against terrorism in Oklahoma of all places ( 
) and is banned from his mosque for being "anti-muslim."
Here's his letter.
And here's the story of the mosques reaction.
MyPetJawa Blog has a video extract of the local News interviewing the Man threatened by his Mosque.
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/185502.php
This is a mosque in the heartland of America, consisting of what is, presumably, moderate Muslims who embrace American Freedom and Values. (Had a hard time typing that without busting into laughter).
This is why "moderate" Muslims won't speak out, because thier fellow "moderate" Muslims take action against them.
Note: This discussion should not about: Which is the superior religion, Chritianity, Islam or other? It should be focused on:
a) Noting the peace-supporting/terror-fighting actions of Muslim Groups.
b) Supporting these peace-oriented groups in their desire to change Islam.
c) Encouraging those who denouce terror to become more vocal and recieve the backing of the "moderate" Muslims.
Here's an interview after the fact that sheds more light on the situation.
| http://eteraz.org/story/2006/11/28/81658/525 wrote: |
Portrait of Jamal Miftah
by Ali Eteraz
On an uneventful day in the fall, a recent immigrant living in Oklahoma, who happens to be Muslim, sees Ayman Al Zawahiri spouting off on the frontpage of his local newspaper and decides to write a letter to the editor (may be available here instead). In his letter he condemns Al-Qaeda, suicide bombings and terrorism, and beseeches Muslims worldwide to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice in order to prove that Islam is not a religion of hatred and aggression. Then, out of nowhere, he is told by Muslim community leaders that unless he rescinds his article and publicly apologizes to the Muslim community at the Friday prayer he will not be welcome at the mosque which he has attended since moving to America in 2003. This man's name is Jamal Miftah.
Mr. Miftah graciously consented to speak with Eteraz.Org: States of Islam, the first interactive blog for Positive Muslim Activism.
I began by asking Mr. Miftah if he had imagined that people – specifically Muslims -- would react negatively to this editorial. His answer: "I was not expecting any reaction. I thought people would appreciate it." Yet his article, which appeals to Ayman al-Zawahiri "and his "band of thugs" to hand themselves over to justice and stop spreading evil led certain members within the Islamic Society of Tulsa to call him an "agent" a "traitor," and an "anti-Muslim" and to ban him from the mosque. The reason behind the IST's apprehensivenss? As one of its leaders said to Miftah: "you can't write bad things about Muslims in front of non-Muslims."
Miftah is a calm and thoughtful man. He has a wife and four kids. He went to junior college in Pakistan in the late 70's, managed to avoid getting caught up in the political shenanigans, became a banker, then ran his father's business near the tribal areas of Pakistan. He relocated to Oklahoma in 2003 when the post 9/11 world rendered his part of the world a war-zone. It is apparent that he did not write his criticism for kicks or to attack Muslims. He considers himself a thorough-going believer. In fact, when I asked him whether he was concerned about any reprisals from "the Muslim community" he was quick to say "no, not the Muslim community, because I too am a Muslim, but from Al-Qaeda sympathizers."
It is Al-Qaeda, and terrorism, and thuggishness, and manipulation of Muslim youth that brings the passion out of Miftah. "We need to disown Bin Laden and his cronies," he said to me in a sudden burst of emphasis. "Ayman [al-Zawahiri] thinks he's the champion, and the spokesman, for Islam, but I don't think that is right. He's a terrorist, so far as I'm concerned." He recounted to me the rise of militant movements in Pakistan post 9/11 and pointed out the deceit of the militant leaders. "None of the district level leaders got killed. Only the poor and the ordinary followed. They got killed."
We talked about other things, and he carefully laid out what he believes is the true and righteous view of Islam towards violence. World Trade Center? "Unacceptable." Suicide bombings in Iraq and Israel? "I don't think these are right. No such example anywhere in the civilized world of such killing." He recounted with sadness a recent suicide attack not far from his family's village in Pakistan. "30 minutes from my village – 42 innocent army men – who make no more than 80 or 90 dollars a month, got killed in that suicide attack."
I asked him how he felt Muslims could counter terrorism. I asked him what he meant in his editorial when he asked the Muslims in the world to "rise up and start jihad against the killers of humanity." I asked him what he meant by Jihad itself? His response was poignant and wonderful. "Jihad doesn't mean fighting. Honest earning can be Jihad. I have four kids and a wife. If I go and work and bring honest food for them out of my hard work. That is Jihad. Now, Bin Laden and Zawahiri, they are somewhere in the tribal areas of Pakistan and the Muslims there have to realize that these guys are not Champions of Islam and all they need to do is hand them over to the law. That is Jihad."
The initial draft of Miftah's editorial contained a number of Quranic verses which oppose the militant theology. He was especially keen to have me cite a couple of them because he wanted to make it clear that his views were not simply a fringe belief but something accessible to each and every Muslim. (The paper refused to run the verses because they didn't want to make a Biblical debate out of it, and Miftah respected their decision). In his first draft he quoted Chapter Five, Verse Three of the Quran, which states: "Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression." As well as a verse from the sixth chapter: "Do not kill a soul which Allah has made sacred except through the due process of law." (6:151). In his conversation with me he added that the idea of having rules of combat came to Muslims directly from Muhammad. "When Muhammad went back to Mecca from Medina, he could have killed everyone. But he said don't say anything to the person working in the field. Don't say anything to the person who doesn't say anything to you."
So, why is it that a man with such views has been blacklisted by the Islamic Society of Tulsa? Why is he accused of "being too loud?" This was the question to which I most wanted an answer. I imagined – and was told by many of my friends going into this interview – that it could be possible that Miftah was a troublemaker of some kind and the mosque administrators used this editorial as a way to get him out. However, such a theory falls pretty flat on its face once I started talking to Miftah and he began to recount his experience at the mosque.
For example, while he has had differences with the mosque leadership, and even represented the group of dissenters who wanted to see certain administrative changes put in place, he simply does not have a history of demagoguery. When these dissenters realized that they were not making way in their argument, led by Miftah, they simply became quiet because they didn't want to create a fight or a division. In fact, at one point Miftah was even offered the Presidency of the mosque by the sitting Chairman. Miftah refused.
There is very little to suggest that this is a case of a bad apple starting an argument. Instead, he is the sort of person who noticed that the neighborhood in which the mosque is located petitioned to put speed humps on either side of the mosque. He brought the matter to the attention of the mosque leadership, arguing that the reason behind the speedbumps was that Muslims attending the mosque were driving too fast, which was something that the mosque leaders needed to address.
