FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Islamic claims of world rule





SonLight
Here is a disturbing piece, suggesting the balance of views within Muslim communities could tip in favor of violent confrontation.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56503

Quote:
The Muslim leader said he does not believe in democracy and insists there is no such thing as freedom of religion, "because freedom is an absolute term."

"Are we to say that Muslims can fully practice religion in America," he asked in an attempt to explain. "Say, for instance, I was a Muslim in America. Could I call for the destruction of the American government and establishment of an Islamic state in America? No. So where is the freedom of religion? There is none."



Will Moslems who seek peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims speak up to say so? I hope they will.
coolclay
I recently watched a great movie called Obsession, it focuses on radical Islam and there obsession with destroying the west. Honestly compared to the total number of Muslims the ones who practice and believe in the radical Islam sect is very small. But like you said unfortunately relatively few of the peaceful Muslims stand up for peace, and speak out against the radicals who are destroying such a once great religion. Why I am not sure is it fear, is it that they don't care, or is it that they actually believe that what the radicals are doing is ok. I have personally seen quite a bit of hatred towards Muslims and I hate it just as much as I would hatred towards anyone for any religion, but I can understand where it comes from. People are afraid of the radicals islamists, and since the only experience most people have with Muslims, is with the Radical islamist, then they group them all as the same and hate them equally. If more peaceful Muslims would take it upon themselves to speak out against the radicals then people would see that most Muslims hate the radicals even more then we do because they are destroying everything that Islam stands for.


Wow, make sure you listen to the interview with Abu Saif.

Quote:
Abu Saif: We have some facts from our creator and one of those facts is that Christians and Jews will hate Muslims. So when I say to you, you hate me, its not because I know you personally, its because the creator of the heaven and earth has already informed me, that the Christians and Jews will never like Islam Muslim.

Humphries: So there is nothing we can do to be friends?

Abu Saif: There is something you can do to be friends. You can become Muslim.





mathiaus wrote:

Please do not double post. Use the button instead!

Tim Graham
Suggesting that the majority of Muslims would like to rise up and overthrow the West is almost as good as that thing about Fox News being "fair and balanced".

Do you happen to know anyone who is Muslim or indeed understand the religion at all?
coolclay
Who are you responding too?
As I said
Quote:
Honestly compared to the total number of Muslims the ones who practice and believe in the radical Islam sect is very small



From my experience Fox news is about the most fair and balanced news programs (at least in the US). (BBC is even better)



mathiaus wrote:

Please do not double post. Use the button instead!

Tim Graham
The post I was responding to was the first one - in particular the assessment that the majority of Muslims 'could tip in favor' of extremism.

I don't watch much American news, mainly what I see on CNN International from time to time and the PBS' Newshour (shown here on SBS), although from what I've gathered most people see fox as being the least fair-and-balanced news service of the lot (an argument for which there appears to be a significant amount of evidence).
SonLight
Tim Graham wrote:
The post I was responding to was the first one - in particular the assessment that the majority of Muslims 'could tip in favor' of extremism.


I was summarizing the message of the article, not claiming that it was accurate. If you got the impression that I think we are in immediate danger of violence from the majority of Muslims, then I apologize. I sincerely hope that this one example can be answered by many situations showing that a lot of Muslims are in favor of peaceful coexistence.

In my final comment, I stated that I hope other Muslims will speak out to disown the most extreme views stated here. If even a few Muslims do that, it will be clear that the fear-mongers are wrong. I certainly hope that they are.
Billy Hill
Tim Graham wrote:
Suggesting that the majority of Muslims would like to rise up and overthrow the West is almost as good as that thing about Fox News being "fair and balanced".


You have judged something you admittedly know absolutely nothing about.


Tim Graham wrote:
I don't watch much American news, mainly what I see on CNN International from time to time and the PBS' Newshour (shown here on SBS), although from what I've gathered most people see fox as being the least fair-and-balanced news service of the lot (an argument for which there appears to be a significant amount of evidence).


You take the word of another without even considering making your own judgment. How sad.

Quote:
Do you happen to know anyone who is Muslim or indeed understand the religion at all?


Yeah, they're all bad. That's what many people say, but I don't really know. Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy (See how that works? Wink )

Seriously, I know a few muslims. They're good people as far as I can tell. But then again, that guy that just took my wallet seemed like a nice enough guy the way he put his hand on my shoulder as he shook my hand. (Again, see how that works??)
coolclay
Great points, thanks!
Tim Graham
SonLight wrote:
Tim Graham wrote:
The post I was responding to was the first one - in particular the assessment that the majority of Muslims 'could tip in favor' of extremism.


I was summarizing the message of the article, not claiming that it was accurate. If you got the impression that I think we are in immediate danger of violence from the majority of Muslims, then I apologize. I sincerely hope that this one example can be answered by many situations showing that a lot of Muslims are in favor of peaceful coexistence.

In my final comment, I stated that I hope other Muslims will speak out to disown the most extreme views stated here. If even a few Muslims do that, it will be clear that the fear-mongers are wrong. I certainly hope that they are.
Given the relatively short and somewhat unclear nature of the post it was a bit hard to tell.

Billy Hill wrote:
Tim Graham wrote:
Suggesting that the majority of Muslims would like to rise up and overthrow the West is almost as good as that thing about Fox News being "fair and balanced".


You have judged something you admittedly know absolutely nothing about.
"Don't watch much" and "know nothing about" are two different things. The standard of Fox News' content is hardly regarded as being exceptional and I have seen (and indeed heard of) numerous instances of bias and somwhat shonky coverage. Although I don't watch it much on a regular basis - I can't - I generally find US news services to be a bit too sensational for my tastes.

Billy Hill wrote:
Seriously, I know a few muslims. They're good people as far as I can tell. But then again, that guy that just took my wallet seemed like a nice enough guy the way he put his hand on my shoulder as he shook my hand. (Again, see how that works??)
That's a null argument - you can say that for either side.
Billy Hill
Tim Graham wrote:
Billy Hill wrote:
Seriously, I know a few muslims. They're good people as far as I can tell. But then again, that guy that just took my wallet seemed like a nice enough guy the way he put his hand on my shoulder as he shook my hand. (Again, see how that works??)
That's a null argument - you can say that for either side.


It's nice to see you got my point. Now, how is it you came to know Fox is something besides what they say they are? Oh, that's right, someone told you. You didn't make the decision based on facts OR your own opinion. You based it entirely on someone else's opinion. Wink

Thanks for playing.
BlockUp
For me, as a Muslim, I have seen the general view of Muslims go downhill since 7/11. And the idiot fanatics aren't helping one bit. Claiming to speak for the Ummah (the whole of the Muslim community), yet they do nothing but preach their own hatred.

