Egyptian Columnist Calls Holocaust a Lie

[IROC it]

Islam is peaceful? And revisionist... at least some Muslims are...

Egyptian Columnist Calls Holocaust a Lie

link (http://my.ev1.net/english/news/newsarticle.asp?articleID=31276556&subject=world)

Outrage over a columnist's description of the Holocaust as a lie prompted a front-page clarification Wednesday in a weekly newspaper published by Egypt's ruling party.

Al-Lewaa al-Islami, or "The Islamic Banner," said that two columns by Rifaat Sayed Ahmed expressed only "the opinion of the writer, which is subject to discussion, agreement or rejection." Editor Mohammed al-Zorkany said in an interview with The Associated Press that he had not expected the columns in the Islamic-oriented weekly to generate controversy.

Ahmed himself was unapologetic.

"The issue should be the Holocaust that the Palestinians are going through, not the Jews," said Ahmed, who heads a think tank that researches Palestinian and Lebanese Islamic movements. "The West has a serious problem of double standards."

Al-Lewaa al-Islami, a minor publication of President Hosni Mubarak's National Democratic Party, is only the latest Egyptian media outlet to face accusations of anti-Semitism.

Two years ago, state television was criticized in Israel and the United States for broadcasting a dramatic series whose plot turned on "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," a well-known anti-Semitic work. Egyptian cartoonists also regularly picture Jews as hook-nosed stereotypes in state-run or state-influenced publications.

Egyptians and other Arabs argue that such material simply expresses Arab anger at Israeli policies, not hatred of Jews, and often express bafflement at Western sensitivity over the Holocaust.

In his columns earlier this summer, Ahmed had written that to justify the founding of Israel, "the Zionist movement ... resorted to means that are closer to lies and myths more than reality and truth." Among these tactics, he wrote, was "the lie of burning the Jews in the Nazi gas chambers during World War II."

Ahmed's articles were translated by the Washington-based Middle East Media Research Institute, which maintains a media center in Jerusalem and translates articles in Arabic and Hebrew into other languages to give them a broader readership.

In a statement last month, the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish human rights organization dedicated to preserving the memory of the Holocaust, said Ahmed's columns were intended "to increase the hatred of Jewish people, demonize Israel and her Zionist supporters and desecrate the memories of the victims of Nazism."

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Wiesenthal Center, urged Mubarak and his National Democratic Party to "publicly denounce and dissociate themselves from this big lie." Mubarak's spokesman, Maged Abdel Fattah, did not return phone calls from the AP seeking comment.

On its front page Wednesday, Al-Lewaa al-Islami said it had received a number of messages and phone calls about Ahmed's columns, "some pro, others against, wondering if they represent the view of the national party, the newspaper and the editor."

Editor al-Zorkany said he did not question the Holocaust.

"Hitler was against humanity, not only against the Jews," he said.

- - - - -

Non-muslims need to wake up. Read the 9/11 Comission Report if this is not convincing enough.

Islam is NOT inherently peaceful. "Death to the infidels." Wake up. Now they revise history too.

[RocketMan Tex]

Denial must be a river in Egypt.

Oh wait.....it is.

[MadMax]

they're baffled over western sensitivity of the Holocaust? families are pulled apart....gassed...awful experiments....unbridled hatred...

i'm baffled at any insensitivity that might exist for this. baffled and troubled.

[IROC it]

Originally posted by RocketMan Tex
Denial must be a river in Egypt.

Oh wait.....it is.

Classic. Brilliant. Post. :D

[Oski2005]

Thanks IROC, on you insistance, I'm going to go kick muslim ass everytime I see it.


BTW, how come all the crazy stuff in the Bible and groups like the KKK don't make you feel like starting threads where you condemn all christians? Christians not only have called the Holocaust a lie, they're the ones who did it!
gotta go!!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Sorry, I saw an Indian guy and mistook him for a muslim, good thing he confirmed his non muslimness to me before I really crossed the line.

Wait, is that a turban? He could be a Zeke, but I'm not taking that chance.

[pgabriel]

Wake up, Hakeem Olajuwon is evil.

[Deckard]

How incredibly irresponsible. I remember touring Ann Frank's house with a German couple we'd met, who were in their mid-20's. I had been there before, but the 2 wanted to see it, and my wife never had. The guy teared up and his girlfriend started weeping. It's pretty emotional, going there... to say the least. Germans don't deny it happened, and it sickens them. Why in the hell would someone write this. The idiot racist should be fired.

[IROC it]

Originally posted by Oski2005
Thanks IROC, on you insistance,

Where did ever insist such idiocy? I merely said "Wake up." As in stop thinking that Islam teaches peaceful co-existence. That is the biggest lie of Islam. Why does Islam hate every other belief? I'm not sure, but that doesn't negate the teaching to hate me if I don't assimilate.

Never have I condoned violence against Muslims. I never will either.

Next.

[Sir Jackie Chiles]

Originally posted by Deckard
How incredibly irresponsible. I remember touring Ann Frank's house with a German couple we'd met, who were in their mid-20's. I had been there before, but the 2 wanted to see it, and my wife never had. The guy teared up and his girlfriend started weeping. It's pretty emotional, going there... to say the least. Germans don't deny it happened, and it sickens them. Why in the hell would someone write this. The idiot racist should be fired.

I completely agree with you, Deckard. Actually, denying the holocaust is a crime in Germany.

[Oski2005]

Originally posted by IROC it
Where did ever insist such idiocy? I merely said "Wake up." As in stop thinking that Islam teaches peaceful co-existence. That is the biggest lie of Islam. Why does Islam hate every other belief? I'm not sure, but that doesn't negate the teaching to hate me if I don't assimilate.

Never have I condoned violence against Muslims. I never will either.

Next.


Bush has called it a religion of peace, gasp, will you take that step and say he's wrong?


Good job avoiding the rest of my post. Will you condemn Christians because of the actions of a few as well?

[Baqui99]

Originally posted by IROC it

Islam is NOT inherently peaceful. "Death to the infidels." Wake up. Now they revise history too.

"Dem Muzzlems is all terrerests. Dey needz to git out of are cuntry now!"

http://kappachapter.org/~kevinh/photos/redneck.jpg

[nyquil82]

Originally posted by IROC it
Non-muslims need to wake up. Read the 9/11 Comission Report if this is not convincing enough.

Islam is NOT inherently peaceful. "Death to the infidels." Wake up. Now they revise history too.

Thats a pretty lofty statement on an entire religion based on one columnists beliefs. Do you assume that all muslims think like he does? or just enough for you to legitimize opposing their existence? remember, a lot of hatred that America gets from people overseas comes from people who were hurt from a small segment of America, which they interpreted to represent all of the US. Hate doesn't stem from nothing, you know.

The guy is certainly an idiot, but I'm not going to make that a reason to assume a culture that I you are not exposed to daily is inherently evil. Nothing seems more illogical to me than believing a small segment represents the whole. If 9/11 and this article is enough for you to believe that all of Islam, that ALL muslims are inherently violent, then I'd say you already had your mind made up way before the peacefulness of Islam was questioned.

[real_egal]

Originally posted by Sir Jackie Chiles
I completely agree with you, Deckard. Actually, denying the holocaust is a crime in Germany.

But denying war crimes during WWII in Japan is fashionable and "honorable". I hate to say it, but US has its fair share in looking over it because of far-east policy. Therefore, Japanese emperor got away with the punishment the Germans faced, and those war criminals are still memorized in their holy temple. Due to those two atom bombs, Japanese always believe they are the victims. They actually are, but they fail to understand and deny that there were tens of millions more victims in Asia in their bloody hands.

[MadMax]

i can't remember the forum...but the japanese defended their rape of the pacific by saying, "look...you guys have done it for years. europe..who are you to say we shouldn't be imperialistic? united states...after the phillipines, who are you to say we shouldn't be demoralizing our enemies with rape and torture?"

doesn't speak well for the japanese war effort...but their point was valid nonetheless. no nation's history is spotless. i could go off on some excellent theological points right now...but i'll spare you all! you know what i'm going to say, anyway! :D

[Sir Jackie Chiles]

Originally posted by real_egal
But denying war crimes during WWII in Japan is fashionable and "honorable". I hate to say it, but US has its fair share in looking over it because of far-east policy. Therefore, Japanese emperor got away with the punishment the Germans faced, and those war criminals are still memorized in their holy temple. Due to those two atom bombs, Japanese always believe they are the victims. They actually are, but they fail to understand and deny that there were tens of millions more victims in Asia in their bloody hands.

What you say is true to an extent, I believe - from my conversations with Japanese friends, it appears to me that they had a different way of dealing with the past than we did in Germany.

You sound like you are Korean?

[real_egal]

Originally posted by MadMax
but their point was valid nonetheless. no nation's history is spotless. i could go off on some excellent theological points right now

I got your point, since we are all sinners, and we shouldn't judge people. Why don't we just live freely, kill and hurt as we want to. Follow the natural rules, you are stronger and have more powerful weapon, then you can just take others as slaves. Coz there is no wrong or right, and we were all wrong before:)

[Oski2005]

Alls I'm going to say is that nobody is perfect. Judge people on what they do, not by waiting for another person of a similar background to do something awful and then condemning the rest for it while avoiding similar acts by people of your shared background.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by real_egal
I got your point, since we are all sinners, and we shouldn't judge people. Why don't we just live freely, kill and hurt as we want to. Follow the natural rules, you are stronger and have more powerful weapon, then you can just take others as slaves. Coz there is no wrong or right, and we were all wrong before:)

um. no. that's not my point. yikes.

[Pipe]

Originally posted by Oski2005
Wait, is that a turban? He could be a Zeke, but I'm not taking that chance.
What in the world does Isiah Thomas have to do with this?
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Oh, you meant Sikh. Never mind. :D

[real_egal]

Originally posted by Sir Jackie Chiles
What you say is true to an extent, I believe - from my conversations with Japanese friends, it appears to me that they had a different way of dealing with the past than we did in Germany.

You sound like you are Korean?

I am Chinese. I've lived in Germany for more than 7 years, and I saw how they dealt with the past. And I've encountered some Japanese, their common response was, well, it's history, everyone has his own version of it, why do you want to bring this up? You see the difference here:) I liked Germany very much, and I can't say I trust Japanese.