Nor is Miftah excessively bitter. He certainly feels betrayed and angered by the fact that he was called numerous names by the IST and pushed out. However, instead of taking any aggressive actions, he has simply reiterated to the mosque leadership that he is not going to rescind his article; he is not going to apologize for what he said; and in fact, he is going to wait for them to apologize to him for mistreating him. What troubles him most is that he enjoys going to the mosque and feels the right to worship has been taken unfairly from him. "There's just one mosque. There's no place for me to go to say my prayers. A mosque is Allah's house and no one has the power to take that." When I asked what would happen if he was never welcomed back, he stated that he hoped enough funds could be raised for a smaller mosque that he could attend.
I think that ultimately there are two things to be learned from this episode involving Jamal Miftah. The first is that there are Muslims all over the world who do not want to see Islam conflated with violence. These Muslims need to write to their newspapers and they need to be celebrated by the mainstream media. To that end, I am very glad that the Tulsa World had the chutzpah to give Miftah a platform. The last editorial in the New York Times which gave space to a Muslim to write on terrorism, on the other hand, was by a short story writer named Anar Ali who essentially said she could not be bothered with issues involving other Muslims (even as she played the Islam card to sell her anthology). I'm thinking of switching subscriptions.
The second lesson is a bit more indirect and has to do with the way mosque administration and leadership functions. It is clear from what Miftah described to me, that the Islamic Society of Tulsa does not elect its leaders; it merely appoints them. In those situations, dissent and disagreement, can only be dealt with in an authoritarian manner, namely, banning. The Islamic Society of Tulsa needs to consider its own democratic reform. Until a few years ago a vast majority of Muslim Students Associations at American campuses were oligarchical and run by a group of insiders as well. They used their power to keep women out of power positions. That all changed in the 1990's and early part of this decade with a vast majority of MSA's now choosing their Boards, and numerous women becoming heads of MSA's. Mosques across the world – but especially the ones in the West – need to consider opening up the voting mechanisms. To that end, I am hopefuly that CAIR, now armed with $50 million dollars, will create a broad ranged initiative within the USA to reform the constitutions of the countless Islamic Centers around the country and bring them to the democratic model. I think those kinds of initiatives would make the effort of people like Miftah altogether worthwhile. |
| Quote: |
This page has expired!
Please use your back button or click on the
following link to return to tulsaworld.com. |
That story is a little shocking to say the least. I thought the Muslims over here were supposed to be peaceful, but this makes it seem that the extremists are everywhere. My estimation of my own safety is greatly reduced. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Quote: | This page has expired!
Please use your back button or click on the
following link to return to tulsaworld.com. |
|
Crap. I'll try to find another copy.
| Quote: |
| That story is a little shocking to say the least. I thought the Muslims over here were supposed to be peaceful, but this makes it seem that the extremists are everywhere. My estimation of my own safety is greatly reduced. |
There are those that would argue that Fundimental Islam is the violent, radical killers and their supporters, and the "minority" of Muslims are the peaceful ones.
This story, and several others like it, lead me to beleive that may be the case. (I know I'll get flamed for this, but it's my opinion, and it's based on what I've seen (and not seen)).
I couldn't find the entire letter, but here's a part of it.
Pilfered from pointlessconundrum blog.
| Quote: |
I appeal to the Muslim youth in particular and Muslims of the world in general to rise up and start jihad against the killers of humanity and help the civilized world to bring these culprits to justice and prove that Islam is not a religion of hatred and aggression.
I appeal to the Muslim clerics around the world that, rather than issuing empty fatwas condemning suicide bombing, they should issue a fatwa for the death of such scoundrels and barbarians who have taken more than 4,267 lives of innocent people in the name of Islam and have carried out more than 24 terrorist attacks on civilian installations throughout the world. This does not include the chilling number of deaths because of such activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is well over 250,000.
I appeal to al-Zawahri and his band of thugs to hand themselves over to justice and stop spreading evil and killing innocent humans around the world in the name of Islam. Their time is limited and Muslims of the world will soon rise against them to apprehend them and bring them to justice.
|
Yeah, that's a great reason to ban him... 
Stop me if you've heard this... | Quote: |
| prove that Islam is not a religion of hatred and aggression. |
I mean, you keep telling me that it is, but I just don't see it.
:sigh: Sd3, leave Muslims alone, equating Islam with "terrorism" is like equating Jew with the atrocities of Israel, wrong in many ways.
Equating, no. Connecting, yes.
How do you explain the article? Or do you believe it is fake?
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| Sd3, leave Muslims alone, |
Con, no. I won't.
The fact is that 75% of all violence on earth right now is caused by Muslims*. And nearly ALL suicide bombing attacks carried out against women and children and other civilians, is done by, you guessed it... MUSLIMS. Muslims have killed tens of thousands (if not more) of innocents in Iraq in the last few years. Not Christians. Not the US. MUSLIMS!
I'm on a quest to find out why they won't speak out. If it's because they're scared, we need to change it.
If that's NOT why they won't speak out, then we need to be aware of why they won't.
Sorry if you're offended, but facts are facts, and no amount of blathering from you will change that. Just like you continually crying about there "not being a debate on global warming".
The only thing that will change my opinion is when I see Muslims speak out in a clear, loud voice and be accepted by the "majority" of Muslims, not banned from their mosques because they're anti-terrorist.
(*from HNN TV)
Almost forgot, Con... don't tell me what to report about in my own country. Anyone with a textbook of history can tell you that the spread of Islam from the beginning and forever will be done with the sword. Unfortunately their "Sacred" writings themselves allow for and even promote this. Mohamed and his crew marched on forcing conversion or death. The only other option was to pay insane funds for your freedom which only added to their ability to carry out missions of slaughter on the infidel who would not convert.
These are facts, historical facts. Muslims do not deny their own history. Any Muslim, moderate, conservative, extremist, will recognize that though they may not participate in the extremism, they will no doubt be without a sympathetic ear when trying to tell other Muslims to live in "peace".
Surah 2:190-, Surah 3:118, 119, Surah 5:18, Surah 5:51, Surah 8:36, Surah 9:27, Surah 9:121, Surah 48:29, etc.
These are easily found on websites all over.
These can all obviously be taken out of context and barring long exegetical work on the entomology of all the arabic words, it is plain to see that there are going to be serious issues here as with all religions. Such a short space does not allow for much more and does not prove anything in and of themselves but combined with honest study of such religion and contexts, it is clear to see that true Muslims will in never find sympathetic ears when it comes to peace.
| Quote: |
| The fact is that 75% of all violence on earth right now is caused by Muslims*. And nearly ALL suicide bombing attacks carried out against women and children and other civilians, is done by, you guessed it... MUSLIMS. Muslims have killed tens of thousands (if not more) of innocents in Iraq in the last few years. Not Christians. Not the US. MUSLIMS! |
That shows you irrational bigotry. How many people are murdered in the west? Millions, not by Muslims, by cereal killers, people killing for money, rage, thousands of people in china and many other country's have been killed for political reasons. If you look at all the violence in the world, to say 75% is being done by Muslims is incredibly stupid.