Suicide is forbidden in Islam. That means suicide bombers are anything but martyrs. And as for a violent religion; the world Islam means peace. And we use "As-Assalamu Alaykum", meaning peace upon you, to great each other. That is one of the very commendable things about Islam.

To any non-Muslims; I feel I must apologize for the way some Muslims have been led to fanaticism although I fully defend myself... I am not in contact with any such people and I have no control over what other may decide to do. But still, some people may hold me accountable... so what can I do? Saying sorry for something I did not do is not worth anything but some political leaders here in the UK say that more Muslims should try and prevent fanaticism. But it's not as easy as it sounds, I guarantee you.

I also believe that the media has helped forge this perverse view of Islam, completely against the original teachings. I see nothing but fanatics on the news. Also, we always hear about the
Islamic radicals... they are not Islamic at all, far from it...

Sadly this is the way life is. I have no control over which path other Muslims decide to choose. This does not mean I commend the radicals, but I cannot be held responsible for them either. Now I have the feeling of guilt imposed on me... and people distance themselves from me... it's harder for me to make friends or get a job. Really unfair on my part.
coolclay
Blockup, thanks for your view. I highly respect any Muslim that stands up against the radicals publicly.

A question though, from your point of view. Do you feel there is a solution to the problem of the radicals? I was pretty blown away in the interview I mentioned above when the interviewer asked Abu Saif if there was anyway they could be friends, and he said yea if you become Muslim. Basically saying the only way there will be peace is if the whole world converts to Islam.
Billy Hill
BlockUp wrote:
For me, as a Muslim, I have seen the general view of Muslims go downhill since 7/11. And the idiot fanatics aren't helping one bit. Claiming to speak for the Ummah (the whole of the Muslim community), yet they do nothing but preach their own hatred.

Suicide is forbidden in Islam. That means suicide bombers are anything but martyrs. And as for a violent religion; the world Islam means peace. And we use "As-Assalamu Alaykum", meaning peace upon you, to great each other. That is one of the very commendable things about Islam.

To any non-Muslims; I feel I must apologize for the way some Muslims have been led to fanaticism although I fully defend myself... I am not in contact with any such people and I have no control over what other may decide to do. But still, some people may hold me accountable... so what can I do? Saying sorry for something I did not do is not worth anything but some political leaders here in the UK say that more Muslims should try and prevent fanaticism. But it's not as easy as it sounds, I guarantee you.

I also believe that the media has helped forge this perverse view of Islam, completely against the original teachings. I see nothing but fanatics on the news. Also, we always hear about the
Islamic radicals... they are not Islamic at all, far from it...

Sadly this is the way life is. I have no control over which path other Muslims decide to choose. This does not mean I commend the radicals, but I cannot be held responsible for them either. Now I have the feeling of guilt imposed on me... and people distance themselves from me... it's harder for me to make friends or get a job. Really unfair on my part.


Thanks. It's nice to see someone speak up once in a while. I know you put yourself at risk.

Unfortunately, there are many MANY more Muslims who are speaking louder with the opposite voice.

Until we start seeing more Muslims speaking AND ACTING against the radicals than we see speaking AS the radicals, we can only go by what we see, not by what we "hear" from the "good" Muslims.

In other words, until more Muslims are speaking out AGAINST terrorism than there are speaking out FOR terrorism, your claims that terrorism is not the Muslim way are lost and worthless. I'm sorry, I try to know the difference, but actions speak louder than words, and right now, there is way more action that is pro terrorism than there is anti-terrorism by Muslims.
BlockUp
Well, sorry I haven't come back to this thread!

I'm really encouraged to see some positive responses to my post. But I say the same thing to anyone who asks me about this subject.

As to coolclay's question...

coolclay wrote:
Do you feel there is a solution to the problem of the radicals? I was pretty blown away in the interview I mentioned above when the interviewer asked Abu Saif if there was anyway they could be friends, and he said yea if you become Muslim. Basically saying the only way there will be peace is if the whole world converts to Islam.


Abu Saif is, unsurprisingly, wrong. The Qur'an says:

Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth has been made clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things.” [Surah al-Baqarah: 256]

Honestly, I do not see a solution. These people will continue to say whatever they like and brainwash the vulnerable and the young. I cannot be held responsible for them, and neither can anyone else, Muslim or non-Muslim.

I'd also like to reply to Billy Hill's post above me.
Once again he has proved his ignorance and unwillingness to research a topic before making a comment about it.

Billy Hill wrote:
Thanks. It's nice to see someone speak up once in a while. I know you put yourself at risk.


At risk?! Who from? Let me assure you, I've expressed this view to at least 100 people, a lot of them Muslim, since I have a few friends at the mosque. They all seem to agree wholeheartedly. Sorry to disappoint you Billy, but even as a Muslim I don't have any radical friends.

Billy Hill wrote:
Until we start seeing more Muslims speaking AND ACTING against the radicals than we see speaking AS the radicals, we can only go by what we see, not by what we "hear" from the "good" Muslims.


Erm, have you even Googled this?

Muslims Against Terrorism

That's 2,110,000 results...
And countless rallies.
But of course, the media doesn't report these, so how would the public know? So what way do you propose we act against the radicals, Billy Hill? Kill them?
liljp617
Solution #1: The West stops funding and defending the terrorist Israeli government.

Solution #2: The West stops imperialising the Middle East as if we're making things better...when we're doing nothing but fueling the desire for young Muslim men to want to strap bombs on themselves and kill.
smarter
liljp617 wrote:
Solution #1: The West stops funding and defending the terrorist Israeli government.


LOL! Since when the West means USA? The only staunch supporter of Israel is US. EU states have either a neutral stance or a somewhat more favorable one to Palestinians than to Israelis.

"terrorist Israeli government"? wow! Name one government that did not terrorize either some of its citizens ("wrong" political or ethnic background) or the citizens of other "enemy" states?

Quote:
Solution #2: The West stops imperialising the Middle East as if we're making things better...when we're doing nothing but fueling the desire for young Muslim men to want to strap bombs on themselves and kill.


In my opinion, the current situation exists for not "imperializing" enough the Middle East. We should have sponsored (or created) people like Ataturk in Turkey at the beginning of the XX century. Instead we let these countries be ruled medievally by princes and kings and now we reap the fruits of our lack of real involvement.