[HAYJON02]

As Norm McDonald would say, "Or so Frank Stalone would have us believe..."

http://www.elcybergoth.com/kingbai/pics/frank_s.jpg

Or he'd just call someone a giant whore. God I miss that guy. Dirty Work was underrated.

[IROC it]

Originally posted by Oski2005
Bush has called it a religion of peace, gasp, will you take that step and say he's wrong?


Good job avoiding the rest of my post. Will you condemn Christians because of the actions of a few as well?

Yes Bush is wrong on this. He was surely advised as much. ;)

And yes I will condemn any violent actions by any religious group, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Smurf or Jedi.

Will you read my post, and the 9/11 report? Read what I say. Not what you think I say just because I may vote differently than you.

Are you saying that the 9/11 commission is partisan? Or racist? Or religiously biased?



Originally posted by nyquil82
Thats a pretty lofty statement on an entire religion based on one columnists beliefs. Do you assume that all muslims think like he does? or just enough for you to legitimize opposing their existence?

Exactly where did I say I oppose "their existence?" No where close. They teach that all non-Muslims should be destroyed if not assimilated. That's aimed toward any non-Muslim.

Have you read the Koran (Qur'an)? Or the Hadith? Or the Sufi texts? Or any of them?

Where did you miss the inclusion of any non-believer of Islam as a "Infidel?"

Where did you ever see that all non-believers are to be either assimilated or put to death? And before death, "the spoils (booty)" is to be collected for a tribute to Allah?

I find nothing in that speech that indicates my problem with another belief's existence... rather toward me unless I A) assimilate, or B) die.

Research. Rediscover. Recycle.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by IROC it
Yes Bush is wrong on this. He was surely advised as much. ;)

And yes I will condemn any violent actions by any religious group, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Smurf or Jedi.

Will you read my post, and the 9/11 report? Read what I say. Not what you think I say just because I may vote differently than you.

Are you saying that the 9/11 commission is partisan? Or racist? Or religiously biased?





Exactly where did I say I oppose "their existence?" No where close. They teach that all non-Muslims should be destroyed if not assimilated. That's aimed toward any non-Muslim.

Have you read the Koran (Qur'an)? Or the Hadith? Or the Sufi texts? Or any of them?

Where did you miss the inclusion of any non-believer of Islam as a "Infidel?"

Where did you ever see that all non-believers are to be either assimilated or put to death? And before death, "the spoils (booty)" is to be collected for a tribute to Allah?

I find nothing in that speech that indicates my problem with another belief's existence... rather toward me unless I A) assimilate, or B) die.

Research. Rediscover. Recycle.

Irocit. I have a limited understanding of Islam, but even the little bit of study that I have done is enough to know that you have an incredibly deficient knowledge of the religion. I actually have read translations of the Koran, and various other books pertaining to Islam. Islam does not teach that all other religions should assimilate or die. True there are extremists who do believe that way, but the majority don't(thank goodness.) There are examples in the bible where God orders his followers to march into towns and kill them all because they are non-believers. Thank goodness that not every Christian follows that example.

I'm also happy that people who are ignorant about the tenants of Christianity don't usually try and portray the Christian religion as following that kind of doctorine.

Sadly some people like, Iroc it who are ignorant of the tenants of Islam do try and portray the religion in a way that is not accurate.

I've recommended books, and pointed to statements from Muslims that condemn the brand of Islam Irocit is talking about, but if people don't want to open their eyes, then they won't see.

[nyquil82]

Originally posted by IROC it
Exactly where did I say I oppose "their existence?" No where close. They teach that all non-Muslims should be destroyed if not assimilated. That's aimed toward any non-Muslim.

Have you read the Koran (Qur'an)? Or the Hadith? Or the Sufi texts? Or any of them?

Where did you miss the inclusion of any non-believer of Islam as a "Infidel?"

Where did you ever see that all non-believers are to be either assimilated or put to death? And before death, "the spoils (booty)" is to be collected for a tribute to Allah?

I find nothing in that speech that indicates my problem with another belief's existence... rather toward me unless I A) assimilate, or B) die.

Research. Rediscover. Recycle.

i think its rather problematic to assume that a faith that is based on based to be one that wants non-believers to be killed. I think you are mixing up the ideals of the religion with the ideals of the people (notice, people and religion are seperate things) who pervert the message to legitimize destruction.

In fact, i think you are trying to pervert the message of the religion to support your belief that others are a threat to you. believers of many religions pervert their ideas to legitimize their elitism and the destruction of those who believe differently. Likewise, many who don't follow the faith will use the same reasoning to conjure up a world where they are the victim from others that are evil. Makes you feel good, huh, that you are the better person? that you are the one who isn't evil? This is not uncommon, some muslim extremists use the same 'logic' against christianity.

its obvious that your knowledge of islam comes from people that already oppose it. I hope one day, when you are in need, and a person of a different faith helps you out, you can let go of your hate and distrust.

[pippendagimp]

Originally posted by Sir Jackie Chiles
I completely agree with you, Deckard. Actually, denying the holocaust is a crime in Germany.

Hey is this true...I remember reading somewhere that not only is it a crime within Germany, but that if somebody denies such elsewhere in the world and then later visits Germany they will be picked up and charged?

[RocketMan Tex]

I guess that concentration camp I visited in Austria, called Mauthausen, where in their museum had a pile of eyeglasses worn by the deceased that was 8 feet high, was really an amusement park during World War II.

[arno_ed]

Originally posted by Deckard
How incredibly irresponsible. I remember touring Ann Frank's house with a German couple we'd met, who were in their mid-20's. I had been there before, but the 2 wanted to see it, and my wife never had. The guy teared up and his girlfriend started weeping. It's pretty emotional, going there... to say the least
a couple of years ago i went to the holocaust museum in Israel, that is very emotional. we went with a group of about 20, when we went out of the museum nobody speaked for about 45 minutes. we al just sat there.

I think no religion is better then the other. if people find peace of mind with there religion it is great for them. I'm not religious but i respect everybody's opinion on religion. But i expect that people also respect the fact that i'm not religious.

Almost every religion has had a history of violance. No religion is violant. Only the extremistic people get violant. And those people give other people with the same religion a bad name. But like i said all religions have had a history of violance and murder.
But that does not make that religion violant it makes the people who did those crimes Violant.

[Cohen]

Originally posted by RocketMan Tex
I guess that concentration camp I visited in Austria, called Mauthausen, where in their museum had a pile of eyeglasses worn by the deceased that was 8 feet high, was really an amusement park during World War II.


And some of my distant relatives from Belgium are still in hiding, apparently.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by RocketMan Tex
I guess that concentration camp I visited in Austria, called Mauthausen, where in their museum had a pile of eyeglasses worn by the deceased that was 8 feet high, was really an amusement park during World War II.

oh my...wow. just the thought of that is chilling.

my wife went to the holocaust museum in D.C. and said she cried like a baby through the whole thing. staring evil in the eye.

[Sane]

Originally posted by IROC it
Yes Bush is wrong on this. He was surely advised as much. ;)

And yes I will condemn any violent actions by any religious group, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Smurf or Jedi.

Will you read my post, and the 9/11 report? Read what I say. Not what you think I say just because I may vote differently than you.

Are you saying that the 9/11 commission is partisan? Or racist? Or religiously biased?





Exactly where did I say I oppose "their existence?" No where close. They teach that all non-Muslims should be destroyed if not assimilated. That's aimed toward any non-Muslim.

Have you read the Koran (Qur'an)? Or the Hadith? Or the Sufi texts? Or any of them?

Where did you miss the inclusion of any non-believer of Islam as a "Infidel?"

Where did you ever see that all non-believers are to be either assimilated or put to death? And before death, "the spoils (booty)" is to be collected for a tribute to Allah?

I find nothing in that speech that indicates my problem with another belief's existence... rather toward me unless I A) assimilate, or B) die.

Research. Rediscover. Recycle.

You're either lying or have been lied to.

The translation of "infidels" is not "those who don't believe in Islam."

This is why Islam should not be translated.

How could what you're saying be true if it's allowed for a Muslim to marry a Christian woman?

How is it that they execute people in Saudi for various crimes, and chop off hands for theft... But they allow Christians there? Is there anything forbidden in the Qura'an that is not forbidden in Saudi?

How is it that Jews, defeated in war, were allowed to live on Muslim land? Yes, they payed taxes, but they lived.

The Qura'an was not meant to be translated. It's not meant to be touched. Nothing. That's why the exact same letter with the exact same pronounciation (there are pronounciation characters in Arabic) that were used back when it was written is identical to that which we read today.

Personally, I don't think that any non-Muslim should read a translated Qura'an, because their understanding of the entire religion is much too weak (barring exceptions) to be able to accurately interpret a translation. I suggest you listen to someone whom YOU, personally, trust 100% to give you the facts face to face right from an original Qura'an. But that is, ofcourse, just my suggestion.

As for this topic, it's quite silly. Some idiot says he thinks it's a lie.. What does that have to do with Islam? The sample doesn't represent the population.

[IROC it]

Originally posted by Sane
You're either lying or have been lied to. Sure, that's it. Discount everything my cousin relayed to me directly while he was serving in the middle east, and then in Bosnia. I've got no "hidden agenda." Just call me a "liberal" in my view here. I will liberally blow this whistle until someone gets it.

Originally posted by Sane
The translation of "infidels" is not "those who don't believe in Islam." PROVE IT. It means "non-believers." Why hide the truth? What does infidels mean then?

Originally posted by Sane
This is why Islam should not be translated.
That is a hidden agenda.


Originally posted by Sane
How could what you're saying be true if it's allowed for a Muslim to marry a Christian woman? In the U.S.? Because it's the U.S. Won't happen in the middle east. Christian does not mean simply "non-Jewish or non-Muslim." Maybe you mean "european?"

Originally posted by Sane
How is it that they execute people in Saudi for various crimes, and chop off hands for theft... But they allow Christians there? Just try walking in and selling Bibles there... try it. You can be imprisoned for "crossing" your legs in the sign of a cross, carrying a Swiss Army knife, and airplanes are not allowed to fly over a mosque at the time of day that would cast a cross-like shadow on one. People have been beaten, and executed for teaching Christianity in Saudi. During the Gulf War, the Saudi govt. had a fit that the U.S. soldiers stationed there were issued personal pocket New Testaments... and regulated that Soldiers leaving the compound to visit the cities could not take it into the city.