The violence in Iraq is between ethnic group and ethnic fighting is really about religion and in ethnic fighting the civilian's are almost always the targets. Suicide attacks where not invented by Muslims, suicide attacks have a long history but the first modern suicide attack were by a radical Russian group trying (and succeeded) Czar Alexander II, of course WW2 and were introduced ti the middle east by a Japanese militants group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attack#History
Christianity has a history even more bloody than Islam and if the old testament are story's at lest partly are true Judaism has an even more bloody history and what they all have in common is fundamentalist beliefs. So if you won;t to blame something, blame fundamentalism, or better yet, religion.
Or better yet, just understand this, bad things happen, wars happen, violence happens, it doesn't matter the beliefs of the people involved, when circumstances are right wars , very bad wars happen. Christianity is not to blame for the crusades, witch trails, Inquisition and wars between Catholics and Protestants, Judaism is not to blame for the horrible events of the old testament and Muslim are not to blame for the violence now. | The Conspirator wrote: |
n the world, to say 75% is being done by Muslims is incredibly stupid.
The violence in Iraq is between ethnic group and ethnic fighting is really about religion and in ethnic fighting the civilian's are almost always the targets. |
And it just so happens that both ethnicities fighting are Muslim...
By violence, it was probably meant as acts of war or terrorism. If that's the case, I'd say 75% is a low estimate.
| google wrote: |
Results 1 - 10 of about 46,700,000 for islam war. (0.07 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 23,100,000 for islam peace. (0.06 seconds)
|
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| Quote: | | The fact is that 75% of all violence on earth right now is caused by Muslims*. And nearly ALL suicide bombing attacks carried out against women and children and other civilians, is done by, you guessed it... MUSLIMS. Muslims have killed tens of thousands (if not more) of innocents in Iraq in the last few years. Not Christians. Not the US. MUSLIMS! |
That shows you irrational bigotry. How many people are murdered in the west? Millions, not by Muslims, by cereal killers, people killing for money, rage, thousands of people in china and many other country's have been killed for political reasons. If you look at all the violence in the world, to say 75% is being done by Muslims is incredibly stupid.
The violence in Iraq is between ethnic group and ethnic fighting is really about religion and in ethnic fighting the civilian's are almost always the targets. Suicide attacks where not invented by Muslims, suicide attacks have a long history but the first modern suicide attack were by a radical Russian group trying (and succeeded) Czar Alexander II, of course WW2 and were introduced ti the middle east by a Japanese militants group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attack#History
Christianity has a history even more bloody than Islam and if the old testament are story's at lest partly are true Judaism has an even more bloody history and what they all have in common is fundamentalist beliefs. So if you won;t to blame something, blame fundamentalism, or better yet, religion.
Or better yet, just understand this, bad things happen, wars happen, violence happens, it doesn't matter the beliefs of the people involved, when circumstances are right wars , very bad wars happen. Christianity is not to blame for the crusades, witch trails, Inquisition and wars between Catholics and Protestants, Judaism is not to blame for the horrible events of the old testament and Muslim are not to blame for the violence now. |
It's always racial with you, isn't it con? You can't accept facts so you say I'm a racist to draw attention away from the REAL PROBLEM.
Also, I'm talking about current events. Not ancient history. I could care less what Christians and Muslims did 100 years ago or more. I'm more concerned with what's going on today, and for you to deny it is irresponsible at best. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| The Conspirator wrote: | n the world, to say 75% is being done by Muslims is incredibly stupid.
The violence in Iraq is between ethnic group and ethnic fighting is really about religion and in ethnic fighting the civilian's are almost always the targets. |
And it just so happens that both ethnicities fighting are Muslim...
By violence, it was probably meant as acts of war or terrorism. If that's the case, I'd say 75% is a low estimate.
| google wrote: |
Results 1 - 10 of about 46,700,000 for islam war. (0.07 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 23,100,000 for islam peace. (0.06 seconds)
|
|
Yes but its not Islam that is the cause, the war is ethnic based not religious. Its like the genocide in Rwanda, Rwanda is mainly Christan but the wasn't cause by Christianity, it was caused by ethnic fighting.
And you can't rely on google for accuracy nor can you rely on the number of web sites on certain saying certain things to try and prove a point.
Sd3: You must learn from history. During WW2 both the allies and axis's bombed floodgates, during WW1 both side bombed civilian targets, during the civil war Sherman burned many city's to the ground, the crusaders killed thousands of civilian's, the Mongol empire killed men woman and children ruthlessly, the Roman raped and pillages city's the concurred so targeting civilian's is nothing new. suicide attack have been used sine bombs where invented and are a powerful tactic. And these tactics has been used by many, even Christens so to use them to try and demonize Muslims is ridiculous.
You complain about me "calling you racist" when you said "The fact is that 75% of all violence on earth right now is caused by Muslims" a ridiculous statement given the amount of violence around the world and the fact the Christianity is bigger than Islam.i've long been unimpressed by the Muslim response to the fundamentalist groups that act under the banner of Islam. In fact, i'm disgusted by it, and i've been quite vocal about this here.
Whenever a discussion about the problem of religious violence in Islam comes up, invariably some numbskull steps in and starts telling me that Islam means peace, or that i have Islam all wrong, or some other such pap. Just wait for it. It's going to happen here too. Just give it a little while.
Now, what's wrong with doing that? When a group of people are discussing the problems in Islam's fringes, what's the problem with stepping in and saying that Islam is not to blame? There are several problems.
First, duh. We're not idiots. We know that Islam itself does not necessarily, inevitably lead to jihad against non-Muslims. We can plainly see this by the fact that there are millions of Muslims that are not waging religious wars. Telling us that Islam does not equal terrorism is wasting our time with obvious observations.
Second, who bloody well cares? So what if Islam is supposed to be a religion of peace? We weren't discussing what Islam is supposed to be, we were discussing what it is. And what it is includes all of those wackjobs that fly planes into buildings. Yes, we know, they're not the only kinds of Muslims, and they may or may not be the majority, but regardless, they exist. Thus telling us that Islam means peace and love is just wasting our time, because it has nothing to do with the topic, it offers no useful information, and it's demonstrably false.
And most damning of all, it's morally repugnant to try and convince me not to be concerned about Islam. It is a plain and hard fact that there are people out there in the world who call themselves Muslims who would butcher me with less dignity than they afford animals, simply because I am not Muslim. And more importantly, the number of people like that is quite large, and they're organized, and they're on the warpath. To try and tell me otherwise is a flat-out lie.