Even now what do we do to support leaders/movements/political parties that are moderate/favorable to the West?
liljp617
smarter wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Solution #1: The West stops funding and defending the terrorist Israeli government.


LOL! Since when the West means USA? The only staunch supporter of Israel is US. EU states have either a neutral stance or a somewhat more favorable one to Palestinians than to Israelis.

"terrorist Israeli government"? wow! Name one government that did not terrorize either some of its citizens ("wrong" political or ethnic background) or the citizens of other "enemy" states?

Most European countries are pretty good allies with the US. Meaning they generally support our stance (or act like they do), which means radical Muslims are as much against Europe as they are against the US. Past attacks and listed motives/goals by radical Islam shows that.

You missed the point, I think, on the second part. You're right, there are few modern day powerful countries that do not fit the label of "terrorists" at some point in their history and even modern history. I dislike the word terrorist as much as anyone else...I only used it in that case because it fits into the rhetoric of this conversation.

The point I was trying to make is that when the Palestinians commit acts of violence against Israel, it's a "terrorist act," a brutal act, an inexcusable act. When Israel commits the exact same act of violence against Palestinians, they are simply defending themselves and are doing nothing wrong (because the UN backs them strongly..particularly the US). Israel has literally dozens and dozens of acts that step on UN resolutions and they have and continue to completely ignore multiple UN resolutions....yet they're still funded heavily and defended at all costs.

smarter wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Solution #2: The West stops imperialising the Middle East as if we're making things better...when we're doing nothing but fueling the desire for young Muslim men to want to strap bombs on themselves and kill.


In my opinion, the current situation exists for not "imperializing" enough the Middle East. We should have sponsored (or created) people like Ataturk in Turkey at the beginning of the XX century. Instead we let these countries be ruled medievally by princes and kings and now we reap the fruits of our lack of real involvement.

Even now what do we do to support leaders/movements/political parties that are moderate/favorable to the West?

Disagree. Imperialism = oppression = retaliation. Especially at a time like this where the movement of radical Islam is so strong and only gaining more support and power with US/Western presence.

I don't claim to have direct answers. I just know that the paths the US and our allies are on is not leading to a good conclusion...so why continue it? Continuing to back and heavily aid a nation of stolen land isn't making things any better and, to me, is really the root of modern day terrorism. I see no reason to continue it.
ganesh
It is nice to see both coolclay and BlockUp's replies. I have to agree with both of them.

Not only radical Muslims, but if people of all religions realize that religion is a personal thing, and don't try to force it upon other people (maybe within their own family, is probably a different thing), almost all conflicts in the world starting from Christ's crucifixion by Jews, to the Crusades in the 11th century to the present day Al-Queda conflicts, could all have been avoided...
rafifaisal
ganesh wrote:
It is nice to see both coolclay and BlockUp's replies. I have to agree with both of them.

Not only radical Muslims, but if people of all religions realize that religion is a personal thing, and don't try to force it upon other people (maybe within their own family, is probably a different thing), almost all conflicts in the world starting from Christ's crucifixion by Jews, to the Crusades in the 11th century to the present day Al-Queda conflicts, could all have been avoided...


Do you realy think all of above mentioned incidents were/are have a religious colour ?
I realy don't think so.
Throughout history a lot of battles have been fought in the name of religion.
BUT all realy turned around money or land covered with a religious saus.

A movie I liked was "Kingdom of Heaven" with Orlando Bloom. This tells the story of the city of Jerusalem. A city important for Muslims, Christians and Jews.
But at the end it turns out that the war is not realy for the religions. (note these religions have lived peacefully in coexistence in the past)
James_Hicks
I don't know why we just don't all get along & ask God when we're dead as to who was right and what not. Take a gamble. Follow your faith if you have one to the fullest of its compassion and harmony. If you make it to the so-called heaven, then you're right. Otherwise, what does it matter how one from another religion lives on Earth. I've always found this quite stupid. But yes, it's all about land and resources.
wumingsden
ganesh wrote:
It is nice to see both coolclay and BlockUp's replies. I have to agree with both of them.

Not only radical Muslims, but if people of all religions realize that religion is a personal thing, and don't try to force it upon other people (maybe within their own family, is probably a different thing), almost all conflicts in the world starting from Christ's crucifixion by Jews, to the Crusades in the 11th century to the present day Al-Queda conflicts, could all have been avoided...


And its different because?
paul_indo
Islam worries me in that although only a minority are fanatical the majority is nearly always silent in condemning the fanatics for their violence and sometimes even condones and praises it.

Unless mainstream Islam can get to grips with itself and it's place in the world their will always be problems between muslims and those who love freedom and democracy.
rshanthakumar
i have had lots of muslim friends. But for a few, on an overall basis, there is something wrong with them all! I am not able to say why or what, but they are not normal. This is my opinion.
wumingsden
rshanthakumar wrote:
i have had lots of muslim friends. But for a few, on an overall basis, there is something wrong with them all! I am not able to say why or what, but they are not normal. This is my opinion.


Define normal.

Exactly, there is no such thing.

Take your flaming elsewhere because it is NOT welcome here.

And that same goes for anyone else trying to start trouble

(yes, you do have the right to express your opinion. but don't try and claim your superior, it doesn't work. especially when you have no evidence to back it up),
rafifaisal
wumingsden wrote:
rshanthakumar wrote:
i have had lots of muslim friends. But for a few, on an overall basis, there is something wrong with them all! I am not able to say why or what, but they are not normal. This is my opinion.


Define normal.

Exactly, there is no such thing.

Take your flaming elsewhere because it is NOT welcome here.

And that same goes for anyone else trying to start trouble

(yes, you do have the right to express your opinion. but don't try and claim your superior, it doesn't work. especially when you have no evidence to back it up),


Totally agree with Wumingsden.
But still I would like to hear Rshantakumar's definintion of 'Normal'. So please give us YOUR definition.
One thing more, all expressions like 'normal, freedom, democracy, peace, ...' are soooo vague.
Just to give you one example: Under word Peace we have seen more death in f.e Iraq than under 'War'. So all descriptions for peace and war fall into nothing.

Same can be said about normal. You may think Muslim people are not normal, but who knows what other people think about you.


So please do not spread heatred. not here, not anywhere
Melsens
or me, as a Muslim, I have seen the general view of Muslims go downhill since 7/11. And the idiot fanatics aren't helping one bit. Claiming to speak for the Ummah (the whole of the Muslim community), yet they do nothing but preach their own hatred.
loonix
Melsens wrote:
I have seen the general view of Muslims go downhill since 7/11


- I guess your referring to 9/11 and will answer as such.