Originally posted by Sane
Is there anything forbidden in the Qura'an that is not forbidden in Saudi? You tell me.

Originally posted by Sane
How is it that Jews, defeated in war, were allowed to live on Muslim land? Yes, they payed taxes, but they lived. "they payed taxes" is your answer... spoils of war, aka booty (look it up in the Qur'an).

Originally posted by Sane
The Qura'an was not meant to be translated. It's not meant to be touched. Nothing. That's why the exact same letter with the exact same pronounciation (there are pronounciation characters in Arabic) that were used back when it was written is identical to that which we read today. Then why are there english translations? Why is it being spread throughout the world? This claim is ignorant. Sorry, but it is.

Originally posted by Sane
Personally, I don't think that any non-Muslim should read a translated Qura'an, because their understanding of the entire religion is much too weak (barring exceptions) to be able to accurately interpret a translation. I suggest you listen to someone whom YOU, personally, trust 100% to give you the facts face to face right from an original Qura'an. But that is, of course, just my suggestion. I have. I have spoken directly with my best friends from high school, and their father (grad in '91 btw) recently enough to know that after 20 years of Muslim practices, they are denouncing it having seen this teaching being more to the forefront, even state-side. I have also studied it in college, and for myself so that I am well aware of the true teaching of a religion that is called "Peace" when translated, yet was founded by a warlord. It's quite true what I speak. Muhammed was no Ghandi.

Originally posted by Sane
As for this topic, it's quite silly. Some idiot says he thinks it's a lie.. What does that have to do with Islam? The sample doesn't represent the population. The point is that it is a heavily circulated paper known as "THE ISLAMIC BANNER" which is sorta like the NEW YORK TIMES in circulation there. This is a very valid concern.. What you fail to see hear is that this IS NOT merely an Islam vs. Christianity issue... It is Islam vs. any other view.

Again... no matter what your belief... Wake up.

[IROC it]

double. sorry.:D

but...

MOSQUE RAID... (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2004/n08052004_2004080508.html)

I thought the religion was peaceful?

Mosque Raid Sends Deterrent Message to Terrorists

By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Aug. 5, 2004 — Justice Department officials said today they hope today's raid on a mosque in Albany, N.Y., will serve as a deterrent to terrorists planning attacks against U.S. citizens and targets.

Two men were arrested during the raid on the Masjid As-Salam mosque and charged with agreeing to launder money so an undercover FBI operative could buy a shoulder-fired, rocket-propelled weapon, Deputy U.S. Attorney General James B. Comey told reporters during a news conference in Washington.

Comey said the men arrested — Yasin Aref, the mosque's imam, and Mohammad Hoosain, its founder — understood that the weapon was to be used against the Pakistani ambassador in New York in retaliation for that country's support for the war on terrorism.

The missile actually was owned by the U.S. government, Comey said, and that there never was any danger of it falling into enemy hands or being used against the Pakistani ambassador or anyone else. "This was our missile, and this was a sting," he said.

Comey dismissed charges that the sting represented entrapment. "There is always an opportunity for the defense to talk about entrapment," he said. "That's what trials are for."

While not offering details, Comey said the operation followed a year-long investigation that fingered Aref and Hoosain as supporters of terrorism. He said the two met numerous times with the undercover operative before their arrest.

Comey said the arrests are unrelated to the heightened alert status in New York City, northern New Jersey and Washington, D.C., announced Aug. 1. Acknowledging that it's "not the case of the century," he called the case against Aref and Hoosain "a good case, a solid case that sends an important message."

The goal of the raid and subsequent arrests, he said, was "to lock up two guys who committed crimes." But Comey said he's hopeful that they also "send a broader, deterrent message" that causes anyone planning a terrorist plot to question if any accomplice they deal with is actually an undercover U.S. agent. "We want the bad guys to worry about us," he said.

Earlier today, New York Gov. George E. Pataki said the raid provides further evidence that "there are terrorists among us who want to engage in attacks against us and take away our freedoms."

He publicly thanked the private citizens whose tips to official hotlines helped lead to the arrests. Protecting the United States "depends on the eyes and ears of all Americans," he said, and he urged the public to continue reporting suspicious activities to authorities.

Pataki said the arrests reflect the strong cooperation among law enforcement and intelligence agencies at the federal, state and local levels.

"People should feel positive about this," he said. "Our government, our administration in Washington … and local officials are taking this threat to our freedom very seriously and will continue to be aggressive and proactive against those who wish to do us harm.

"We will continue to be proactive and vigilant," he said. "We have to be. And we won't stop until our freedom is protected."

---
Funny.. I think these guys arrested were part of the "Peace" religion.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by IROC it
double. sorry.:D

but...

MOSQUE RAID... (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2004/n08052004_2004080508.html)

I thought the religion was peaceful?

Mosque Raid Sends Deterrent Message to Terrorists

By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Aug. 5, 2004 — Justice Department officials said today they hope today's raid on a mosque in Albany, N.Y., will serve as a deterrent to terrorists planning attacks against U.S. citizens and targets.

Two men were arrested during the raid on the Masjid As-Salam mosque and charged with agreeing to launder money so an undercover FBI operative could buy a shoulder-fired, rocket-propelled weapon, Deputy U.S. Attorney General James B. Comey told reporters during a news conference in Washington.

Comey said the men arrested — Yasin Aref, the mosque's imam, and Mohammad Hoosain, its founder — understood that the weapon was to be used against the Pakistani ambassador in New York in retaliation for that country's support for the war on terrorism.

The missile actually was owned by the U.S. government, Comey said, and that there never was any danger of it falling into enemy hands or being used against the Pakistani ambassador or anyone else. "This was our missile, and this was a sting," he said.

Comey dismissed charges that the sting represented entrapment. "There is always an opportunity for the defense to talk about entrapment," he said. "That's what trials are for."

While not offering details, Comey said the operation followed a year-long investigation that fingered Aref and Hoosain as supporters of terrorism. He said the two met numerous times with the undercover operative before their arrest.

Comey said the arrests are unrelated to the heightened alert status in New York City, northern New Jersey and Washington, D.C., announced Aug. 1. Acknowledging that it's "not the case of the century," he called the case against Aref and Hoosain "a good case, a solid case that sends an important message."

The goal of the raid and subsequent arrests, he said, was "to lock up two guys who committed crimes." But Comey said he's hopeful that they also "send a broader, deterrent message" that causes anyone planning a terrorist plot to question if any accomplice they deal with is actually an undercover U.S. agent. "We want the bad guys to worry about us," he said.

Earlier today, New York Gov. George E. Pataki said the raid provides further evidence that "there are terrorists among us who want to engage in attacks against us and take away our freedoms."

He publicly thanked the private citizens whose tips to official hotlines helped lead to the arrests. Protecting the United States "depends on the eyes and ears of all Americans," he said, and he urged the public to continue reporting suspicious activities to authorities.

Pataki said the arrests reflect the strong cooperation among law enforcement and intelligence agencies at the federal, state and local levels.

"People should feel positive about this," he said. "Our government, our administration in Washington … and local officials are taking this threat to our freedom very seriously and will continue to be aggressive and proactive against those who wish to do us harm.

"We will continue to be proactive and vigilant," he said. "We have to be. And we won't stop until our freedom is protected."

---
Funny.. I think these guys arrested were part of the "Peace" religion.

Once again Irocit manages to confuse peoples actions with the relgion in general. When Christians were committing genocide against Muslims in Eastern Europe those people were wrong. It didn't mean that Christianity was wrong. When Christians recently went and slaughtered a whole village in Africa using machetes, and muskets, it doesn't mean that Christianity is wrong, just that those who misuse it.

The same is true for Islam.

When Christians kill doctors and people entering abortion clinics, it doesn't mean Christianity is wrong, just the people who commit the acts. Hopefully one day you will understand people may do one thing in the name of a religion, that the religion doesn't teach.

Fortunately in the case of Muslim clerics there are many Muslims speaking out against the Islamic terrorists, but evidently you've shut your ears to that, and your eyes to numerous books written by Muslims denouncing the way these extremists practice Islam.

[Baqui99]

double. sorry. :D

but...

ABORTION CLINIC BOMBING (http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/030602c.asp)

I thought the religion was peaceful?

Accused Bomber Eric Rudolph Linked to Fringe Groups



By Lee Webb
CBN News Anchor

June 2, 2003


Eric Robert Rudolph, in custody for the 1996 Olympic bombing and two others, has been tied to the white supremacist Christian Identity movement, and a violent fringe organization called the Army of God.



CBN.com – Over the weekend, a young cop in Murphy, North Carolina arrested Eric Robert Rudolph, ending a massive manhunt that had lasted years and nabbing one of the FBI's most wanted fugitives.
A loner and survivalist, Rudolph is accused of the Olympic bombing in Atlanta in 1996, as well as the later bombings of a gay nightclub and a Birmingham abortion clinic.

Two people were killed, one was maimed and more than a hundred were injured in those attacks.

Evidence links Rudolph to the crimes and authorities suspect his motives lie in his ties to a white supremacist group called Christian Identity and a fringe group known as the Army of God.

The Army of God claimed responsibility for both the abortion clinic bombing and the bombing of an office building in the Atlanta area. Rudolph was tied to those bombings through supplies found in a storage unit he rented.

Rudolph's connection to the Army of God began with his mother in 1984. When he was 18 she took him and his brother Jamie to a cult-like compound in North Carolina called the Church of Israel. Both boys attended school at the compound and some say Rudolph developed his political views at the school -- becoming engrossed in the curriculum's required reading, which included holocaust-denial materials.

While the ideology of the Christian Identity movement may be called Christian, in reality it is anything but. Instead, its theological beliefs are a sinister brew of white supremacist and anti-Semitic rhetoric.

It is a loosely organized group that traces its roots to the British-Israel movement in Europe in the mid-19th century. Followers believed that white Anglo-Saxons were the lost tribes of Israel and therefore God's true chosen people.