And worse, it's a lie of the worst kind. Because when you do that - when you try to derail a discussion about the problems of fundamentalist Islam by telling people that it's not really a threat - you are telling people that you care more about the good name of your religion than you care about their lives. Because if i were stupid enough to take your words at face value, i might let my guard down, and find myself on Al-Jazeera's Bloodiest Home Videos looking at own severed neck stump. But that's not important, right? What is important is that the good name of Islam must be protected!
Disgusting.
i once saw a fake headline that i found really disturbing. It went "Millions of Muslims march against extremist violence". It was followed by "(yeah right)".
That illustrates a huge problem with the Muslim community. They simply don't care. If they did, they would be marching, or at least doing something. Crimes against humanity are being perpetrated in the name of their religion. Shouldn't they be speaking up about it?
And i don't mean speaking up to me. Don't bother talking to me about what Islam is and how it's being misinterpreted. TALK TO THE FREAKING TERRORISTS!!!! They're the ones who need to be told by good, moderate Muslims that they're freaking wackjobs. Not me, them.
We're (my and my partner) not speaking about this from out of nowhere either. We are personal victims of moderate Islam's apathy towards the wolves in their midst. We live in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. i live a few hundred meters from my home is the Ar-Rahman Islamic Centre. You may not recognize the name. We never had a problem with them, really. My partner had a neighbour that she talked to occasionally. They weren't really friends, but they said hi in passing, and occasionally stopped to discuss politics or sports.
Now as for why this is relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Toronto_terrorism_case
That young man was one of the 17. That mosque is where the recruiting was apparently done.
What's wrong with this picture? The ringleader - Qayum Jamal - apparently made several hate-filled speeches right in the middle of the mosque. And no one said anything. Despite all of the problems associated with radical Islam everywhere in the world, no one stopped that hate monger from making his vitriolic rants during prayers. A ****** MP listened to that man spew his nonsense, and did nothing to stop him.
They were stopped, thank goodness, before anyone was killed. But had they been able to carry out any of their plans, would not the deaths have been on the shoulders of all the "moderate" Muslims in that mosque, who let that radical wackjob regurgitate his hate and recruit fellow sociopaths, and did nothing to stop him?
Islam is in crisis, and Muslims are doing nothing to save it. | The Conspirator wrote: |
Sd3: You must learn from history. During WW2 |
Con, before WWII, a dictator said he would destroy the Jews and conquer the world. Nobody believed him. That was in or around 1938. When he rolled thru Czek, the world said "let him have that, maybe he'll stop there" even after he said he would take over the world.
The conquerer was Adolph Hitler. He did it with "moderate" Germans which he convinced the world was out to get them, and they fought back. We have another Islamic Dictator saying basically the same thing, with even more people listening to him, only now he's saying he will wipe Israel AND Western Civilization off the Earth. Not just conquer them.
Should we stand by and watch and see? Again? No. We should take him seriuosly. He's crazy, yes, but he's still got lots of power and he's not afraid to use it I'm sure, *cough*Hesbollah*cough*Hamas*cough*terroristsiniraq*cough*.
He and other Muslim leaders are calling for the removal of Western Civilization. Do you deny that?
In fact, I'd be willing to wager that Iran is determined to be the superpower of the ME.
| Quote: |
| i once saw a fake headline that i found really disturbing. It went "Millions of Muslims march against extremist violence". It was followed by "(yeah right)". |
It was me. The post was named "Millions of Muslims March Against Terrorism" and the post body said "Just Kidding 
".Did I say we should ignore the mad man in Iran? No, I said nothing about him. And I would say we shouldn't ignore him.
I said Islam is not the cause, Muslims are not evil. You keep saying it is and they are. Saying that is like saying Christianity during the middle ages was evil, Japanese and Germans as a hole were evil during WW2.
The world is a deterministic place, if the situation's in the west and the middle eat were right, the situation would be reversed and there would be Muslim saying the things you are assaying except about Christianity.
You like to talk about Islam but what about the other factors? What about the fact that the region is largely impoverished, has oppressive government, the region was occupied by the Western empires for a long time, that it was the US who toppled Saddam and made many many mistakes in Iraq, the existence of Israel which is the largest cause of radical fundamentalist Islamic militantism.
Its like WW1, it didn't just happen, a series of events came together to cause it. If any one of those events where different, WW1 would not have happened. Its the same with the currant situation, a series of events and actions came together to cause it. Its not because Islam is evil and violent, its not.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
Yes but its not Islam that is the cause, the war is ethnic based not religious. |
False: The mosque in the article is full of Americans who are also Muslims, yet they side with the terrorists and not the USA. (inferred from the article)
By this, it would seem to me that the primary motivation is their religion, not their ethnicity.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
You like to talk about Islam but what about the other factors? What about the fact that the region is largely impoverished, has oppressive government, the region was occupied by the Western empires for a long time, that it was the US who toppled Saddam and made many many mistakes in Iraq, [added in side note: The jihad against Israel and the West had already begun before that war started.] the existence of Israel which is the largest cause of radical fundamentalist Islamic militantism.
|
The same could be said (sans the war in Iraq) about many African countries, but you don't see the majority of Africans bent on converting or destroying half the world.
So, Israel should just stop existing, right? Or might it have a right to exist?
Last edited by ocalhoun on Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:27 am; edited 2 times in total | The Conspirator wrote: |
| You keep saying it is and they are. |
No, you keep trying to imply that I said it. There's a difference between what I'm writing and what you say I'm writing. Please do me a favor and show me where I said that, definitavely, and I'll correct my statements accordingly.
And like what just came from the horse's mouth, that area is impoverished because of the government. The RELIGIOUS BASED GOVERNMENT
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
What’s Really Wrong with Radical Islamic Muslims?
I’ve been reading a lot of the views and interacting with some of those supporting Radical Islam, trying to figure out where all the hate and discontent is coming from.
I see a huge amount of denial (or possibly ignorance) when it comes to Arab’s (and/or their supporter’s) views of what’s going on in the Middle East concerning Israel and Western Civilization. In seeing that denial, I have to ask myself; as a staunch supporter of Israel’s right to exist and the continuation of Western Civilization, am I missing something? Am I the ignorant one in denial?
The Arabs are pissed, obviously. But why? They say they want their land back. And they say (repeatedly) that they want Israel “wiped off the map.” The land was taken (again) from the Arabs over a half a century ago by the Jews. That same land was supposedly promised to the Jews in the Bible by God. Biblical entries show that King David brought the Jewish people together around 1000 B.C., in the land that is currently (still) being contested in the Middle East.
But it goes beyond just wanting their land back. I used to believe that radical Islamics hated Western Civilization because of the freedom of religion and civil rights we exalt and cherish and much to do with the US policy in the ME, and that the recent attacks on Israel were simply a by-product of that hatred, coupled with the land dispute that’s been going on for so long.
But what if the main cause of violence and hatred were much more simplistic that that?
I’ve looked at both sides over the last few months, and in my opinion, the Arabs are completely dysfunctional. Dysfunctional in every sense of the word. So dysfunctional that it makes them inutile, counterproductive and dangerous to their neighbors.
I don’t think it would matter if Israel submitted to the demands of Radical Islamic Muslims. I don’t think it wouldn’t matter if Arabs had controlled that land for the last 50 years and the Jews never raised arms against them. It just wouldn’t matter.
Here’s why…
The Arabs have roughly 3,000,000 people in over 20 countries, and more oil than they can shake a stick at. Oil is not their only game, either. They have other natural resources. But for all the wealth possessed by the Arab League, the gap between the rich Arabs and poor Arabs is astronomical. You’ve (hopefully) seen what effect this can have on a country (Mexico), and what it can do to that country’s people and the neighboring countries.
Yet that, in and of itself, is still not entirely the problem.
The biggest problem is that most of the rich in the Arab League did not get rich by being good, honest businessmen. They got rich by dishonesty, exploitation, extortion, murder and venality. That dishonesty is viewed as normal behavior to Arabs, and removes much of the respect for life that should be present in humans naturally. Something most of Western Civilization cherishes.
Also, many in the Arab League are dead set against human rights, especially for women. They have no issue with treating women like animals, or even property. They have no issue with torture, rape, murder and other numerous atrocities which the civilized world has condemned in the last 150 years and more. This is proven over and over again by the constant targeting of women and children, and the persistence in hiding amongst civilians, in schools, churches etc by Radical Islam in its quest to ‘rid the world of the Zionists’.
The Arabs have failed to rise up from savagery, barbarism and hatred. They refuse to move into a reasonable state of modern development and civility like most of the rest of the world has done over the centuries. At the same time they want to move towards a global Islamic Rule. And to be honest, I don’t think they intend to do it peacefully. |
.
Other than that, please stop putting words in my mouth. | Deuc wrote: |
Anyone with a textbook of history can tell you that the spread of Islam from the beginning and forever will be done with the sword. Unfortunately their "Sacred" writings themselves allow for and even promote this. Mohamed and his crew marched on forcing conversion or death. The only other option was to pay insane funds for your freedom which only added to their ability to carry out missions of slaughter on the infidel who would not convert.
. |
then how do you explain millions of arab christians in the heart of middle east?[quote="ocalhoun"] | The Conspirator wrote: |
Yes but its not Islam that is the cause, the war is ethnic based not religious. |
False: The mosque in the article is full of Americans who are also Muslims, yet they side with the terrorists and not the USA. (inferred from the article)[quote]
A Mosque not in Iraq and has no connection to Iraq. And how do you know they sided with "terrorists" do you know the hole story?
| Quote: |
By this, it would seem to me that the primary motivation is their religion, not their ethnicity.
[quote="The Conspirator"]
You like to talk about Islam but what about the other factors? What about the fact that the region is largely impoverished, has oppressive government, the region was occupied by the Western empires for a long time, that it was the US who toppled Saddam and made many many mistakes in Iraq, [added in side note: The jihad against Israel and the West had already begun before that war started.] the existence of Israel which is the largest cause of radical fundamentalist Islamic militantism.
|
The same could be said (sans the war in Iraq) about many African countries, but you don't see the majority of Africans bent on converting or destroying half the world.[quote]
The conditions in Africa are different. For something too happen a series of conditions has be there or else it wouldn't happen. Its like a highly complex code, change one variable and it can screw it up completely.
| Quote: |
| So, Israel should just stop existing, right? Or might it have a right to exist? |
At this point, no. But if Israel has never formed, if the UN had said "No, this is not your land, you can not take it by force" instead of supporting it, than Al Qanda would not exist, 9/11 would never have happened, the problem would be much smaller and the hatred of the west would be less.
Sd3
| Quote: |
| he fact is that 75% of all violence on earth right now is caused by Muslims |
A statement ridiculous beyond all comprehension.
| Quote: |
| Muslims have killed tens of thousands (if not more) of innocents in Iraq in the last few years. |
Oh, there killing because there Muslum and not ethnic strife?
"Why don't they speak out, why don;t they speak out?" They DO! Just cause the news doesn't cover it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Do you know how many car crashes happen a day? It is far more dangerous to drive down the rode than to fly. But by the way the news treats car crashes and plain crashes you'd think flying is far more dangerous. The news media thrives on controversy and bad news. The news media is only interested in ratings and only reports what gets them ratings. Talking about fundamentalist Islamic millitintism gets them ratings, talking about a Muslims who don't like it, doesn't. From what I've read in the Koran so far, you can use the peaceful parts of it or you can use the violent parts of it depending on what position you want to take. I've always thought the muslim terrorists were just a bunch of criminals using religion to push their agenda.
It's hard for me to call Islam a "peaceful religion" because of it's origins and the maner in which it is cited to justify violent jihad against innocents.
Personally I think it has far more to do with a middle ages mentality than the religion itself. I am guessing most of us would find 9th century Christianity apauling in many ways if it were thrust into our current society.
But I that there are peaceful Muslims. They just don't speak out.
You say it but your posts speek difrently.
You can't call it peaceful cause its origins? Mohamed and his fallows where not the aggressors, it was the early Muslims that were persecuted.
| Quote: |
| But I that there are peaceful Muslims. They just don't speak out. |
They do, just cause the media doesn't cover something doesn't mean it doesn't happen. | The Conspirator wrote: |
You say it but your posts speek difrently.
|
Um, if you can't understand the words in my posts, then say so. Don't say I am saying something I am not. (You did the same thing with the debate on global warming.)
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
No, you keep trying to imply that I said it. There's a difference between what I'm writing and what you say I'm writing. Please do me a favor and show me where I said that, definitavely, and I'll correct my statements accordingly.
.
.... please stop putting words in my mouth. |
Mkthanks. | S3nd K3ys wrote: |
From what I've read in the Koran so far, you can use the peaceful parts of it or you can use the violent parts of it depending on what position you want to take. I've always thought the muslim terrorists were just a bunch of criminals using religion to push their agenda.
It's hard for me to call Islam a "peaceful religion" because of it's origins and the maner in which it is cited to justify violent jihad against innocents.
Personally I think it has far more to do with a middle ages mentality than the religion itself. I am guessing most of us would find 9th century Christianity apauling in many ways if it were thrust into our current society.
But I that there are peaceful Muslims. They just don't speak out. |
Muslims dont kill innocents for jihad.But someone uses it for their violent purposes.
People dont think that this person is so...,because its muslim or jew or christian.
People must live together with peace and see each other as a human. | insolent1 wrote: |
| Muslims dont kill innocents for jihad. |
What? | S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| The Conspirator wrote: | You say it but your posts speek difrently.
|
Um, if you can't understand the words in my posts, then say so. Don't say I am saying something I am not. (You did the same thing with the debate on global warming.)