I agree totally with this. Before 9/11 the majority of people I guess would have walked past a Muslim in the street and quite probably we wouldn't notice. Post 9/11 however, we are exposed to the idea that Muslims want to kill us or blow us up. The media condition us to make the psychological connection between Muslims and Terror which makes us more aware if we were to pass one in the street.

An interesting article here.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/04/law.islam

Personally Muslims or Bin Laden for that matter had nothing to do with 9/11 but thats a whole different conversation.
horseatingweeds
Quote:
The Muslim leader said he does not believe in democracy and insists there is no such thing as freedom of religion, "because freedom is an absolute term."

"Are we to say that Muslims can fully practice religion in America," he asked in an attempt to explain. "Say, for instance, I was a Muslim in America. Could I call for the destruction of the American government and establishment of an Islamic state in America? No. So where is the freedom of religion? There is none."



Good glory, this Anjem Choudary fellow must be the retarded. Maybe someone should explain to this jerk, that if he were a Muslim in America, he could call for the destruction of the American government - people do it all the time. And, as long as he didn't BREAK ANY LAWS, he could also try to establish an Islamic state.

This reminds me of the argument Islamic States use for NOT allowing freedom of religion, "We have to protect the ignorant people from being tricked out of Islam."

For anyone confused still about American freedom, it goes like this: You are free to do whatever you like - as long as it doesn't harm anyone else's freedom to do as they like. Simple, yet complex.
Bikerman
horseatingweeds wrote:
Quote:
The Muslim leader said he does not believe in democracy and insists there is no such thing as freedom of religion, "because freedom is an absolute term."

"Are we to say that Muslims can fully practice religion in America," he asked in an attempt to explain. "Say, for instance, I was a Muslim in America. Could I call for the destruction of the American government and establishment of an Islamic state in America? No. So where is the freedom of religion? There is none."



Good glory, this Anjem Choudary fellow must be the retarded. Maybe someone should explain to this jerk, that if he were a Muslim in America, he could call for the destruction of the American government - people do it all the time. And, as long as he didn't BREAK ANY LAWS, he could also try to establish an Islamic state.
Hmm...as long as you don't threaten the President of course..
http://www.nriinternet.com/NRI_terrorist/USA/2006/3_Vikram_%20Buddhi_Threat_Bush.htm
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/03/03/1340201-la-man-accused-of-threatening-bush
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,326069,00.html
horseatingweeds
Yes, a direct threat. This doesn't count calling him or her incompetent or wrong or saying the Executive branch should be dissolved. You have to make a threat to his life - say you're going to assassinate.

"I'm going to kill the President" would be prosecutable.

"I'm going to overthrow the President and install my own idea of a government" is not illegal.
deanhills
horseatingweeds wrote:

"I'm going to kill the President" would be prosecutable.


I know this must be a bit farfetched and a result of watching too many movies, but wonder whether the CIA with their sophisticated tracking and searching systems would have bots on the Internet to pick up on sentences like the above? I am beginning to get the feeling that the Internet has become so massively intuitive, viz search-engines like Google and Yahoo, that anything is possible. Smile
jmlworld
SonLight wrote:
Here is a disturbing piece, suggesting the balance of views within Muslim communities could tip in favor of violent confrontation.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56503

Quote:
The Muslim leader said he does not believe in democracy and insists there is no such thing as freedom of religion, "because freedom is an absolute term."

"Are we to say that Muslims can fully practice religion in America," he asked in an attempt to explain. "Say, for instance, I was a Muslim in America. Could I call for the destruction of the American government and establishment of an Islamic state in America? No. So where is the freedom of religion? There is none."




Many Muslims believe in that democracy is not fair. But, in my own opinion it's fair, if it is practiced as is.

SonLight wrote:
Will Moslems who seek peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims speak up to say so? I hope they will.


So do you think blaming prophet Muhammad (POABUH) for terrorism and drawing Him humiliatingly on papers was FREEDOM OF RELIGION or peaceful coexistence?

FriHost is free from religion. Let's never quote every religious topics that increases the tension.

In my opinion a few Muslims believe in this, as a few of non-Muslims see that Muslims want to establish a Muslim state in the US.

Nowadays, democracy has a bug running in the background, let's wait until the third edition.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:

"I'm going to kill the President" would be prosecutable.


I know this must be a bit farfetched and a result of watching too many movies, but wonder whether the CIA with their sophisticated tracking and searching systems would have bots on the Internet to pick up on sentences like the above? I am beginning to get the feeling that the Internet has become so massively intuitive, viz search-engines like Google and Yahoo, that anything is possible. Smile

I would bet on it. You can pick up phrases like this with a simple google. We know that the NSA/CIA routinely monitors cell-phone calls and emails via the Echelon network, so it is not too much of a stretch to imagine Echelon also covers web traffic.
horseatingweeds
deanhills wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:

"I'm going to kill the President" would be prosecutable.


I know this must be a bit farfetched and a result of watching too many movies, but wonder whether the CIA with their sophisticated tracking and searching systems would have bots on the Internet to pick up on sentences like the above? I am beginning to get the feeling that the Internet has become so massively intuitive, viz search-engines like Google and Yahoo, that anything is possible. Smile


Movies? What are you talking about? I'm talking about US Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 41 - 871

Here's an article for you: http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa040398.htm

And I don't see what's far fetched about the CIA, or any other agency, using search bots to build an index of threatening web traffic. You could probably find five people on this for by the end of the day that could build a simple system that would do that.
sondosia
I just want to say that I think that it's mostly irrelevant what proportion of Muslims actually believe in world domination, destroying Israel and America, etc. As we've often seen in history, it's often a radical few who bring about change. During the American Revolution, relatively few colonists actually wanted to completely separate from Great Britain and establish their own nation. Most were either loyal to Great Britain, or else wanted to improve the colonies' relationship with it. However, clearly, the minority prevailed and today we have the United States of America.

Unfortunately, it's not the moderate, modern Muslims who are agitating for changes or putting their opinions out there. They're just living their lives like the rest of us.

It's the radical ones who are condemning America and Israel and building up nuclear weapons in Iran. They're the ones we have to fear. Unless the rest of the Muslims, the ones who DON'T want to destroy anybody, stand up to the radicals (which doesn't seem likely), our fear of the Muslims is very reasonable.
GLOBALSTRATEGY
Tim Graham wrote:
Suggesting that the majority of Muslims would like to rise up and overthrow the West is almost as good as that thing about Fox News being "fair and balanced".