By the 1930's the movement had migrated to the United States. Many new members were also members of the Ku Klux Klan and the group began to adopt more racist and white supremacist ideas. It also began to use violence to achieve its ends.

Christian Identity believes the Bible teaches that there are two separate lineages from which all people are descended. According to their teaching, the Jewish people descended from a union between Eve and Satan and only white people are the true descendants of Adam and Eve.

One leader in the Army of God movement told CBN News it is not so much an organization as it is a belief system. He backed the bombing of abortion clinics, saying it is the responsibility of all Christians to defend the unborn by whatever means necessary.

The Army of God manifesto has detailed bomb-making instructions.

Attorney General John Ashcroft has branded many such groups domestic terrorists and on Saturday he called Eric Rudolph, "The most notorious American fugitive on the FBI's most wanted list."

He also said Rudolph's arrest sends a clear message that the U.S. will not cease to hunt down all terrorists foreign and domestic and stop them from harming the innocent.

Funny.. I think these guys arrested were part of the "Peace" religion.

[IROC it]

Originally posted by Baqui99
Funny.. I think these guys arrested were part of the "Peace" religion.

Islam translated means "peace." Christianity does not.

And again, this is about any religion vs. Islam.... that as i stated in the beginning of the thread... "some"

btw- my initial doble post was an inadvertant reply to myself rather than an edit... call it an "IROCitism"...I'm an admin can verify if neec be... :rolleyes: I could have taken that part out, but surely enough, my hunch that I'd be mocked for it by a leftist nutjob was right..

So sad. :(

Originally posted by IROC it
Islam is peaceful? And revisionist... at least some Muslims are...

That would indicate both A) some are peaceful and B) some are revisionists...

Clutch was right.... what is it with the word "some?"

Sorry to be right about my lack of generalizing in the severity and broad brush as you've claimed.... pointing out what a text - a basis of teaching - says does not = claiming that 100% go there... However, no where did Buddha, or Krishna, or Moses, or Christ, or Dali Llama say "death to infidels" - that was Muhammed. So then, the tendency, or I'd say the possibility for one to hear this teaching, and later act on it is far greater in Islam than in ANY other belief system.

Can that be argued? Not really.

[Baqui99]

Originally posted by IROC it


Sorry to be right about my lack of generalizing in the severity and broad brush as you've claimed.... pointing out what a text - a basis of teaching - says does not = claiming that 100% go there... However, no where did Buddha, or Krishna, or Moses, or Christ, or Dali Llama say "death to infidels" - that was Muhammed. So then, the tendency, or I'd say the possibility for one to hear this teaching, and later act on it is far greater in Islam than in ANY other belief system.

Can that be argued? Not really.

There are just as many violent verses in the Qur'an as there are in the Bible. The thing about religion is that people can misconstrue it in any way they want to justify evil deeds. Islam is going through a tough time, in which the actions of a few are giving the 1.5 billion Muslims WW a bad name. I invite you to spend some time at your local mosque and get to know Muslims in your community, and arrive at your own conclusion, instead of being spoonfed by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

[IROC it]

Originally posted by Baqui99
I invite you to spend some time at your local mosque and get to know Muslims in your community, and arrive at your own conclusion, instead of being spoonfed by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

You attend the Mosque in Plano?

btw- I listen to niether of those two. I prefer what the Islamic texts, 9/11 report and the national media tell me about this.

It's called putting 2 and 2 together. It's cognitive, and requires brave effort to achieve.

Try to stop being spoonfed by cynisism and mockery and find out for yourself...

[blackfish1]

You said:

"However, no where did Buddha, or Krishna, or Moses, or Christ, or Dali Llama say "death to infidels" - that was Muhammed."

You're partially right...the Bible never specifically said Death to Infidels. But it does say:

Then the LORD said:
1. I am making a covenant with you. Before all your people I will do wonders never before done in any nation in all the world. The people you live among will see how awesome is the work that I, the LORD, will do for you. Obey what I command you today.
2. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites.
3. Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you.
4. Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles [That is, symbols of the goddess Asherah].
5. Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
6. Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices.
7. And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.


Somewhat exclusionist, in my book...Nothing will be solved by searching for ‘true Islam’ or quoting the Qur'an. The Qur'an is a vast, vague book, filled with poetry and contradictions (much like the Bible). You can find in it condemnations of war and incitements to struggle, beautiful expressions of tolerance and stern pictures against unbelievers. Quotations from it usually tell us more about the person who selected the passages than about Islam. Every religion is compatible with the best and the worst of humankind. Through its long history, Christianity has supported inquisitions and anti-Semitism, but also human rights and social welfare. There are many forms of violence, and justg because there is no direct command to kill the infidels doesn't mean Christianity is any less violent (at least how many choose to interpret it--I prefer to think of it as a beautiful idea gone awry)The potential of the Bible to instigate violence stems, in large part, from its claims that God committed or ordered violent and cruel acts, while at the same time the book describes him as perfect, righteous, just, gracious,merciful, compassionate and loving.

Because of the belief that God possesses exemplary characteristics but still carries out or mandates extremely violent and destructive acts, there is a strong possibility that his followers will decide they can behave similarly and still be good people. They may even conclude that they have a religious duty to follow the violent example set by their God. The God of the Bible is guilty of wartime atrocities. After bringing the Israelites out of captivity in Egypt and having them wander in the wilderness a number of years, he ordered them to attack King Sihon of Heshbon and his subjects. As a result, they "put to death everyone in the cities, men, women, and dependents" and "left no survivor."

Then God told them to do the same to King Og of Bashan and his people. Thus, the Israelites "slaughtered them and left no survivor." The book of Psalms cites these specific massacres as proof that the Lord's "love endures for ever."

At the Lord's command, the Israelites made war on Midian and slew all the men and burned their cities. But Moses was angry because they had spared the women and children. So he ordered his soldiers to "kill every male dependent, and kill every woman who has had intercourse with a man, but spare for yourselves every woman among them who has not had intercourse." Shortly thereafter, God gave Moses directions for distributing the captive virgins among the fighting men and the community.

In resettling the Israelites after the Egyptian sojourn, God instructed them to steal the land of seven nations. In doing so, they were to "not leave any creature alive. You shall annihilate them. . . ."

Consequently, the Israelites entirely wiped out various peoples, such as when Joshua's army attacked Jericho and "put everyone to the sword, men and women, young and old. . . ." Later, the Lord told Joshua to do the same to the people of Ai.

In obedience to the Lord's commands, Joshua's army did likewise to many other cities. The Israelites "put every living soul to the sword until they had destroyed every one; they did not leave alive any one that drew breath." If the accounts given in the Bible are accepted, there were millions of men, women and children exterminated in this conquest of the Promised Land.

Additional Old Testament stories relate divine acts that are just as ruthless. The prophet Samuel gave Saul these instructions from the Lord: "Go now and fall upon the Amalekites and destroy them. . . . Spare no one; put them all to death, men and women, children and babes in arms, herds and flocks, camels and asses."

I could go on and on...the Biblical God condones, commits or commands murder, plundering, mutilation, cannibalism, rape, slavery, war, torture.... Civilized societies adhere to a much higher ethical standard than does the biblical God. They know that violence does not prove who is right, but only who is stronger.

They also recognize that the validity of an argument depends on the quality of the evidence and logic that supports it - and not at all on the amount of violence that proponents of the argument can inflict. In fact, a resort to violence usually means the proponents know they cannot win with arguments.

Moreover, enlightened societies realize that gratuitous violence by society's leaders and other role models can, by dint of example, promote more violence in the rest of society. And they understand that people can become desensitized to the sight of violence and thus come to use and tolerate ever-greater amounts of it.

So while The Koran may say Death to the Infidels....the Bible more roundabout suggestions on how to deal with the world's problems are no less harmful.

Blackfish

[IROC it]

Originally posted by blackfish1
Then the LORD said:
1. I am making a covenant with you. Before all your people I will do wonders never before done in any nation in all the world. The people you live among will see how awesome is the work that I, the LORD, will do for you. Obey what I command you today.
2. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites.
3. Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you.
4. Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles [That is, symbols of the goddess Asherah].
5. Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
6. Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices.
7. And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.

Where does this indicate death? Furthermore, where did it say God killed them either? "Drive out?"

I think you've proven nothing... except...

The Koran may say Death to the Infidels

Ahhh. But it does.

[blackfish1]

Are you truly so blind as to think that 'driving out" other religions and races means politely asking them to leave, and here's a jumbo pack of twinkies for the road? It's death, torture and destruction to the non-believers...with warnings not to associate with them, to persecute their religious beliefs (why else smash thier altars? To make room for the swimming pool?) And the examples I quoted (did you even read them?)were the tip of the iceberg in terms of commanding folowers to smite the non-believers. If one reads the Bible and sees God commanding and condoning this behavior, then how is it any different, if simply less direct, than saying death to the infidels? It's semantics. Neither religion is all inclusive. There are heathens and infidels that must be conquered--in both texts they are given different names, is all.

Blackfish

[Rockets R' Us]

Once again, every religion has its extremists. My dad was trying to have a business relationship with a bunch of businessmen who happened to take an active role in their local church. One of them was avid that they even have their meetings in the church, and start their meetings with a small prayer. My dad, being a muslim, felt no threat in this. He commended them on their love for their faith and for god and went along with it. That was until one of the guys decided one day that in some gospel, (correct me if I'm wrong, I don't rememebr to clearly) David or Paul or one of the Apostles had said, "don't yolk with non-christians" therefore, they were breaking off business relationships with my dad. Now, if your not supposed to yolk with non-christians, you could call that a form of racism, could you not?

[IROC it]

You keep thinkin' that. Find it in other religions then... if they were dead then how could " 6. Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices.
7. And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same. " exist in the same text??

...'cause you did not find Christ (ahem.. New Testament?? ding ding?) condone killing people. Old Juadic text, maybe recorded wars, but that is entirely different than "present tense action words" calling "death to infidels" and "jihad."

Try again. I'm not blind at all.


Rockets R' Us

2 Corinthians 6:14-18 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Call it racist, or true believers sticking to beliefs... there is no mention of "death to infidels" merely, separating one's self.

BIG difference.

[blackfish1]

Riiiiiiigghhhhht

"I say to you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. As for my enemies who do not want me to reign over them, bring them here and kill them in my presence" (Luke 19:26-27).