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
No, you keep trying to imply that I said it. There's a difference between what I'm writing and what you say I'm writing. Please do me a favor and show me where I said that, definitavely, and I'll correct my statements accordingly.
.
.... please stop putting words in my mouth. |
Mkthanks. |
Let me rephase it then. By what you say in your posts it makes seem like you beleve Islam and Muslums are evil.
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| insolent1 wrote: | | Muslims dont kill innocents for jihad. |
What? |
Jihad means struggle, not necessarily war. It could be an internal struggle or external.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehad#Classifications_of_Jihad_by_Muslims
But in the modern context as its used it basically means holy war. | The Conspirator wrote: |
[
Let me rephase it then. By what you say in your posts it makes seem like you beleve Islam and Muslums are evil.
|
No. That's not true. I try to make it clear that it's the radicals that are evil. And what the radicals are doing to Islam is evil. Again, if I've misled you, please show me where and I'll correct it.
This is from your link...
| Quote: |
| Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) refers to qital fi sabilillah (armed fighting in the way of God, or holy war), the most common usage by salafi Muslims and offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood. |
And as I've stated before, Muslim leaders are calling for Jihad against Western Civilization. In their actions, they routinely target and kill innocent women and children, in the name of Allah.
These actions are not being denounced by most Muslims.
Again, if I'm wrong, show me where the protesting Muslims are, and how many are protesting, because I can't find them.Con, here's what another Muslim said about this issue.... (from alt.islam or something similar.)
| Quote: |
Identify the voices. Find people who have strong opinions and talents with which to express them. Give them encouragement to shape and craft those opinions into sharp, poignant communications. Support them.
Get them heard. Make resources and funds available to them to launch their own blogs and sites, or encourage them to join online forums. Push them to overcome any anxiety about making themselves heard - there are a great many pressures on Muslims today, especially amongst the youth, but help give them the strength to overcome.
Help them continue. It's hard to start. It's harder to keep it up, but it's not impossible, and it's necessary. Charles Johnson's been doing what he does since 9-11, and he doesn't have the strength of Islam to carry him, just the weakness of hate.
Drive awareness. We need to drive awareness of the voices we want to present to the world, both within our own communities and without, but we also need to keep ourselves informed about what others say about Islam - in Canada, the US, the UK, Europe, or anywhere. Whether or not we choose to respond, we still need the courage to know. That's our faith, after all, and we owe it to Islam to make that effort. |
Don't ban them from the mosques. I also said,
| Me wrote: |
| But in the modern context as its used it basically means holy war. |
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| I try to make it clear that it's the radicals that are evil. And what the radicals are doing to Islam is evil. Again, if I've misled you, please show me where and I'll correct it. |
and
| Quote: |
And as I've stated before, Muslim leaders are calling for Jihad against Western Civilization. In their actions, they routinely target and kill innocent women and children, in the name of Allah.
These actions are not being denounced by most Muslims.
Again, if I'm wrong, show me where the protesting Muslims are, and how many are protesting, because I can't find them. |
to which...
Still waiting. Patiently.
The only time you say anything positive about Islam is when you are confronted by your own words. Go back and read your own posts, you will see it. You seem not to realise that your doing it.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| Go back and read your own posts, you will see it. You seem not to realise that your doing it. |
Con, you always make claims but rarely back them up with proof. Like now. I know this is the Religion forum and not the World News forum, but I think they still want you to back up your claims with proof.
So YOU go back and read my posts and reply back if there's anything that you claim there is and I'll fix it.
All this denial and lying from you is getting old. Fix it or don't talk to me any more. Hope muslim moderates are listening.
| Quote: |
Jordan's King Abdullah II has said it was time for moderate Muslims all over the world to stand up and fight the extremists within the community, an Indian newspaper reported Friday.
"Let the silent majority win the street back," the Jordanian monarch said in an exclusive interview to the English-language Hindustan Times daily.
Abdullah told the paper that Islam had been "hijacked" by a minority of extremists who had imposed their agenda, based on miscommunication of Islam's tenets, on the Muslim community.
Across Asia, Muslims who did not speak Arabic were often misled into believing that the Koran said something which it did not. "The only solution is education and dissemination of information," he told the daily.
Abdullah accompanied by Queen Rania arrived in the Indian capital New Delhi on Thursday for a three-day visit.
He was scheduled to begin talks with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Friday on a range of bilateral and global issues.
Besides discussing ways to enhance trade and commercial ties, Singh and Abdullah would discuss global issues including the Middle East peace process and counter-terrorism efforts, officials in India's foreign office said.
Pacts on investment protection, agriculture, tourism, information technology and cultural exchange were expected to be signed after the meeting.
Addressing diplomats at a function in New Delhi on Thursday, Abdullah had expressed concern over the escalating violence in Palestine and Iraq which he said was deepening regional instability.
Abdullah said the Palestinian issue must be addressed which would allow for regional peace including "full normal relations" between Arab countries and Israel, the Hindu daily reported.
The Jordanian monarch also hoped that South Asian rivals India and Pakistan would be able to amicably resolve their decades-old dispute over the Himalayan region of Kashmir. |
http://www.playfuls.com/news_10_4391-King-Abdullah-Calls-On-Muslim-Moderates-To-Fight-Extremists.html Wouldn't see it coming, but it doesn't really surprise me.
My father, being the comically stubborn person he is says "Send em all back to the middle east and don't let em in until we run full background checks."
He's 1/8 serious, 7/8 joking. My extended family (including myself) have a poor view of Islam based on the actions of Muslims - it's unfortunate, but they paint their own picture, all I see is a hipocracy.
But we're not here to discuss that.
S3: Go back, read them, you'll a bigotry in them, keep bashing Islam and Muslims. Read them, I did, I don't need to again. You may not realize it but your posts on Islam are bigoted.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| S3: Go back, read them, you'll a bigotry in them, keep bashing Islam and Muslims. Read them, I did, I don't need to again. You may not realize it but your posts on Islam are bigoted. |
How about you tell me what you think I said was racist... or are you just making this up?
Seriously, stop detracting from the thread and post up something relevant, useful, true or otherwise appropriate for this thread.As S3nd K3ys said, I want to see crowds of moderate Muslims demonstrate against terrorism.
In fact I want a formal condemnation of terrorism by a big council of Muslim religious leaders from all over the world. I want fatwas against the terrorists and their financial supporters.
Until then I can not think of Islam as a religion of peace.
| smarter wrote: |
As S3nd K3ys said, I want to see crowds of moderate Muslims demonstrate against terrorism.
In fact I want a formal condemnation of terrorism by a big council of Muslim religious leaders from all over the world. I want fatwas against the terrorists and their financial supporters.
