While I agree with you that most Muslims are just hardworking individuals trying to raise a family like the rest of us. However what does upset me is how come you don't have any of the supposed high ranking Muslim leaders denouncing these terrorists as being un-Islamic in their actions. They just seem to turn a blind eye to the issue since they are not the intended target of these suicide bombers.
i figured CC did that rather than trey and matt what annoyed me was the very end when it was one huge long beep over and over it just ended up hurting my ears hopefully the true version appears online so i hear what they said at the end. oh and i wish they had the asian guy singing "barbara" in it
http://www.mpac.org/article.php?id=57 http://www.religioustolerance.org/islfatwa.htm http://www.1888pressrelease.com/american-muslim-leaders-denounce-terrorism-pr-152240.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/02/muslim-leader-issues-anti_n_482233.html http://www.changethestory.net/?q=content/muslims-denounce-terrorism (scroll to bottom for more links) http://www.muslimsforjesus.org/Curr...mitted in the name of Islam on 60 Minutes.htm http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm There are many more links to proclaimed (and self-proclaimed) Islamic leaders who donounce terrorism or the twisted version of "Jihad".
they usually show the new episode again at 11, but last night it was the catcher in the rye one. doesnt islam teach that when you are in another country you should respect their laws and customs?
In your link (http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html), the sub-phrase "[Jihad]" in brackets has been added most of the Quranic versus. Why are you assuming that Allah's Way is a synonym for Jihad? And furthermore, what is YOUR definition of Jihad? Is it the same as a terrorist's? Another example is the verse "Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them"....who added "(to fight)" in that verse? Does the word "fight" have to mean physical assault? Couldn't it mean to struggle? Another issue is that a lot of the versus are believed by everyone on Earth, not just Muslims. See...."Allah only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of (your) religion [i.e., no fraternizing with the enemy], and drove you forth from your homes and backed up (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust".....so no chillin with the enemy? Wouldn't any military force agree with that one? You say that taking the literal meaning shows that Islam promotes violence (or does not condemn it). But who defines "literal"? The website seems to agree with the way a violent person or a terrorist would define it. One last question...if Quran promotes violence, could you tell me which verse literally says "It is ok to kill innocent people in the name of Islam" without any brackets or extras.
Muhammad has been in several South Park episodes and comedy central has allowed it before, I think the censoring this time was a creative choice Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler
I was really hoping your post wouldn't include a bunch of personal interpretation and equivocation. The website I posted really isn't the issue here, there's a hundred others I could have linked to that say virtually the same thing. The problem here is that the mainstream faiths we see today actually do promote violence (whether the religious leaders denounce it is virtually irrelevant, and of little consequence), by interpretation or otherwise, they open the door to this type of interpretation that produces these outcomes. I'm not a Muslim scholar, so I'm not going to sit around and figure out ways to dissect the Quran to answer your question, but the real question here is WHY are people being violent in the name of religion? You can't simply slough that question off or dismiss it as "extremism". It has a cause, it isn't just lunatics acting irrationally. These people draw their inspiration and directives from the religious texts, period. And they will continue to do so until they go the way of the buffalo.
I honestly don't understand what point you're trying to make here. Violent fundamentalism is, by definition, action (violent acts). There is no transition needed to explain for. *edit: wait, I see it now. Um, ok. Well, the transition is people being convinced that either if they don't follow those violent directives that they'll be punished, or that if they do, they'll be rewarded (not just rewarded, but have those actions be considered the highest/best thing one can do with their life). fair enough? That may be true, but it has no bearing on my point that without divine directive, religious based violence wouldn't happen. If there is an ulterior motive, then it isn't really religious based violence, it may just be used as an excuse, which happens all the time. (bigots, for example) Yes we can agree that people who choose to interpret religious texts fundamentally and draw violent directives from it are uncommon at best. But we can't agree that it requires instigation. When religious Text A says "Killing X will result in Y reward", that doesn't require a whole hell of a lot of instigation. Not a very good analogy. But if you insist, I would say that some guns are made better than others. Some religions instigate more violence than others. We all know this. There's a reason Tibbetan monks aren't blowing themselves up despite being oppressed as all hell, while others are going out of their way to kill people in the name of religion/god. I'm in a hurry and I don't really know what part of my post this is referring to, but I'll respond to the underlined. I never said it was the only reason people commit terrible crimes against humanity. What I said is that religion allows for and in some instances promotes such horrible things unnecessarily. People don't need divine inspiration to good things, or at the very least be civil to each other, but people sure as hell need inspiration to act violently, especially on the scale of genocide. (the psychopath gene notwithstanding, as it is a statistical outlier) I refer you to my first response. An ulterior motive is just that. The gun thing really is a terrible, terrible analogy. The function of a gun is not open to interpretation; the function of a religion is. A better analogy would be one gun is designed to do nothing but shoot bad guys, ever... while another gun fires randomly and sometimes will explode in your hand. All guns are built (mostly) equally and they don't do that... not all religions are built equally, NOR are they interpreted equally. Religion + technology = scared Donny I think I already answered this question in my response to Max. We keep coming back to the ulterior motive thing...
The distinction is in violent fundamentalism as "promoted" via interpretation of XYZ text vs violent fundamentalism as perpetrated. Not sure I agree with that. Where was the "divine directive" for the crusades? It was made up by political leaders who exploited religious fervor and ignorance. Is this exploitation something intrinsic or unique to religions? Not at all. Religious based violence is just a means to an end. There is nothing atypical about it. Religious based violence is almost never about the religion itself - it's political, not spiritual. This is a really important distinction. You can find the oddball lunatic who acts solely out of vengeance for his flavor of sky-god, but the vast, vast majority are making a statement about their political situation, and they justify the method via religion. Doesn't make it any better, but it's fundamentally different. I know. No argument. Agreed 100%. Not sure I agree with the premise that human's are predisposed to "good things", but ignoring that - the idea, again, is that the inspiration for such actions is not religious necessarily at root. You say people don't need "divine intervention" for good , well they don't need it for bad either. Obviously, divine intervention in theory should promote only good - and that is definitely something fair to complain about. For the sake of closure I personally don't see religion being helpful to society anymore. It's antiquated and a gross shell of what it used to be. But it's not some demonic force either - it tends to be used that way because it's easily manipulated, but the root causes are almost never divinely inspired wrath - people usually just covet their neighbors land/riches/cities/water/etc. Very few people are spiritual. Accordingly, most violence isn't either. Most people use religion as a crutch, instead of a path.
muslims need thicker skin but when the majority of you blame islam for this you are just contributing to the problem. They aren't allowed to depict the prophet and its their rule so we have no right to rag on them for it. At the same time this country has its own laws and we have the freedom of speech. Muslims need to ignore it if they find it so offensive. I think there are only a hand full of people like that and they aren't even in this country. I don't see why you take a comedy show so seriously.
The "muslims" who made this threat and commited acts like 9/11 or the madrid bombings are very similar to those christians who declared the crusades. Both exploit people who mainly are unaware of why there are fighting but have enough faith that their actions are justified.
It's your fault. I warned you. You struck Max down, and now his vengeance is almost complete. You're more machine now than man, Donny. Twisted and evil. Beep Boop.