B

[arno_ed]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
Once again Irocit manages to confuse peoples actions with the relgion in general. When Christians were committing genocide against Muslims in Eastern Europe those people were wrong. It didn't mean that Christianity was wrong. When Christians recently went and slaughtered a whole village in Africa using machetes, and muskets, it doesn't mean that Christianity is wrong, just that those who misuse it.

The same is true for Islam.

When Christians kill doctors and people entering abortion clinics, it doesn't mean Christianity is wrong, just the people who commit the acts. Hopefully one day you will understand people may do one thing in the name of a religion, that the religion doesn't teach.

Fortunately in the case of Muslim clerics there are many Muslims speaking out against the Islamic terrorists, but evidently you've shut your ears to that, and your eyes to numerous books written by Muslims denouncing the way these extremists practice Islam.
exactly what i was saying. People should understand that no religion on it self is bad. BUt that some people do terrible things in the name of religion.

IROC it i have a questioin.
Do you think that the christian believe is better then any other believe? or do you tink the islamic faith is just worse. or do you think al religions are equal? Just wondering.

However, no where did Buddha, or Krishna, or Moses, or Christ, or Dali Llama say "death to infidels" - that was Muhammed. So then, the tendency, or I'd say the possibility for one to hear this teaching, and later act on it is far greater in Islam than in ANY other belief system.
i haven't read the qura'am so i do not know if he said that, but if you say so i believe you. But the christian god destroyed whole cities because they did not believe, or just got in the way of his people. All religions have had a terrible history where people murdered non believers. But it were the people who did it not the religion.

Like franchiseblade said No religion is bad. Just the people who do terrible things and say it is a religieus act.

[outlaw]

these are sorta death-to-the-infidelsish

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. " (Matt 10:34)

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town. (Matt 10:14-15)

[MadMax]

Originally posted by blackfish1
Riiiiiiigghhhhht

"I say to you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. As for my enemies who do not want me to reign over them, bring them here and kill them in my presence" (Luke 19:26-27).

B

you understand that what you just quoted was a parable, right? that it was Jesus telling a story....not a command to kill people for Christ...you do understand that right? did you not read that in its context at all?? did you pull that one line from a website or something that seeks to discredit the Bible??

because that is the worst case of out of context i've ever seen. and that's the very thing you're arguing against...right??

[MadMax]

Originally posted by outlaw
these are sorta death-to-the-infidelsish

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. " (Matt 10:34)

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town. (Matt 10:14-15)

if that's what you're looking to prove, outlaw...then you can twist scripture that way. but good luck with this next one:

(Jesus said): "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on the cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them and lend to them without expecting to get anything back." -- Luke 6:27-35

[RocketMan Tex]

Fuggit. We're all infidels in one way or another. Have another drink!:D

[Rockets R' Us]

****, Fidel calls us infidels. Let's get em! ;)

[Sane]

Originally posted by IROC it
Sure, that's it. Discount everything my cousin relayed to me directly while he was serving in the middle east, and then in Bosnia. I've got no "hidden agenda." Just call me a "liberal" in my view here. I will liberally blow this whistle until someone gets it.

PROVE IT. It means "non-believers." Why hide the truth? What does infidels mean then?


That is a hidden agenda.


In the U.S.? Because it's the U.S. Won't happen in the middle east. Christian does not mean simply "non-Jewish or non-Muslim." Maybe you mean "european?"

Just try walking in and selling Bibles there... try it. You can be imprisoned for "crossing" your legs in the sign of a cross, carrying a Swiss Army knife, and airplanes are not allowed to fly over a mosque at the time of day that would cast a cross-like shadow on one. People have been beaten, and executed for teaching Christianity in Saudi. During the Gulf War, the Saudi govt. had a fit that the U.S. soldiers stationed there were issued personal pocket New Testaments... and regulated that Soldiers leaving the compound to visit the cities could not take it into the city.

You tell me.

"they payed taxes" is your answer... spoils of war, aka booty (look it up in the Qur'an).

Then why are there english translations? Why is it being spread throughout the world? This claim is ignorant. Sorry, but it is.

I have. I have spoken directly with my best friends from high school, and their father (grad in '91 btw) recently enough to know that after 20 years of Muslim practices, they are denouncing it having seen this teaching being more to the forefront, even state-side. I have also studied it in college, and for myself so that I am well aware of the true teaching of a religion that is called "Peace" when translated, yet was founded by a warlord. It's quite true what I speak. Muhammed was no Ghandi.

The point is that it is a heavily circulated paper known as "THE ISLAMIC BANNER" which is sorta like the NEW YORK TIMES in circulation there. This is a very valid concern.. What you fail to see hear is that this IS NOT merely an Islam vs. Christianity issue... It is Islam vs. any other view.

Again... no matter what your belief... Wake up.

- Well, what can I tell you? Your cousin is wrong. You will only take the word of a Muslim. Make no mistake about it, you have not read the Qura'an, you have merely read the translation, if even that. The Qura'an was not meant to be translated. Understand this.

- Infidels, knows as "Kafirs" in the Qura'an, are those people who want to put an end to Islam (to be brief). It's those people who are not indifferent, but have negative intentions towards Islam and Muslims. I.E., people who take over their land, kill their women and children, and force other religions onto them. The Qura'an was not meant to be translated. That's why you thought it meant "non-believers", because you read a few quotes from a translation, not because you read the entire thing, original or translated. Even in translation, if you read the entire section, you will understand the context because it is explained.

- This is not a hidden agenda. It is a Muslim belief that translation will lead to inaccuracies, just like the one YOU read, and threfore the Qura'an should not be translated. As an example, the Bible doesn't have 100% textual accuracy, and much of this is thanks to translation. The idea is to maintain 100% textual accuracy in the Qura'an, which has been accomplished so far no thanks to people like you.

- No, not only in the U.S., in the world. My brother is married to a Christian American. No, my brother is not defying Muslim law, and if you don't believe me, you can ask any Imam from any mosque. Don't ask your cousin. Jewish, not ok. Christians, it's fine. Not sure about other religions. It's frowned upon, but still, allowed.

- They do all that. But you didn't answer my question: Is there anything forbidden in Islam that is allowed in Saudi? What you said just proves my point that NO there is nothing forbidden in the Islam and accepted in Saudi.

- DO NOT get off topic. You said that all infidels must be killed, but Jews were allowed to live on Muslim land. Ofcourse they payed taxes, what incentive to Muslims have for letting Jews live among them after they tried to KILL Muslims?

- Don't call it ignorant, because you simply don't know. The Qura'an is not meant to be translated. The Arabic language in general doesn't translate well to English, it's way more complex. There are English translations to HELP at first, for people who don't speak Arabic. For people like YOU who find something starnge and wrong, you should go and ask someone knowledgeable so that they can clarify it. Translations are necessary, but they are by no means accurate. The things in translation come off wrong and hateful. It's a known fact, the Qura'an is not accurate in translation. To any language.

- Clearly you've been lied to. "Islam" does not mean peace. "Al Salam" means peace. "Islam" means "to arrive at peace". Once again, you have been proven inaccurate. I speak Arabic. I know. Obviously, the people who taught you don't.

I'm sure it's quite harsh to watch the Islamic teachings being applied in Saudi, but I'm all for it. The crime rates in Saudi and the U.A.E. are superb. I live in the Middle East and I can be outside on the streets at 3 or 4 in the morning without worrying about anything. We don't lock our house door. Some people don't even lock their cars. In Saudi, most don't even locktheir stores during prayer time. I'm fully aware that I haven't gone through the reprucussions of these punishments, but it is effective, and to be EXTREMELY fair, not more than 25 people a year are punished by amputation or execution in Saudi.

- Explain to me exactly what you mean by Muhammad was a warlord. Yes, THAT Muhammad, who lived in a cave, and didn't eat food days at a time to feed other people. I'll grant you this, he was not Mother Teresa, but he did not do anything unjust whatsoever. Support your claim with an example.

- So, if I get hired for the same newspaper, and decide to say that Hitler was perfectly right for doing what he did, does that mean that Islam supports Hitler? because that's what you're saying, and almost everyone here disagrees with you. The sample does NOT represent the population, and you know it. It was not a religion talking, it was an individual, clearly a disturbed individual.

[MadMax]

Sane -- am I one of the "People of the Book?" is that the designation for Christian in the Koran? i've only read English translations of the Koran, obviously. is People of the Book a pretty fair translation for the meaning in Arabic??

[Sane]

Originally posted by MadMax
Sane -- am I one of the "People of the Book?" is that the designation for Christian in the Koran? i've only read English translations of the Koran, obviously. is People of the Book a pretty fair translation for the meaning in Arabic??

Yes, you are considered among the "people of the book" or "Ahl al-kitaab".

The thing to keep in mind is the whole idea. "The book" actually means the "books". The books of Abraham, David, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed.

According to Islam, "people of the book" are the people who go by these books.

However, there is some debate reagarding this... Some people say that the people of the book apply to the TIME of the book. For example, anyone living between the birth of Christianity and the birth of Islam who follows Christianity is a "people of the book" and goes to heaven. However, now that there IS Islam, those people who have the full knowledge of Islam and deny it in favor of Christianity, for example, are not the same.

Basically, the 5 books are all said to be from Allah and has been "released" in levels of difficulty. The reason for this is that society could not immediately go from where they were to Islam immediately. So God eased it onto humans by levels and that's why, according to Muslim belief, Islam is the harshest of religions. Imagine the backlash if it came down immediately?

However, this belief of who the "Ahl al Kitaab" are is subject to debate now. The opposing argument is that, why include the Ahl Al Kitaab in the Qura'an if these people should cease to exist after the Qura'an?

[MadMax]

Originally posted by Sane
Yes, you are considered among the "people of the book" or "Ahl al-kitaab".

The thing to keep in mind is the whole idea. "The book" actually means the "books". The books of Abraham, David, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed.

According to Islam, "people of the book" are the people who go by these books.

However, there is some debate reagarding this... Some people say that the people of the book apply to the TIME of the book. For example, anyone living between the birth of Christianity and the birth of Islam who follows Christianity is a "people of the book" and goes to heaven. However, now that there IS Islam, those people who have the full knowledge of Islam and deny it in favor of Christianity, for example, are not the same.

Basically, the 5 books are all said to be from Allah and has been "released" in levels of difficulty. The reason for this is that society could not immediately go from where they were to Islam immediately. So God eased it onto humans by levels and that's why, according to Muslim belief, Islam is the harshest of religions. Imagine the backlash if it came down immediately?

However, this belief of who the "Ahl al Kitaab" are is subject to debate now. The opposing argument is that, why include the Ahl Al Kitaab in the Qura'an if these people should cease to exist after the Qura'an?

interesting. thanks.

of course...if we're talking about harsh regulations/laws/outward acts/judgment, etc....i'm not sure we go from Old Testament to New Testament and get a "harsher" account. not with the grace of what Christians believe of Christ.

[DaDakota]

Religion....ah yes....

Text written by men to control the ignorant masses.

Got to love all this killing in the name of god.

The Q'ran was allegedly written by a pedophilic warlord...now that is a messiah.

Sheesh !!!!!

DD

[MadMax]

Originally posted by DaDakota
Religion....ah yes....

Text written by men to control the ignorant masses.

Got to love all this killing in the name of god.

The Q'ran was allegedly written by a pedophilic warlord...now that is a messiah.

Sheesh !!!!!

DD

seriously, dd...is that necessary? do you realize how offensive that is? can you not make a point about this without being so incredibly conclusive and inflammatory?

[DaDakota]

Originally posted by MadMax
seriously, dd...is that necessary? do you realize how offensive that is? can you not make a point about this without being so incredibly conclusive and inflammatory?

Uhhhhhh, no !!!

It is how I see religion, especially when I see how many people are dying when their leaders are quoting the Q'ran to get them to blow themselves up.

Or in Guyana where they drink the special punch that Jim Jones made for them, or perhaps the David Koreshians in Waco?

There is nothing wrong with religion per se, but for people to blindly follow a book
WRITTEN BY MAN is incredibly ignorant.

In my inflammatory opinion of course.

And Allah (the warlord/murderer) did marry a 9 year old...so if the shoe fits.....

DD

[MadMax]

Originally posted by DaDakota
Uhhhhhh, no !!!

It is how I see religion, especially when I see how many people are dying when their leaders are quoting the Q'ran to get them to blow themselves up.

Or in Guyana where they drink the special punch that Jim Jones made for them, or perhaps the David Koreshians in Waco?

There is nothing wrong with religion per se, but for people to blindly follow a book
WRITTEN BY MAN is incredibly ignorant.

In my inflammatory opinino of course.

DD

your post is loaded with assumptions about people and beliefs you clearly have no clue about. keep up the great work.

[DaDakota]

Whatever Max.....Nothing I said was wrong, it just undermines religion and that makes you and others uncomfortable.

No problem, I can see the hypocrisy oozing around this thread.

DD

[blackfish1]

MadMax--

You are absolutely right, and it was my error to quote Luke in that way. I didn't pull it from another site--this was from a CD Rom Bible I have and did some word searches....a final post before bedtime that I didn't bother to check. Shoddy research, the point was innacurate and not up to par. My bad, my goof, my apologies. I still stand by my previous posts, though. Those I actually took time with.

cheers

Blackfish

[MadMax]

Originally posted by blackfish1
MadMax--

You are absolutely right, and it was my error to quote Luke in that way. I didn't pull it from another site--this was from a CD Rom Bible I have and did some word searches....a final post before bedtime that I didn't bother to check. Shoddy research, the point was innacurate and not up to par. My bad, my goof, my apologies. I still stand by my previous posts, though. Those I actually took time with.

cheers

Blackfish

awesome. i appreciate you saying that.

people have absolutely abused and twisted the bible to have it serve their purposes. no doubt about that.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by DaDakota
Whatever Max.....Nothing I said was wrong,

God...is that you???

That statement alone...partcularly when its describing your own contentions...your own opinions...tells me all I need to know about reading through your posts.

Hypocrisy?? How about just treating people with some level of respect?

[DaDakota]

I respect everyone, just not religion.

Most people are looking for a leader, be it a politician, a quarterback, a point guard, or a religios leader, they are looking.

God gave us a free will and a mind to contemplate his/her existance.

I don't believe that God can be found between the pages of any book, but only by looking within.

Do I believe in God? You bet !

Do I believe in relgion? Hell no !

Religion breeds intolerance, and that is one of the biggest causes of wars and strife.

Am I callous about it? You bet !!

I can not see how intelligent people can honestly follow a book or tablet of stories that was written by man. Man is corruptable, and has proven it time and time again, and the men/women who wrote the Bible, the Q'ran, the Torah, etc..etc.. all are human and therefore flawed.

God exists, but the search for him is not found in any human oriented set of rules & guidelines.

DD

[IROC it]

Originally posted by blackfish1
Riiiiiiigghhhhht

"I say to you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. As for my enemies who do not want me to reign over them, bring them here and kill them in my presence" (Luke 19:26-27).

B

CONTEXT.

This is in a parable of the ungrrateful man that had been pardoned for what he owed the king, then turned around and wanted the ultimate done to those that owed him....

This was Jesus speaking, and quoting, what a man had done, and how NOT to be.

CONTEXT is a real pain ain't it?



But I see you have already recanted in the "retractions" page after the front page story ran and got press, and readers.

Way to be accurate.

[blackfish1]

Hey--I can admit when I make a mistake. I explained and apologized. Happens to us all. But I still stand by my original posts, and will add the following:

Look at Paul's command in Romans 12:19. It clearly forbids individual, personal vengeance, declaring that vengeance belongs to God. However in the following verses Paul goes on to explain how God takes that vengeance. In 13:3-4 he explains that a government official is the revenger that God has appointed to execute his wrath. No doubt some governments do not follow God. No doubt some officials have used their power of life and death to do evil. But this does not deny the fact that God has given government the authority to enact and enforce laws for the protection/support/praise of those who do good things and for the punishment/revenge against them that do evil things.

There can be no doubt about Paul's meaning here. Remember that the same God who gave the command to not kill sent the Israelite nation into the promised land to kill and drive out the inhabitants of that land. Taking human life is not always
murder, according to the Bible. Murder is the unauthorized taking of human life. If it is authorized by God, then it is not murder.

Now how exactly is murder, authorized by God for war, capital punishment, etc., any different from say...death to the infidels? There are plenty of texts in the Bible to support smiting the non-believers, and easy justification (in the NT, no less) to back up God supported violence. seems like the same thing to me.

Blackfish

[IROC it]

Context again. He is referring to the Roman rulers with the sword, in that they are appointed by God directly. He is teaching that those in auithority are allowed by God Himself to be in authority.

Romans 13:1-4 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever (any criminal, whether Christian or not) therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation(the consiquence of the law broken, death if need be).For rulers (officers)are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.(the criminal) Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good (abide by the law) and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he( the Roman Soldier in authority) is the minister of God to thee (Christian) for good. But if thou (Christian)do that which is evil (break the law), be afraid; for he(Roman Soldier)beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God (allowed this authority by God), a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil (breaks the law).

Stop debating what you clearly do not read in context.

Many law enforcement groups that have Christian emphasis use this as a basis for doing their jobs with the blessings of God...

Because that's what it means.

Context. ;)

[blackfish1]

No...clearly you're missing the point.

I'm saying that both religions have texts that justify violence in the name of God. The quote above does just that. Both religions (see original posts) condemn the non-believers. it's a very small leap to see that both religions have and do inspire followers to do violence in the name of their God, and that Christianity is no more blameless than Islam.

Yes--the context is not specifically "Death to the Infidels"--but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect the dots.

Blackfish

[Sane]

Originally posted by DaDakota


And Allah (the warlord/murderer) did marry a 9 year old...so if the shoe fits.....

DD

You come in here with that comment, how do you expect to have any credibility?

The prophet is not Allah. Allah means God, and Muhammad is the messenger of Islam.

You know, that actually made me feel a lot better. I thought you had some basic knowledge, but clearly you don't. Clearly, you're talking out of your ass.

[Sane]

Originally posted by DaDakota
I respect everyone, just not religion.



DD


So what you're saying is that you don't respect people's beliefs if you don't agree with them?

[Sane]

Originally posted by MadMax
interesting. thanks.

of course...if we're talking about harsh regulations/laws/outward acts/judgment, etc....i'm not sure we go from Old Testament to New Testament and get a "harsher" account. not with the grace of what Christians believe of Christ.

From what I understand, Muslims don't believe there are two Testaments. To be completely honest with you, the majority opinion is that none of the Testaments are accurate and that they have been "touched". What Muslims do believe in is the words of Jesus Christ on paper.

The Christian belief is that the New Testament was divinely inspired, correct? But exactly when was this done, and by who?

[Rockets R' Us]

Word on the religious streets was that the Old Testament quite resembled the Qur'an til it was pulled from shelfs. The Qur'ran was seen as a a revision and update to it.

[IROC it]

Originally posted by blackfish1
No...clearly you're missing the point.

No, I'm not missing that you're misquoting the Christian texts, while denying that Muslim texts suggest Jihad and violence as the clarion call and course of action, for the current believers.

So, then.. have you foound any other religious texts to misquote and mislead by yet?

Just wondering, because I've only seen you counter my claims with attacks against Christianity... while I've repeatedly stated that this tone from Islam is directed at ALL religions other than Islam... And you've even shown that there is a problem with Jews marrying Muslims...

Why? Is it Zionism hatred? Part of why it is alarming to see the holocaust discounted as a fable or lie, when the Islamic world speaks out against "Zionists" quite frequently.... America is considered a "Christian" nation because of its founding, whether we are post-Christian or not, we are targets for Jihad.

Zionism contains the Christian and Jewish faiths, traditionally, yet you personally have claimed no quarrel with Christianity in marriages, but turn right around and slam it's texts (proving nothing), but say you can't marry into Judaism?

Jesus, a Jew, was of the linegae of David... of the Lineage of Jacob.. of the lineage of Isaac.. of the lineage of Abraham... whom also was father of Ishmael.. so basically Jews and Arabs (and eventualy founders of Islam) are brothers...

What's the deal? You can slam the Bible (though falsely), deny Muslims to marry Jews, yet every other person is wrong for believing what the Qu'ran directly translates to?