Do you happen to know anyone who is Muslim or indeed understand the religion at all?



Following are excerpts from a speech by Muhammad Taher Al-Farouq, leader of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which was posted on December 3, 2007 at http://ek-is.org, a website hosted in Tampa, FL, and owned by NOC4 Hosts Inc.

To view the clip, visit http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1636.htm.
Quote:

Muhammad Taher Al-Farouq: "I would like to congratulate the nation of Muhammad, and especially the mujahideen. In this holy month of Ramadhan, we ask them that, as part of their resistance to the enemies of God, His Prophet, the enemies of the Koran, Islam, and the Muslims, they increase their martyrdom and jihad operations, and fight the sworn enemies of Islam - the Jews, the Christians, and the hypocrites - and carry out the best jihad operations.

[...]

"The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan is part of the nation of Muhammad, and it is known by this name to friends and foes alike. The enemies of Islam know this movement by this name. This movement is connected to the Islamic Emirate we had in Afghanistan, under the leadership of the Emir of the Believers, Mullah Muhammad Omar.

[...]

"Our goal is to implement Islamic law, the law of the Koran, in God's kingdom. In other words, this kingdom, which belongs to God, should be ruled by the laws of God alone.

[...]

"Today, the enemies of Islam object to this goal, just like they did during the time of Muhammad, but let me announce to the believers, to the nation of Muhammad, that in the very near future, thanks to the sacrifices made by the nation of Muhammad, we will regain our glory of past times.

[...]

"As long as there are infidels and enemies of God in His kingdom, this movement will continue its jihad. Today, the nation of Muhammad has everything but an Islamic caliphate. We have clerics, mujahideen, and fedayeen, but not a caliphate. One of the most important goals of the Islamic movement of Uzbekistan is to establish an Islamic caliphate at any price.

[...]

"We take pride in the brothers in all the countries of Islam - in Iraq, Somalia, Lebanon, Palestine, Chechnya, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Africa, and Asia, and in all the countries of the world. We take pride in their jihad to elevate the word of Allah. We have good relations with them. As I've said, their joy is our joy, and their sorrow is our sorrow. We all constitute one body. We all have a common goal against the infidels. When mujahideen are taken by the enemy - whether the Americans or other infidels - to Guantanamo or other prisons, it does not ask them to which nation or community they belong. It treats them all the same way, and tortures all of them the same way."

[...]

Interviewer: "Which countries help you?"

[...]

Al-Farouq: "The countries that supported and helped God's Messenger help us.

[...]

"The money in the infidel banks is the daily bread of the mujahideen. The convoys come from Pakistan, through Torkhan or Karachi, are the daily bread of the mujahideen. The money in the banks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere is the daily bread of the mujahideen. The governments that use this money against the Muslims and Islam acquire bombs and airplanes with it, in order to bomb the Muslims. Therefore, this money is the [legitimate] booty of the Muslims.

[...]

"I always tell the mujahideen that if they want to get money, they should beat the infidels and take their money. You must hit them on the head and take their money. You should rob their banks and take the money. You should take their people prisoner, just like the Prophet did. Don't think this is a sin, because the Prophet Muhammad himself exchanged prisoners for ransom. There's nothing wrong with collecting money in exchange for prisoners.

[...]

"Allah willing, America will soon be annihilated, just like the USSR was annihilated. We are convinced of this.

[...]

"The people who made our nation proud by carrying out the 9/11 martyrdom operations in Washington and New York were the 19 best people of our nation. All the martyrs in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Iraq, Palestine, and elsewhere should be seen as role models.

[...]

"Allah willing, we will reach America. The men of this nation will reach America. The goal of this campaign is not only Kabul, Kandahar, or Baghdad. The eyes of the nation of Muhammad are set on Washington, London, Moscow, Paris, Delhi, Beijing, and other countries. This is our goal and, Allah willing, we will get there."
handfleisch
GLOBALSTRATEGY wrote:


Following are excerpts from a speech by Muhammad Taher Al-Farouq, leader of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which was posted on December 3, 2007 at http://ek-is.org, a website hosted in Tampa, FL, and owned by NOC4 Hosts Inc.


If you are attempting to prove that "the majority of Muslims would like to rise up and overthrow the West" (the question your post answered) by citing a speech by a preacher in Uzbekistan (could you get a little more obscure, please?), then that's pretty silly.
liljp617
GLOBALSTRATEGY wrote:
Tim Graham wrote:
Suggesting that the majority of Muslims would like to rise up and overthrow the West is almost as good as that thing about Fox News being "fair and balanced".

Do you happen to know anyone who is Muslim or indeed understand the religion at all?



Following are excerpts from a speech by Muhammad Taher Al-Farouq, leader of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which was posted on December 3, 2007 at http://ek-is.org, a website hosted in Tampa, FL, and owned by NOC4 Hosts Inc.

To view the clip, visit http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1636.htm.
Quote:

Muhammad Taher Al-Farouq: "I would like to congratulate the nation of Muhammad, and especially the mujahideen. In this holy month of Ramadhan, we ask them that, as part of their resistance to the enemies of God, His Prophet, the enemies of the Koran, Islam, and the Muslims, they increase their martyrdom and jihad operations, and fight the sworn enemies of Islam - the Jews, the Christians, and the hypocrites - and carry out the best jihad operations.

[...]

"The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan is part of the nation of Muhammad, and it is known by this name to friends and foes alike. The enemies of Islam know this movement by this name. This movement is connected to the Islamic Emirate we had in Afghanistan, under the leadership of the Emir of the Believers, Mullah Muhammad Omar.

[...]

"Our goal is to implement Islamic law, the law of the Koran, in God's kingdom. In other words, this kingdom, which belongs to God, should be ruled by the laws of God alone.

[...]

"Today, the enemies of Islam object to this goal, just like they did during the time of Muhammad, but let me announce to the believers, to the nation of Muhammad, that in the very near future, thanks to the sacrifices made by the nation of Muhammad, we will regain our glory of past times.

[...]

"As long as there are infidels and enemies of God in His kingdom, this movement will continue its jihad. Today, the nation of Muhammad has everything but an Islamic caliphate. We have clerics, mujahideen, and fedayeen, but not a caliphate. One of the most important goals of the Islamic movement of Uzbekistan is to establish an Islamic caliphate at any price.

[...]