Until then I can not think of Islam as a religion of peace. |
| Quote: |
ISTANBUL DECLARATION
ADOPTED BY THE THIRTY-FIRST SESSION OF THE ISLAMIC CONFERENCE OF FOREIGN MINISTERS
(SESSION OF PROGRESS AND GLOBAL HARMONY)
ISTANBUL, REPUBLIC OF TURKEY
26-28 RABIUL THANI 1425H (14-16 JUNE 2004)
9. We strongly condemn terrorism in all its forms, including state terrorism, and express deep sympathy and support for those countries which have become victims of such attacks. We agree to redouble our efforts in fighting this international scourge. |
http://www.oic-oci.org/ | Quote: |
KUALA LUMPUR DECLARATION ON INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
ADOPTED AT THE EXTRAORDINARY SESSION OF THE ISLAMIC CONFERENCE OF FOREIGN MINISTERS ON TERRORISM
1-3- APRIL 2002
1. In the name of Islamic solidarity, we, the Foreign Ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), have gathered in Kuala Lumpur to state our collective resolve to combat terrorism and to respond to developments affecting Muslims and Islamic countries in the aftermath of the 11th September attacks
7. We unequivocally condemn acts of international terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, including state terrorism, irrespective of motives, perpetrators and victims as terrorism poses a serious threat to international peace and security and is a grave violation of human rights;
|
| smarter wrote: |
As S3nd K3ys said, I want to see crowds of moderate Muslims demonstrate against terrorism.
In fact I want a formal condemnation of terrorism by a big council of Muslim religious leaders from all over the world. I want fatwas against the terrorists and their financial supporters.
Until then I can not think of Islam as a religion of peace. |
You could actually learn about Islam and how its structure instead of saying stupid things like " big council of Muslim religious leaders from all over the world." which dose not and never has existed there is no counsels of Muslim religious leaders out side the middle eats and thats cause in the middle east there is no separation of church and state.
Learning is good, people should strive to learn all they can about things including Islam.
Oh yah, the few dose not reflect the whole.
| Quote: |
| How about you tell me what you think I said was racist. |
Fist of all, I said bigoted statements, not racist. Racism is judging by race, your judging a people cause a religion.
Starting in this thread.
| Quote: |
| he fact is that 75% of all violence on earth right now is caused by Muslims |
| Quote: |
I guess that depends of what type of Islamics we're talking about here, doesn't it?
See, there seems to be two kinds of Islamics,
1) the kind that kills women and children while hiding behind them in the hopes of killing Infidels.
and
2) the kind that sit quietly and idly by, and claim that Islam really is peaceful when confronted by non-muslims questioning the actions of the kind of muslims that kills women and children while hiding behind them in the hopes of killing Infidels, yet refuses to denounce what other Islamics are doing to women and children while hiding behind them in the hopes of killin Infidels. |
| Quote: |
| It has that lable because the true peaceful Islamics have not done anything to make the rest of us believe anything differently. The ratio of bad to good that I hear about Islam is about 100 to 1. |
When the militants represent only a tinny portion of Islam. then you go on to say
| Quote: |
| It's not the media. |
Yes it is! A few years abo some biotch disapers on her wdding day and the News couldn't shut up about it, "this woman who disaperd, heat happond to her, could she be dead, blah, blah , blah" The bitch turnd up in Vages gambling, and while they where talking about this bitch two little black boys dissaperd and that only got on the news once.
| Quote: |
| S3nd K3ys wrote: | | Manofgames wrote: | | Quote: | According to the Roman Catholic Church, the Bishop of Rome IS infallible - but only in specific cases. The current furore over remarks made by the pontiff about Islam does not fall into this category.
Papal infallibility only comes into play with issues of faith that concern the whole Church. It doesn't apply when the Pope is expressing a personal opinion or, in this case, quoting from a historical text.
Papal infallibility was hotly debated for centuries within the Church after the notion that the Pope was the preserver of apostolic - derived from the apostles - truth, was set out in the early 6th Century. But according to Catholic historian Peter Stanford the word infallible wasn't used because it was believed only God could be infallible.
It was acknowledged that various popes down the ages had brought disgrace on the office by their behaviour and judgements, he says.
It wasn't until the 19th Century that moves were made for a formal acknowledgement that the Pope was faultless. In 1870, the First Vatican Council proclaimed that the Pope was infallible - but certain conditions were attached.
The agreement reached by the Council stated that a Pope "when he speaks ex cathedra" - that is, as head of the Church - is "possessed of infallibility" when "he defines.... a doctrine concerning faith and morals to be held by the whole Church".
Once the Pope has spoken, the First Vatican Council agreed, his definitions "are irreformable of themselves".
Routine papal teaching, however, is not considered infallible.
|
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5355758.stm
should the pope really be 'imune' from wrong doing, he is after all human. |
Not at all. But what, may I ask, did he do wrong? |
|
Calling Islam violent evil religion. yes!
You don't seem to get that there is no single Islam, its like Christianity, even within a single version there are differences. | The Conspirator wrote: |
| smarter wrote: | As S3nd K3ys said, I want to see crowds of moderate Muslims demonstrate against terrorism.
In fact I want a formal condemnation of terrorism by a big council of Muslim religious leaders from all over the world. I want fatwas against the terrorists and their financial supporters.
Until then I can not think of Islam as a religion of peace. |
You could actually learn about Islam and how its structure instead of saying stupid things like " big council of Muslim religious leaders from all over the world." which dose not and never has existed there is no counsels of Muslim religious leaders out side the middle eats and thats cause in the middle east there is no separation of church and state.
Learning is good, people should strive to learn all they can about things including Islam.
|
BEFORE making stupid remarks about something correct improve your spelling a little! Maybe that's why you don't see the DIFFERENCE between
"a big council of Muslim religious leaders from all over the world" and "The Supreme Council of ...." or whatever.
I guess you think spelling is a CONSPIRACY against you! 
"Learning is good" You better learn yourself before exhorting others to do so! That's a friendly advice!Palavra, your declarations are made by foreign ministers NOT religious leaders. So your quotes are IRRELEVANT! It's like Condoleeza Rice condemning terrorist anti-abortionists!
Search more.. maybe you'll find something!
Until then a good quote for you from Brussel's Journal (my underline and bold):
| Quote: |
But the problem of Islam is not one of strangeness or foreign origin, as will readily become clear when you compare it with Buddhism. In Western culture, Buddhism is even stranger than Islam, which shares certain common roots with Christianity, yet people find Tibetans in their native dress colourful rather than threatening. There are no Buddhist gangs attacking peaceful citizens, nor are there Buddhist associations making separatist political demands such as the right to observe a separate law system. Buddhism may be strange, but informed people will agree that it is an enrichment to our society. Islam is less strange, yet its enriching contributions are unclear while its nuisance value is all too palpable.
|
Peace, man! smarter, you need to get smarter about Islam. There is no structure to Islam, no popes, bishops, no counsels.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| smarter, you need to get smarter about Islam. There is no structure to Islam, no popes, bishops, no counsels. |
AS I'VE ALREADY SAID:
You don't see the DIFFERENCE between "a big council of Muslim religious leaders from all over the world" and "The Supreme Council of ...." or whatever.
EXPLANATION FOR YOU:
a big council .... = a large ad-hoc gathering/congress of authoritative religious figures as Ulemas, Ayatollahs, Sheiks, Muftis etc united to debate something. THIS IS WHAT I SAID! Notice the article "a" and small letters: big not Big, council not Council
The Council of... = formal organization with a chairman, members which meet regularly etc
THIS IS WHAT YOU THINK I SAID! Notice the article "the" and capital letters Council not council
You need to learn English better! Read and listen to others because you have much to learn! | smarter wrote: |
Palavra, your declarations are made by foreign ministers NOT religious leaders. So your quotes are IRRELEVANT! It's like Condoleeza Rice condemning terrorist anti-abortionists!
Search more.. maybe you'll find something!
|
“A Muslim cannot be a terrorist and a terrorist cannot be a Muslim”
http://www.rumiforum.org/server/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=99&Itemid=35
Fethullah Gulen is one of the most respectful religious leader in Turkiye.
if you search you can find others yourself.
but
i hope you don't confuse the status of religious leaders in islam and in christianity.
in islam there is no clergy.Wow. I am surprised. I thought that most Mulsims were actually against terrorist acts/hurting other people, and that the extremists who do that kind of stuff weren't exactly supported by the Muslim community.
| smarter wrote: |
| The Conspirator wrote: | | smarter, you need to get smarter about Islam. There is no structure to Islam, no popes, bishops, no counsels. |
AS I'VE ALREADY SAID:
You don't see the DIFFERENCE between "a big council of Muslim religious leaders from all over the world" and "The Supreme Council of ...." or whatever.
EXPLANATION FOR YOU:
a big council .... = a large ad-hoc gathering/congress of authoritative religious figures as Ulemas, Ayatollahs, Sheiks, Muftis etc united to debate something. THIS IS WHAT I SAID! Notice the article "a" and small letters: big not Big, council not Council
The Council of... = formal organization with a chairman, members which meet regularly etc
THIS IS WHAT YOU THINK I SAID! Notice the article "the" and capital letters Council not council
You need to learn English better! Read and listen to others because you have much to learn! |
Learn!
There are none, there are none counsels capital C or not and there never has been.I think perhaps what Con is trying to say is that there are no official religious leaders of Islam. There are political leaders who happen to be Islamic and depend on getting support from the unofficial religious leaders of their respective countries. And these religious leaders derive their authority not from the actual precepts of Islam, but by manipulating the text of the Koran as a means to achieve the end of greater personal power. They essentially gain their power by appealing to the people that "vote", and just like the voter base in the U.S. the people who are the most charged about a particular topic are more likely to "vote". Therefore, a large source of power comes from those who are passionate about the issues (in this case the radical fundamentalists, or the smaller element of those who are willing to risk their necks by standing on the street corner denouncing terrorism).
There's also the issue of financial assets. We supported the radical fundamentalists in the middle east to get them to fight against the USSR, and now that we've invested in them, they have the money and the power. Just as we wanted, but then again, that was when the USSR was their target
So the radicals speak for the rest of Islam because we made them the voice of Islam, not because they reflect all of Islam itself...
| missdixy wrote: |
| Wow. I am surprised. I thought that most Mulsims were actually against terrorist acts/hurting other people, and that the extremists who do that kind of stuff weren't exactly supported by the Muslim community. |
Well, most Muslims don't "support" the extremists, although many more Muslims than you'd think do - although to be fair, most of them aren't even aware of it. The problem is that most Muslims who don't approve of them don't do enough - or anything - to fight them. They don't speak out against them, and they don't properly research the causes they do invest into - which is how they end up donating to groups that unbeknownest to them funnel money back to the Taliban or worse. It's like they just don't care.
Even worse, many Muslims are investing money and resources into fighting anti-Islamic prejudices, instead of fighting terrorism. Consider this example. A Muslim extremist connected to a well-known mosque blows up a school, which causes a newspaper to write a bigoted and inflamatory report saying Islam should be banned. Now Joe Muslim has a choice of whether to finance an in-depth investigation into the mosque that produced the terrorist, or whether to pay for an ad campaign to fight the bad publicity caused by the newspaper. My (admittedly unscientific) observations show me that almost universally, Joe Muslim will opt to pay for the ad campaign.
This is a many-fold problem, because it means that time and energy is being spent in useless debate while that mosque recruits the next human bomb. On top of that, the whole debate would have been rendered moot anyway if they had demonstrated that there were Muslims against extremism. In other words, if Joe Muslim had opted to pay for the investigation, the next terrorist would have been stopped, and the critics would have been silenced because Joe Muslim would have proven just how serious he is about fighting Islamic radicals.
Observe apathy in action:
| Montressor wrote: |
| I think perhaps what Con is trying to say is that there are no official religious leaders of Islam. There are political leaders who happen to be Islamic and depend on getting support from the unofficial religious leaders of their respective countries. And these religious leaders derive their authority not from the actual precepts of Islam, but by manipulating the text of the Koran as a means to achieve the end of greater personal power. They essentially gain their power by appealing to the people that "vote", and just like the voter base in the U.S. the people who are the most charged about a particular topic are more likely to "vote". Therefore, a large source of power comes from those who are passionate about the issues (in this case the radical fundamentalists, or the smaller element of those who are willing to risk their necks by standing on the street corner denouncing terrorism). |
Is this an excuse? That terrorists hold power over Islam because they're more passionate about it? If the moderate Muslims just aren't that passionate about Islam, then maybe it should be banned. After all, the good Muslims don't seem to care that much, and the bad Muslims are feeding off the good Mslims, hiding behind them, and KILLING PEOPLE.
i hope that resonated with moderate Muslims. PEOPLE ARE USING YOUR RELIGION AS AN EXCUSE TO MURDER. Passionate yet? BY NOT FIGHTING THE EVIL IN YOUR RELIGION, YOU ARE PARTNER TO IT. How about now? EVEN IF YOU SAY THEY ARE NOT "TRUE" MUSLIMS, THEY SAY THEY ARE, AND IF YOU DON'T SHOW THEM THEY'RE WRONG - AND i MEAN REALLY SHOW THEM - THEN THEY WILL CONTINUE TO SAY THAT UNTIL IT BECOMES TRUE. Any passion there?
If not, then Islam does not deserv 