Something's hidden here. There is hate, and death, aimed at every non-Allah religion.

And you know it, yet try to cover it up with "the Qu'ran is not to be translated."

What are you hiding if not the truth? Why defend the text from translation? Have you asked your Imam about this? Or has he dismissed it as well?


btw- Rockets R' Us... When did the Qu'ran get "cannonized" and by whom? Wasn't Islam founded some 600+ years after Christ lived? And wasn't Christ's birth recorded some 400+ years after the writing of the Talmud (Old Testament)?

So then, where is the "pulled from the shelfs" idea come from?

Plagarism is more precisely what took place with the addition of the hostility toward "infidels."

Research it.

[blackfish1]

No, I'm not missing that you're misquoting the Christian texts, while denying that Muslim texts suggest Jihad and violence as the clarion call and course of action, for the current believers.

I misquoted once--old news. The other quotes, given the point I was making, are valid, though that is a matter of opinion, and we don't agree...that's fine. I don't agree that Jihad and violence are the dominant messages of Islam. Sorry. I know this is the premise of the thread, and don't have any hopes of changing your mind. The point, which I will repeat, is that most religions--monotheistic religions--involve persecution of other faiths, encouraged and supported by God in one form or another, which is yet another reason I don't subscribe to them.

So, then.. have you foound any other religious texts to misquote and mislead by yet?

No--can you suggest some? ;)

The rest of your posting is intended for someone else, I think. I didn't make the claims you're discussing.

[Lil Pun]

Originally posted by Sane
So what you're saying is that you don't respect people's beliefs if you don't agree with them?

I don't think he completely meant that, it's hard or it would be hard to explain so hopefully he'll jump back in here and do it. If he did mean that then I apologize.

I don't understand religion myself, I mean if you all believe in the same thing God, Allah, whatever then why are there so many branches of every religion (Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, etc.) and each one has their own rules and regulations of how things should be done?

[IROC it]

Originally posted by blackfish1
I misquoted once--old news. The other quotes, given the point I was making, are valid,

You thouroughly misqouted, or at least misinterpreted (irony), the text in Romans.

I understand you don't agree with Jihad.. but, then, why defend that the texts are "not to be translated?"

Why discount another religion (singling it out) while not seeing that the topic was that the inbred hatred of Jews, Christians and all other religions besides Islam, taught throughout the Muslim community, is what is being fostered by this article in a predominate newspaper in a heavily Muslim region of the world? And that it is a concern that ALL other religious beliefs, creeds, and nations should be alerted too?

All I said was "wake up" that "some" are causing this trouble, perhaps trying to in your words be more "harsh.." in this present time?

If it's ineveitable for this Jihad to be waged, and some are taking it on themselves to wage it now... why be upset at me echoing what they've already begun and making more light of it?

Why? If you were indifferent, then why try and discredit the truth found INSIDE the Qu'ran???

:confused:

Nice cop out. Perhaps it is also true that some practicing Muslims, in some areas, do not realize the severity and imminent urgency that there own religion is pointing them to war. And why not? Where are the majority of war reports from in the world over the past 30 years?

Now it has hit American soil.. so now Americans see it first hand, and I for one, am alarmed by the lack of "seeing things as they are" that goes on.

Our own 9/11 commission said as much... :rolleyes:

WAKE UP

[DaDakota]

Originally posted by Sane
You come in here with that comment, how do you expect to have any credibility?

The prophet is not Allah. Allah means God, and Muhammad is the messenger of Islam.

You know, that actually made me feel a lot better. I thought you had some basic knowledge, but clearly you don't. Clearly, you're talking out of your ass.

Right,

I mispoke, it was Muhammed that was the pedaphile and murderer.

Thanks.

DD

[blackfish1]

I understand you don't agree with Jihad.. but, then, why defend that the texts are "not to be translated?"

Dude--will you please check who is writing what? I didn't say that. I can't argue points that I didn't make in the first place!

I don't know which of your comments were made for me anymore, so I'm just dropping this. Interesting discussion though. I'm sure we'll have more.

Blackfish

[Sane]

Originally posted by Lil Pun
I don't think he completely meant that, it's hard or it would be hard to explain so hopefully he'll jump back in here and do it. If he did mean that then I apologize.

I don't understand religion myself, I mean if you all believe in the same thing God, Allah, whatever then why are there so many branches of every religion (Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, etc.) and each one has their own rules and regulations of how things should be done?

Look at his posts. Is that respect for people's beliefs?

[Sane]

Originally posted by Lil Pun
I don't think he completely meant that, it's hard or it would be hard to explain so hopefully he'll jump back in here and do it. If he did mean that then I apologize.

I don't understand religion myself, I mean if you all believe in the same thing God, Allah, whatever then why are there so many branches of every religion (Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, etc.) and each one has their own rules and regulations of how things should be done?

Oh, btw... We don't believe in the same thing.

Jews, Christians and Muslims believe in totally different things.

As for the branches, it's simply a matter of humans being imperfect. The message wasn't clearly recieved, so there was a difference in opinion about what is "right". But the basics are the same: Christians have the same Bible, Muslims have the same Qura'an, and Jews have the same Torah. Every branch in each religion believes in the same God.

[Sane]

IROC it, still waiting for your reply to my last post directed towards you. Unless you are speechless, in which case nevermind.

[KaiSeR SoZe]

I don't know why I came back to this hell hole of a forum called "Debate and Discussion" I wish I could ignore it and stop clicking every time I see a yellow light :o

[Rockets R' Us]

Great, now I seemed to have forgotten what I came to reply to, and I don't feel up to the task of diving back into this beast of a thread and finding out. :confused:

[Mango]

Originally posted by Sane

- Infidels, knows as "Kafirs" in the Qura'an, are those people who want to put an end to Islam (to be brief). It's those people who are not indifferent, but have negative intentions towards Islam and Muslims. I.E., people who take over their land, kill their women and children, and force other religions onto them.



The infidels (Kafirs) concept puzzles me. What is the opinion of the Muslim World in regards to the historical push of the Muslim religion into Europe (present day Spain and the Balkans) and also the push into the Indian subcontinent?



Originally posted by Sane


I'm sure it's quite harsh to watch the Islamic teachings being applied in Saudi, but I'm all for it. The crime rates in Saudi and the U.A.E. are superb. I live in the Middle East and I can be outside on the streets at 3 or 4 in the morning without worrying about anything. We don't lock our house door. Some people don't even lock their cars. In Saudi, most don't even locktheir stores during prayer time. I'm fully aware that I haven't gone through the reprucussions of these punishments, but it is effective, and to be EXTREMELY fair, not more than 25 people a year are punished by amputation or execution in Saudi.



OK......tell us what isn't true in this article.

<a HREF="http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Discrimination%20against%20non-Muslims%20in%20Saudi%20Arabia">Discrimination against non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia</a>

Do you still agree with the Saudi implementation of things?

[Sane]

Originally posted by Mango
The infidels (Kafirs) concept puzzles me. What is the opinion of the Muslim World in regards to the historical push of the Muslim religion into Europe (present day Spain and the Balkans) and also the push into the Indian subcontinent?





OK......tell us what isn't true in this article.

<a HREF="http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Discrimination%20against%20non-Muslims%20in%20Saudi%20Arabia">Discrimination against non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia</a>

Do you still agree with the Saudi implementation of things?


- Actually, that's something I'm exploring right now. As I understand it, they were spreading Islam. What is the reason for the METHOD in which they were spreading it is exactly what I'm trying to discover. I'm completely open to the concept that they were wrong in doing what they did, just like I think the way it was spread into Persia was wrong. Omar Bin Al Khattab forced Islam into Persia, and we can see the effects today - when you are forced to do something, you will never do it with maximum efficiency.

- I don't understand what you're asking of me from that article. But I do agree with everything in it ONLY for Saudi. Being free about other religions is something I wouldn't want anywhere near Mekka. YOu are allowed to pratice in private - are you asking that people be allowed to practice in public? Saudis are all Muslims I believe, so if you want to practice in public, feel free to go to another country since you're not in your homeland anyway.

[IROC it]

Originally posted by Sane
Saudis are all Muslims I believe, so if you want to practice in public, feel free to go to another country since you're not in your homeland anyway.

That's as goofy as saying "America was founded in Christianity, so if you wanna practice something else, go home."

Who's the elitist here? The religion that declares all other "infidel" that's who.

[Mango]

Originally posted by Sane
- Actually, that's something I'm exploring right now. As I understand it, they were spreading Islam. What is the reason for the METHOD in which they were spreading it is exactly what I'm trying to discover. I'm completely open to the concept that they were wrong in doing what they did, just like I think the way it was spread into Persia was wrong. Omar Bin Al Khattab forced Islam into Persia, and we can see the effects today - when you are forced to do something, you will never do it with maximum efficiency.


Well.....when somebody has those intentions against Islam or actually carries through with them.....they are viewed as an infidel (Kafir).

Would those (Muslims) who did the same things against Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoarastarians etc be considered OK by the Muslim people?

<a HREF="http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/72E2FDE3-CDF2-475A-B020-B282DE638811.htm">The history of Jerusalem</a>

<i>.........In AD135 the Roman emperor Hadrian rebuilt the city, giving it new walls and officially naming the land as Palestine while re-naming Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina in honour to his pagan God, Jupiter.


From AD313, with the widespread acceptance of Christianity by Rome, Jerusalem underwent a revival, greatly aided by St Helena (wife of Emperor Constantine), who sponsored much re-building of the city in the early 4th century. It became a centre for Christian pilgrimage.

By AD638, with the rapid spread of a new religion in the region, Islam, the city was captured by an army led by Abu Ubaydah under the caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab and Islam came to Palestine.

Ever since the time of Muhammad, Muslims have considered Jerusalem to be an important place for pilgrimage after Makka, due to its religious significance as being the place of the prophet’s miraculous journey to heaven. ...........</i>


Permitting Christians and Jews to live in Muslim lands doesn't seem as benevolent as you portray it to be if it takes an army to make it <i>Muslim lands</i>.


Originally posted by Sane

- I don't understand what you're asking of me from that article. But I do agree with everything in it ONLY for Saudi. Being free about other religions is something I wouldn't want anywhere near Mekka. YOu are allowed to pratice in private - are you asking that people be allowed to practice in public? Saudis are all Muslims I believe, so if you want to practice in public, feel free to go to another country since you're not in your homeland anyway.

I already know about the <i>Defender of the Two Mosques</i> concept for Saudi Arabia, but what does Eastern Saudi Arabia bordering on the Persian Gulf have to do with Mecca which is on the other side of the country? Perhaps 500 - 600 miles away.........yet other religions still have to stay in the shadows.

Speaking of Eastern Saudi Arabia......... the Shia don't seem to be considered equal to the Sunni in the article that I quoted earlier. If <i>Saudis are all Muslims</i>.......why are some more equal than others?


Post 9-11, there were some incidents against a few Mosques and a few Muslims in the U.S. and there was a concensus that it wasn't right for people to react like that. Yet....religions (other than Islam) have to hide in Saudi Arabia. You will probably respond on a religious level, but that ignores the freedom and respect level that the Muslim World seems oblivious to.

Originally posted by Sane

Saudis are all Muslims I believe, so if you want to practice in public, feel free to go to another country since you're not in your homeland anyway.

If a Saudi moves to the U.S. .......should he be allowed to attend a mosque that is visible (practicing in public)? He is in the minority in the U.S. and <b> he isn't in his homeland anyway.</b>

[Sane]

Originally posted by IROC it
That's as goofy as saying "America was founded in Christianity, so if you wanna practice something else, go home."

Who's the elitist here? The religion that declares all other "infidel" that's who.


Still waiting on you replying to my post. Until you can defend your previous argument, I suggest you don't start another one.

[Sane]

Originally posted by Mango
Well.....when somebody has those intentions against Islam or actually carries through with them.....they are viewed as an infidel (Kafir).

Would those (Muslims) who did the same things against Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoarastarians etc be considered OK by the Muslim people?

<a HREF="http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/72E2FDE3-CDF2-475A-B020-B282DE638811.htm">The history of Jerusalem</a>

<i>.........In AD135 the Roman emperor Hadrian rebuilt the city, giving it new walls and officially naming the land as Palestine while re-naming Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina in honour to his pagan God, Jupiter.


From AD313, with the widespread acceptance of Christianity by Rome, Jerusalem underwent a revival, greatly aided by St Helena (wife of Emperor Constantine), who sponsored much re-building of the city in the early 4th century. It became a centre for Christian pilgrimage.

By AD638, with the rapid spread of a new religion in the region, Islam, the city was captured by an army led by Abu Ubaydah under the caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab and Islam came to Palestine.

Ever since the time of Muhammad, Muslims have considered Jerusalem to be an important place for pilgrimage after Makka, due to its religious significance as being the place of the prophet’s miraculous journey to heaven. ...........</i>


Permitting Christians and Jews to live in Muslim lands doesn't seem as benevolent as you portray it to be if it takes an army to make it <i>Muslim lands</i>.




I already know about the <i>Defender of the Two Mosques</i> concept for Saudi Arabia, but what does Eastern Saudi Arabia bordering on the Persian Gulf have to do with Mecca which is on the other side of the country? Perhaps 500 - 600 miles away.........yet other religions still have to stay in the shadows.

Speaking of Eastern Saudi Arabia......... the Shia don't seem to be considered equal to the Sunni in the article that I quoted earlier. If <i>Saudis are all Muslims</i>.......why are some more equal than others?


Post 9-11, there were some incidents against a few Mosques and a few Muslims in the U.S. and there was a concensus that it wasn't right for people to react like that. Yet....religions (other than Islam) have to hide in Saudi Arabia. You will probably respond on a religious level, but that ignores the freedom and respect level that the Muslim World seems oblivious to.



If a Saudi moves to the U.S. .......should he be allowed to attend a mosque that is visible (practicing in public)? He is in the minority in the U.S. and <b> he isn't in his homeland anyway.</b>

- You are absolutely right. Forcing Islam onto a person is forbidden. That is why I'm looking into this - there must be some reason, some exception, something... There is definitely no quote in the Qura'an that says "go make everyone Muslims by force, if they don't agree, kill them"... I guarantee you that much. You have to understand that those actions happened long ago, at a time when war was the classic means of resolving matters. Most religions went through this phase in fact, conquering lands and spreading their religion.

Oh, and it may not be benevolent, but it's a hell of a lot better than what everyone else would do... Which is just kill them.


- It really doesnt matter. If other countries in the Arab Gulf had balls, they would do the same. The region is supposed to be protected. As it is, Mecca unfortunately is beginning to see its first signs of theft and other minor crimes.

It's really nothing that anyone can argue with - it's a Muslim country where Muslim law applies. The law is written such that other religions are not spread in the country.

- I could respond on a religous level, but nothing needs to be said in that regard... But understand this:

The U.S. is a free country. Saudi is not. So when you come to a country, and they tell you that you can practice whatever religion you want, then you should expect JUST that. You don't expect to go there, practice your religion and have your place of worship attacked.

Likewise, when you come to a country and it is well known that you are not allowed to freely practice your religion in public, then you should expect JUST that. If you know that, and you come to this country and break those laws/rules, then you know exactly what you're getting into.


- Sunnis and Shi3as have certain different beliefs. Saudi is mostly Sunni and Iran, for example, is almost all Shi3a. So if you are a Sunni in Iran, like me, you will not be well-recieved. Vice versa for Saudi. In Iraq, there's a decent amount of both, so there's less discrimination.

- As for your question about a Saudi in the U.S., yes he should be allowed. Firstly, he is allowed by law to do so. Secondly, America is not a secular (right word?) country. America is not a Christian country. Saudi is, however, a Muslim country.

[Sir Jackie Chiles]

Originally posted by Sane
- I don't understand what you're asking of me from that article. But I do agree with everything in it ONLY for Saudi. Being free about other religions is something I wouldn't want anywhere near Mekka. YOu are allowed to pratice in private - are you asking that people be allowed to practice in public? Saudis are all Muslims I believe, so if you want to practice in public, feel free to go to another country since you're not in your homeland anyway.

This post by inSane is exactly the reason why I don't want people who interpret their religion like that to spread it to Western countries - because they are intolerant. The problem here is that the more tolerant our Western societies are - and in principle, I would absolutely be for being tolerant and letting them build mosques and whatever - the more we invite this spirit of intolerance to gain a foothold in our own countries. Sad but true.

[MR. MEOWGI]

Originally posted by Sir Jackie Chiles
This post by inSane is exactly the reason why I don't want people who interpret their religion like that to spread it to Western countries - because they are intolerant. The problem here is that the more tolerant our Western societies are - and in principle, I would absolutely be for being tolerant and letting them build mosques and whatever - the more we invite this spirit of intolerance to gain a foothold in our own countries. Sad but true.

But aren't you doing exactlly what you are condemming?

[Sir Jackie Chiles]

Originally posted by MR. MEOWGI
But aren't you doing exactlly what you are condemming?

Isn't that exactly what I am saying, that this is a problem? It's a real dilemma - how do you deal with intolerance if you want to be tolerant?

How about this example: You like to be a hospitable person and you like having guests and you condemn violence.

Now, if someone comes into your house and starts hitting your children and telling them what to do, then what do you do? You hit back to defend your children and thereby you are violent?

And then Mr. SMARTIEPANTS MEOWGI ;) comes and asks "But aren't you doing exactlly [sic] what you are condemning?"

Basically, what inSane is saying is "Nobody should be allowed to practice their religion in Saudi-Arabia except Muslims". The logical conclusion would be that Muslims should not be allowed to practice their religion in Western countries, right? That's not what we, as tolerant Westerners, want. So, thinking this through, what might this lead to? People who think like inSane basically do not really respect other religions (I remember him starting a thread where he "innocently" more or less announced the "superiority" of the Muslim religion over all the "infidel" religions (yes, I don't think he used that word)).

So doesn't that mean that if people with that kind of thinking had the power to do so, they would not allow people to follow their "infidel" religions (as inSane proposes it for Saudi-Arabia)? But aren't us Westerners - with our tolerant approach - giving these people a chance to advance that mission?

As a conclusion, I am not saying that we should become intolerant. However, I am saying that we need to be cautious and weary of those who are intolerant. And we need to prevent them from achieving their mission.

Perhaps we can help them and educate them. If we cannot do that, we have to be ready to defend our values. When our tolerance reaches a point where it is getting abused to promote intolerance, we have to draw a line.

[Sir Jackie Chiles]

As a sidenote, even though I sometimes find whatever Sane posts pretty insane, I think he is only confused, but does not seem to be an aggressive person - on the contrary, it seems like he is a nice guy who is honestly looking for truth and who is open to discourse and debate despite his apparent indoctrination.

The problem is, I think there are way too many people who have similar beliefs as Sane who ARE aggressive and ready to force those views onto others. That's where it becomes not only difficult, but dangerous to cope with intolerant thoughts as those uttered by Sane in various threads, and that's why I might be a little harsh on Sane here.

[Sane]

You see SJC, you make it sound as if I think Islam should be practiced anywhere but other religions shouldn't, when that's simply not true.

I honestly couldn't give a rat's ass if Islam was not allowed to be openly practiced in the U.S. or anywhere else. It's hard enough being a good Muslim in a decent country, much less the U.S., where the temptation to sin is overwhelming.

What I AM sayign is that, currently, Saudi doesn't allow other religions to practice openly while the U.S. does. Now if that law changes, fine by me. However, as long as the law states I can do whatever the fudge I want in the United States of America, then anyone who lays a hand on me for doing so is WRONG.


As for your last post, I just want to say that I do respect people's opinions and really, it's great to know that you don't think I'm agressive or forward with my ideas. However, personally, I don't feel confused at all. Deep down, I really believe that I have found the right religion, the truth, and I realize that everyone feels that way about their religion. But as a human being, if I feel I know something that would benefit everyone else, there's always that temptation to want to help everyone else. In Islam, we say the important thing is the heart's true intention. My intention is not to force my ideas on anyone, it's just that I truly truly just want to share my knowledge, maybe someone will identify with it, maybe someone will show me proof that I'm clearly wrong.

Things can get a bit intense here in the D&D, but I'm sure we can always maintain