"We take pride in the brothers in all the countries of Islam - in Iraq, Somalia, Lebanon, Palestine, Chechnya, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Africa, and Asia, and in all the countries of the world. We take pride in their jihad to elevate the word of Allah. We have good relations with them. As I've said, their joy is our joy, and their sorrow is our sorrow. We all constitute one body. We all have a common goal against the infidels. When mujahideen are taken by the enemy - whether the Americans or other infidels - to Guantanamo or other prisons, it does not ask them to which nation or community they belong. It treats them all the same way, and tortures all of them the same way."

[...]

Interviewer: "Which countries help you?"

[...]

Al-Farouq: "The countries that supported and helped God's Messenger help us.

[...]

"The money in the infidel banks is the daily bread of the mujahideen. The convoys come from Pakistan, through Torkhan or Karachi, are the daily bread of the mujahideen. The money in the banks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere is the daily bread of the mujahideen. The governments that use this money against the Muslims and Islam acquire bombs and airplanes with it, in order to bomb the Muslims. Therefore, this money is the [legitimate] booty of the Muslims.

[...]

"I always tell the mujahideen that if they want to get money, they should beat the infidels and take their money. You must hit them on the head and take their money. You should rob their banks and take the money. You should take their people prisoner, just like the Prophet did. Don't think this is a sin, because the Prophet Muhammad himself exchanged prisoners for ransom. There's nothing wrong with collecting money in exchange for prisoners.

[...]

"Allah willing, America will soon be annihilated, just like the USSR was annihilated. We are convinced of this.

[...]

"The people who made our nation proud by carrying out the 9/11 martyrdom operations in Washington and New York were the 19 best people of our nation. All the martyrs in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Iraq, Palestine, and elsewhere should be seen as role models.

[...]

"Allah willing, we will reach America. The men of this nation will reach America. The goal of this campaign is not only Kabul, Kandahar, or Baghdad. The eyes of the nation of Muhammad are set on Washington, London, Moscow, Paris, Delhi, Beijing, and other countries. This is our goal and, Allah willing, we will get there."


So....the majority of Muslims now want to rise up and overthrow the West? You see, there has to be some evidence supporting this. While the number of Muslim extremists is high enough to be a threat, they're still a pretty damn large minority. The point is, the average Muslim wants the same things you do...and I doubt you want to overthrow the western world and make this a planet of Muhammad -.- Your post does nothing to prove otherwise.
GLOBALSTRATEGY
Following are excerpts from an interview with Palestinian cleric Muhsen Abu 'Ita, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV on July 13, 2008:

To view the clip, visit http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1877.htm

To view the MEMRI TV page for Al-Aqsa TV, visit http://www.memritv.org/content/en/tv_channel_indiv.htm?id=175
Quote:
Muhsen Abu 'Ita: "Naturally, the Koran chapters conveyed to Muhammad in Mecca only rarely deal with the Jews - like in 'those who incur Allah's wrath,' which appears in the Al-Fatiha chapter.

"Hence, it is strange to find an entire chapter bearing the name of the Jews, or Bani Israil. It is even more peculiar that this chapter does not talk about the Jews of the Qaynuqa, Nazir, or Qurayza tribes.

"It talks about the Jews of our times, of this century, using the language of annihilation, the language of grave digging. Note that in this chapter, the Jews were sentenced to annihilation, before even a single Jew existed on the face of the earth. This Koranic chapter talked about the collapse of the so-called state of Israel, before this state was even established. From here stems the importance and oddity of this chapter.

[...]

"The blessing of Palestine is dependent upon the annihilation of the pit of global corruption in it. When the head of the serpent of corruption is cut off here in Palestine, and its octopus tentacles are severed throughout the world, the real blessing will come.

"The annihilation of the Jews here in Palestine is one of the most splendid blessings for Palestine. This will be followed by a greater blessing, Allah be praised, with the establishment of a Caliphate that will rule the land and will be pleasing to men and God."
paul_indo
As I see it the real problem is that Islam appears to believe it is the only legitimate religion and it cannot tolerate any other belief' By this I mean the majority of Islamic leaders in the world.

Quote:
NU, Muhammadiyah have failed to promote pluralism at grassroots

Nurrohman , Bandung | Tue, 12/09/2008 11:43 AM | Opinion

I am rather relieved as I read the results of a survey conducted by the Center for Islamic and Society Studies (PPIM) at the Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University.

Since the middle of this year -- in June and July to be exact -- I helped conduct a similar survey together with friends sponsored by the Malindo Institute (for social research and Islamic development). While the respondents picked by PPIM are Islamic studies teachers, our survey respondents are pesantren (Islamic boarding school) leaders. While the respondents of the first live in all Java provinces, the population of the latter live in West Java.

I am relieved because the conclusions of both surveys were relatively the same. Like Islamic teachers, most pesantren leaders oppose pluralism, demonstrate an intolerant attitude and tend to use religion to justify some violent acts.

For instance, most pesantren leaders, 75 percent, have allowed churches built without official permits to be destroyed or closed. Most agreed (86 percent) that Muslims should reject applications to build church in their areas. Muslims also are not allowed to say "Merry Christmas" or to accept invitations to celebrate that holiday alongside Christians, according to 81 percent.

When asked to give their opinion of the statement, "Non-Muslims are not allowed to become heads of state in Indonesia", 77 percent agreed. Only 33 percent agreed with the statement, "It is impossible in principle for Muslims to coexist peacefully with non-Muslims or infidels".

Some 55 percent believe that cutting off the hand of a thief is still a relevant punishment today. Jilid (whipping) and rajam (stoning to death) are still appropriate penalties for adulterers, according to a larger majority, 75 percent. When asked about the statement, "FPI (Islam Defenders Front) attacks on prostitution and gambling sites should be praised and supported", 56 percent of them agreed.

An overriding majority of pesantren leaders (89 percent) also support the idea of new sharia-inspired bylaws to improve the morality of the nation. When given the statement, "Muslims should always push for the Jakarta Charter to be included as part of the Indonesian Constitution", 58 percent of them agreed. More than a quarter, 27 percent, still disagree that the values embodied in Pancasila should be considered as the overarching political ideal for Indonesian Muslims.

In the case of Ahmadiyah, when presented with the statement, "The Ahmadiyah sect should be disbanded so it will not develop in Indonesia", most respondents (85 percent) agreed. This means most pesantren leaders are not ready to live in peace with sects considered deviant or blasphemous according to orthodox tenets. Fully 44 percent agreed with the statement, "The death penalty for apostasy is still applicable now."

Concerning jihad and terrorism, although most pesantren leaders (92 percent) agreed that self-restraint (jihad al-akbar) is more important, 6 percent still held the opinion jihad al-asghar (the war) is more important. Some of the pesantren leaders (39 percent) still see Osama bin Laden as an Islamic warrior, but only a few still consider the actions of Amrozi, Imam Samudra and Abu Dujana as a form of jihad which present conditions call for (3 percent). The pesantren leaders are exposed to ambivalent attitudes toward Osama bin Laden, but they are firmer in condemning Amrozi and his fellow Bali bombers. The worrying attitude is that a few pesantren leaders still agree (3 percent) that what the Bali bombers did was an act of jihad.

In this survey, 81 percent of respondents said they were members of Nahdlatul Ulama (NU); 1 percent each said they were members of United Islam (Persis), Muhammadiyah and the United Supremacy Party (PUI); the remaining 16 percent classified themselves as independent.

I was hesitant to release this survey publicly because it interviewed only 100 pesantren leaders in five regencies. But PPIM's latest survey has confirmed the results of Malindo's survey. Pesantren number 6,930 in West Java, according to 2007 data from Education Management Information Systems. The population of the pesantren in the five locations in which research was conducted totaled 1,459, consisting of: Cirebon 397, Indramayu 56, Majalengka 323, Kuningan 430, and Ciamis (including Pangandaran) 353. The pesantren were randomly selected from three types: traditional, semimodern and modern.

These polls do give a true snapshot of attitudes in time and attitudes can always change. But when the findings of two surveys confirm one another, it should be treated as a temporary truth albeit an inconvenient truth, to borrow Al Gore's catch phrase.

With 81 percent of the respondents claiming membership in Nahdlatul Ulama, I agree with PPIM director Jajat Burhanudin's comments on his own survey's implications that NU, as well as Muhammadiyah, have failed to promote pluralistic values at the grassroots.

There is no need to create a state of denial by saying, for instance, that pesantren are not hives of radicalism or by blaming the survey methodology. Radicalism -- meaning religious understanding justifying the use of violence -- is still present. Gallup's worldwide survey also finds that 7 percent of the world's Muslim population embraces radical politics.

We need to understand that religious intolerance in this country is no longer a myth. The results of these surveys should stand as a warning. Maintaining an environment of religious tolerance is an obligation that should be exercised not only by the government but also by all of us if we are really committed to defending this pluralistic state based on Pancasila.

The writer is a lecturer at Sunan Gunung Djati State Islamic University (UIN), Bandung.


Unless attitudes like this can be overcome Islam has no place in the modern world.
handfleisch
SonLight wrote:

Will Moslems who seek peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims speak up to say so? I hope they will.


Mainstream Muslim groups, mosques, and leaders have condemned violence countless times since the attacks on 9/11. If you aren't aware of this fact, maybe it's the media fault. And you will never hear about it from a fringe-right source like your World Net Daily.

paul_indo wrote:
As I see it the real problem is that Islam appears to believe it is the only legitimate religion and it cannot tolerate any other belief' By this I mean the majority of Islamic leaders in the world.

Unless attitudes like this can be overcome Islam has no place in the modern world.


But you could both also use Google and find out for yourselves about mainstream Islamic attitudes:

Long list of Islamic organizations. leaders and individual condemning violence
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

In a Gallup poll, Muslims condemn violence more than people from other religions
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1260941,00.html

More http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=64935

So please don't say that Muslims don't condemn violence. It's a politically-motivated urban legend.
paul_indo
Quote:
Mainstream Muslim groups, mosques, and leaders have condemned violence countless times since the attacks on 9/11. If you aren't aware of this fact, maybe it's the media fault. And you will never hear about it from a fringe-right source like your World Net Daily.


I don't need "your world net daily".

I live in Indonesia which has the larges Islamic population in the world! I have lived here for ten years. There are over 200,000,000 Mulims in this country and about 20,000,000 in Greater Jakarta alone. There are local newspapers in English and Indonesian, there are more than 15 channels of TV news sources plus the opinions of the community around me.

The information I posted is based on a survey by "the Center for Islamic and Society Studies (PPIM) at the Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University. " and "Malindo Institute (for social research and Islamic development)" and published in the Jakarta Post, a newspaper whose staff are also predominantly Muslim and hardly "fringe-right sources".

Now this is from the "Wahid Institute".

Quote:
Cases of religious violence up: Report

Adianto P. Simamora , The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Thu, 12/11/2008 7:32 AM | Headlines

Religious violence is on the rise in the world’s largest Muslim country according to a report by the Wahid Institute, which places the blame on the government for its failing to crack down on radical groups.

The institute, a moderate Islamic think tank founded by former president Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid to promote pluralism in Indonesia, reported that religious freedom-related violence had increased throughout the country, with 232 cases reported this year compared to 197 last year.

Many of the incidences of violence were perpetrated by state authorities, according to the annual report released on Human Rights Day, Wednesday.

The acts of violence against religious freedom were 60 percent carried out by civilian groups and 33 percent by the state,” the report said.

It said the state perpetrators included local administrations, police, legislators, courts and the Religious Affairs Ministry.

Civilian perpetrators were identified as members of the Islam Defenders Front (FPI), the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) and the Communications Forum for Religious Harmony.

The frequency and severity of the violence increased from last year, the report said. It noted that the government had been weak in administering punishment, which it said set a worrisome trend for the future.

The institute said violations against religious freedom had come in the form of physical attacks, raids, destruction of houses of worship and accusations of apostasy and heresy.

The report recorded some 50 cases of violence this year, which were sparked by issuances of fatwa by the MUI against certain groups it branded “heretical or deviant”.

“MUI fatwa against specific groups are often used to legalize violence and stereotyping,” said Ahmad Suaedy, executive director of the Wahid Institute, which is headed by Gus Dur’s daughter, Yenny Zannuba Wahid.

Suaedy criticized the government for bowing to pressure from hard-liners to disband the Jamaah Ahmadiyah sect.

The government in June this year issued a joint ministerial decree banning Ahmadiyah from disseminating its doctrine.

“It is an example that the mobilization of masses can be used to force the government to take actions that can be conceived as constitutional violations.
If (it allows) such practices to continue, the government is investing in a future disintegration of the nation,” Suaedy said.

In its report, the institute lists the “Monas tragedy” as the worst act of violence against pluralism in 2008, referring to an event in which activists from the National Alliance for Freedom of Religion and Belief were attacked by members of the FPI, injuring 70 people, including Suaedy.

National Commission on Human Rights chairman Ifdal Kasim warned that including religious affairs in state policies could lead to attacks against religious freedom.

“This contradicts the principles of human rights that oblige the government to protect its citizens, and (uphold) religious freedom,” he told a discussion on the report.


Remember Abdurrahman Wahid? http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/634069/Abdurrahman-Wahid

Some more
Quote:

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers16%5Cpaper1596.html

Paper no. 1596

02. 11. 2005

TERRORISM IN INDONESIA : Role of the Religious Organisations

By C. S. Kuppuswamy

“Most Muslim organizations are reluctant to admit that there is indeed a problem that should be addressed. They are reluctant to admit that there are certain radical elements of Indonesian Muslims who are ready to use terror in order to achieve their aims”.

Prof. Azyumardi Azra, State Islamic University, Indonesia

“We know that the terrorists that operate in Indonesia are hiding behind the banner of Islam. They often claim that any government effort to discredit them will discredit Islam. This circumstance has made it difficult for the government to aggressively arrest, detain the radicals and ban their organizations for fear of being labeled as anti-Islamic”

Ridarson Gallingging, lecturer, YarsiUniversity (The Jakarta Post)


"for fear of being labeled as anti-Islamic" by whom? by mainstream Muslims obviously.

Some more from the same source


Quote:
Religious Organizations

Indonesian Ulema council (MUI). This is Indonesia’s top clerical body. This council comprises a broad range of Muslim groups including the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and Muhammadiyah. The MUI wants to counter balance the largely secular government.

In July 2005, the council issued a few fatwas that banned liberal interpretations of Islam, declared liberalism and pluralism as haram (forbidden) and also condemned inter-faith prayers and marriages between religions. “These fatwas reflect the growing influence of two groups in particular – the Dewan Dakwah Islamiyah Indonesia, an organization closely linked to the radical right and Committee for International Solidarity, a hard line group founded in the late 1980s during the Suharto regime”(Newsweek August 15, 2005).

In June 2005, President Yudhoyono himself inaugurated the annual conference of the MUI which shows the importance attached by the government to these hard line groups and the council’s influence over the politicians.

Nahdlatul Ulama (NU). NU is a traditional Muslim organization with a membership of approximately 40 million. The NU runs mosques, schools and medical clinics throughout the country. The NU version of Islam is more relaxed one building on traditional values as much as on the Islamic scriptures. Hasyim Muzadi is the leader of this organization. Former President Abdurrahman Wahid was earlier the head of this organization and still exerts considerable influence over its members.

Muhammadiyah, established in 1912, is the second largest Muslim organization with a membership of around 30 million. Muhammadiyah is more modernistic with aim of purifying Islam from local tradition (adat) and return to the original source of Islam, the Quran and the Hadith or the Sunnah. Din Syamsuddin is the Chairman and he is also the Deputy Chairman of the Indonesian Ulema Council. Amien Rais, a seasoned politician of Indonesia, was a former head of this organization.


Currently Gus Dur is largely rejected by the current Islamic leaders for embrassing pluralism and democracy
Quote:
The PKNU was established in 2006 by clerics of the country's biggest Muslim organization - Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), who opposed the leadership of former NU chairman Abdurrahman "Gus Dur" Wahid.


These are the largest mainstream organisations.

some more from the area of Jakarta in which I live.

Quote:
Religion like breath in Indonesia
by Mujtaba Hamdi
24 June 2008
http://www.commongroundnews.org/article.php?id=23400&lan=en&sid=1&sp=0

Depok, Indonesia — It's a very disappointing day for democracy when supporters of religious tolerance are publicly beaten. But that is precisely what happened this month in Jakarta when 200 activists of the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) suddenly stormed the Monas Square where supporters of the Alliance for Freedom of Religion and Belief (AKKBB) were holding a peaceful rally.

AKKBB activists – most of whom were women – were attacked with sticks, leaving many injured. They had been celebrating the 63rd anniversary of Pancasila, a national creed that accepts foreign influence from Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist and Western thought. Pancasila is the embodiment of Indonesia's basic pluralism, the philosophical glue that binds together Indonesia's diverse populations.


Despite frequent reporting of these types of issues there is very little public pressure or even expression from any mainstream Muslim groups. In fact the M.U., the largest group frequently issues fatwas which inflame religious tension and intolerance. Fortunately in this case the FPI leaders were jailed for a couple of years but when it comes to closing churches and Christian schools police generally just look on and do nothing.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2006/04/27/bogor-shuts-three-places-worship.html
Quote:

The Gunung Putri district administration in Bogor regency, has stopped the activities of three Christian churches in Griya Bukit Jaya housing complex.


http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2006/03/29/group-goes-court-against-places-worship-decree.html
Quote:
Minority groups of Christians and Muslims are seeking judicial review of the new decree on houses of worship that they say will obstruct them from practicing their faiths.


This was a nice exception though
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2006/09/24/police-foil-attempted-closure-church.html
Quote:
A mob of around 50 people attempted Saturday to demolish a house they claimed was being used illegally by Christians as a place of worship in the hamlet of Cibintinu, Arjasari village, some 20 kilometers south of Bandung.
But police foiled the attempted closure of the church, telling the mob that neither individuals nor organizations were authorized to shut any house of worship.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/aug/02/worlddispatch.indonesia
Quote:
MUI, whose influence is strongest in poorly educated rural communities, believes liberal teachings - defined as those promoting rational rather than literal interpretations of religious texts - are "dangerous and misleading", according to Ma'ruf Amin, the fatwa commission chairman of the council.


http[url]://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2005/08/12/mui-fatwa-negates-freedom-religion-human-rights.html[/url]
Quote:
Two recent events demonstrate that legal protections for freedom of religion are non-existent in Indonesia.

The first was the violent attack on the Indonesian Ahmadiyah Congregation (JAI) by the so-called ""Indonesian Muslim Solidarity"" (IMS) group for allegedly adhering to heretical Islamic teachings. The second was the police investigation into Muhammad Yusman Roy for conducting Islamic ritual prayers (shalat) in two languages, Arabic and Indonesian.



http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2005/08/08/impact-mui-fatwas-freedom-religion-indonesia.html
Quote:
The fatwas (edicts) issued by the Indonesian Ulemas Council (MUI) concerning intra and inter-religious issues in the country have generated concerns and criticisms from other scholars and the public, and clearly demonstrates that there is still a semantic and intellectual gap among the religious elites themselves about how to deal with religious diversity and freedom. