense. He must get that from somewhere in the Qur’an?
Thanks for that response. I'm sure you are peaceful and you read into the Qur'an as such.
But what is it in the Qur'an, that other people, take out of context? What versus are used? As you know there’s a lot of killing going on in Gods name by Muslims – and so there must be some sort of set of verses that motivate people?
I’ve read about Martyrs getting in good with god (I personally find this baffling)
Also, did Mohammed ever fight in any wars? If so why - against whom?
If Islam is a religion of peace – as you suggest it is.
one would think that the areas that are manly Islamic would be peaceful, but for the past 1400 years that just isn’t the case – is it?
Nothing has been particular special in terms of human development and peaceful succession in the ME under Islam as before Islam.
Would you consider Spain or Greece in with the etcetera? I only ask because Osama read a few versuses from the Qur’an and ended in saying that bascially, God commands Muslims as their duty to regain these lands.surenderer said:Indeed...but remember The Koran doesnt tell Muslims to never fight back....as I have told you their are reasons that Muslims are ordained to fight....so when one looks at the violence perpetrated by Muslims one has to look at the circumstances around it...for example Iraq....Muslims should be fighting their because as I have told you in an earlier post that the Koran tells Muslims to fight for their land....same with Palestine ,Kashmire etc.....
Yeah, that sounds about like something you’d find in the Bible.surenderer said:Well even the Bible talks about martyrs being in God's grace(stephen for example) it's suppose to be an honor to die for your religion....but that is washed away if your violence was unjust (in my opinion)
I think Islam has been tolerant – as you point to, and intolerant, as I mentioned in the killing off of a few million Christian Armenians. So it’s not Islam per say as much as it is the culture of the region.surenderer said:Islam has had bad rulers in the past (and today also) but the whole religion shouldnt be judged by this...Think about this The largest Muslim country in the world today is Indonesia --- and there were never any battles fought there Additionally, Christian and Jewish minorities have survived in the Muslim lands of the Middle East for centuries. Countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan all have Christian and/or Jewish populations. If Islam taught that all people are supposed to be killed or forced to become Muslims, how did all of these non-Muslims survive for so long in the middle of the Islamic Empire?
Yes that is true, and I’m not trying to take anything away from that – that isn’t what I’m saying.surenderer said:dont you know of all the inventions that were created and started by Muslims?....everything from arithmatic (an arabic word by the way) to poetry to astronomy.......some of these things centuries before the West did...Did you know that the Taj Mahal was built by Muslims?...I will post more later inshallah....peace gotta go to work
I’m still curious as to your reasoning for these – I’m focusing on this because I’m trying to make the point that these were done by Muslims against non-Muslims. If Islam is peaceful and advocate using force only after provocation, how do you explain this?Michael said:If Islam is a religion of peace – as you suggest it is.
i) Why were the Persians conquered?
ii) Why were the French fought in northern Spain?
iii) Why fight and occupy the Greeks?
iv) Why were the northern Indians conquered?
v) Why were the Armenian Christians all but exterminated?
All of this was done by Islamic peoples – wasn’t it?
I just wonder, the muslims who rule Kashmir state(province) also use Koran to fight against the trouble makers.surenderer said:Muslims should be fighting their because as I have told you in an earlier post that the Koran tells Muslims to fight for their land....same with Palestine ,Kashmire etc.....
Society merely relects the degree of morality prevailing generally at any point of time. Even during slave trading times there were people who preferred not to have slaves & not to be slaves.Michael said:I'm saying that society decides what is moral by it's norms - I gave a bunch of examples of how morality changes over time. OK, it used to be moral to own a slave in the ME and under the Ottoman Empire, Kurds were especially renowned for selling Arabic as slaves. And Arabs were renowned for selling East Africans as slaves – and guess what, they were ALL Muslims and it was considered normal. And even God itself - in the Good Book Qur’an lays out guidelines for treating with slaves – wow how nice of it.
Neither.Do you think it’s moral to own a slave or to be one?
Would you consider Spain or Greece in with the etcetera? I only ask because Osama read a few versuses from the Qur’an and ended in saying that bascially, God commands Muslims as their duty to regain these lands.
If Islam was such a highly enlightened way of life, why is it that the people who live by it have continued to fight one another? I don’t think it’s doing much enlightening.
Your example of Indonesia sums it up – it isn’t Islam nor is it the Qur’an, but instead its the culture that determines how peaceful a society will be. In essence Indonesians could worship trees or be Christian or Buddhist and they’d still be quite peaceful.
That’s why I’m focusing on the ME. If the Qur’an and Islam were truly enlightened words from the creator of the universe, and have value, well one would think they’d have had an effect on the people that live by it?
As you said yourself, Mohammed himself lived by the sword - we can conclude there hasn’t been a time when Islam brought any form of peace to the people who live by it. What does that say about the religion? I mean 1400 years is a long time and yet no improvement in the lot of your average middle easterner.
Yet, if we look at nations that separated religion from government and instead of brainwashing the people and telling them what is and is not right, they let the people decide for themselves – this form of enlightenment appears to have had dramatic changes as in improvement in a short period of time.
surenderer said:I nor most Muslims consider Osama the poster child for Islam(only Westerners do that)
(CNN) -- Almost half of all Saudis said in a poll conducted last year that they have a favorable view of Osama bin Laden's sermons and rhetoric, but fewer than 5 percent thought it was a good idea for bin Laden to rule the Arabian Peninsula.
June 2003 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center revealed the following attitudes:
Rating Osama bin Laden:
Pakistan: 65% favorable; 9% unfavorable
Jordan: 55% favorable; 39% unfavorable
Morocco: 45% favorable; 42% unfavorable
hereOPINION OF OSAMA BIN LADEN
Unfavorable 57%
Favorable 43%
Note: 13% of respondents were Not familiar with Osama bin Laden.
Another 4% were Not sure. The raw percentages were: 34% Very
unfavorable, 13% Unfavorable, 14% Favorable, 22% Very favorable.
hereIn such predominantly Muslim states as Indonesia and Jordan, most people have a favorable opinion of Osama bin Laden.
....but it seems to me that his beef isnt with Spain or Greece but it's with Palestine, Arabia and now Iraq....but it is interesting that you make it seem as if Spain was sitting there minding there own business and Muslims did a "preemptive strike against them" without talking about how Spain was BEFORE Muslims arrived In the beginning of the 8th century, the Goths had been ruling Spain for 200 years. They were Christians, but were very corrupt and oppressive and the people of Spain were suffering tremendously. Corruption and high taxes created two classes of people: the poor working class and the rich ruling class. Islam was the new religion of Arabia in the 7th century. It promoted justice, fairness and morality and the people accepted it. Islam was spreading very fast from Arabia to Northern Africa. All the Muslim lands were separated from Spain by the Strait of Gibraltar. In 710, Moortarik, with 7,000 troops, raided Andalusia and conquered Gebal-Tarik (Gibraltar). Tarik had a firce battle with King Roderick of Spain, who had 12,000 men with him. Nevertheless, the King was killed in the battle of Guadalete and Spain was defeated.
Yes but as I have said there are more Muslims in Indonesia than the ENTIRE M.E. as a matter of fact there are more Muslims in India than the M.E. also.....the Koran has had a positive effect on over 1 billion people on the planet(and growing) why do you think that is? you are judging the whole religion on what a few "bad apples" (who for all I know may not even be real muslims)
First of all I never said that.....and i have allready given you examples of times when Islam has brought peace to a Region....It seems to me that your whole argument is based on the M.E.....what about when it was under Ottaman rule? how about before Zionism? wasnt it much more peaceful then?
Thersites said:In short, surrenderer, it's quite all right for muslims to overthrow bad rulers if they aren't muslim. On the other hand, it is wrong for nonmuslims to overthrow bad rulers if they are muslim. In fact, what are your- nonmuslim- sources for the claims that the goths were "very corrupt and oppressive"? the fact that the Spaniards spent several hundred years getting rid of muslims- all muslims- in Spain suggests that they were not quite as enthusiastic about the benefits of islam as the muslims themselves.
The problem may be that it is impossible for muslims to live in a couintry except on their own terms. If that is so then nonmuslim countries may have to restrict muslim immigration and treat all resident muslims as aliens with rights of residence but no rights to take part in politics or social affairs.
In fact, what are your- nonmuslim- sources for the claims that the goths were "very corrupt and oppressive"?
path said:You guys are getting way off topic this was just meant for discussing the murder and reactions, condemnation, justification etc. Though I can't help myself I will respond to a couple of points but attempt to restrain myself some
here
here
Osama said he consideres ALL countrys that were at one time under islamic rule as apostate lands.
Not going to get into the where's and why's here too long. Briefly if the people accepted islam there could have been reconquista.
Details=another thread
This is debatable (the good effect bit) Details=another thread
Before the colonial period the ottomans fought the Safavids (loooong history of war between the muslim persians and the muslim turks) the egyptians and various other factions. The ottomans struggled to maintain their dominance just like any foreign power. Details=another thread.
Can we start another thread to discuss these?
and they have...problems, shall we say?..with the nonmuslims.surenderer said:In long Well that may be the most ridicoulous things i have heard...... most Muslims live in nonmuslim countries allready (there are over 100 million muslims in India yet they are still a minority)
In East Timor,until very recently, in Papua now, in the south of Sudan now, do you mean?You are comparing wars that happened wars that happened 1100 years ago to today.....Who are fighting the wars of expansion now? Christians or Muslims?
Where did I say there was anything "positive" about the murder of muslims. I simply said that christians in Spain didn't seem to notice the virtues of muslim rule. As for the claim that muslims didn't persecute "religious minorities" [were christians a religious minority in Spain under muslim rule?], look up the almoravids and the almohads. They "didn't persecute" in a purely islamic sense. See Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision by Henry Kamen for a refutation of some of the myths about the inquisition. Rightly or wrongly, christians fought against muslim rule for several hundred years and were unwilling to accept muslims as co-citizens, even if muslims were willing to be citizens rather tjhan rulers.Oh yea check your history because unless you were in favor of the Spanish Inquistion and the Crusades then there was nothing "positive" about Spain's murders of Muslims (and other Christians and Jews) sorry to burst your bubble but Islam didnt opress religious minorites under it's rule in Spain
I did not ask what the history channel, using unnamed sources said recently. I asked what nonmuslim sources said about the goths. That is, contemporaries or near contemporaries who did not have a vested interest in portraying them as "very corrupt and oppressive". They may well have had all the faults you mention, but someone who benefitted from saying they had these faults is not a reliable historical source.Well for one quick example even the History Channel acknowledges that Jews were persecuted :
Byzantine cultural influence was strong, but was probably less important than that of the Jews, who had settled in Spain in large numbers, and were persecuted after 600
http://www.thehistorychannel.com/perl/print_book.pl?ID=114382
surenderer said:So those numbers make him a poster child? sounds like the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" to me....why do less than 5% want him to rule?....but I am so tired of defending OBL to you Muslim-Haters for now on I will use Hitler as an example instead of any Christians I know.....same thing right?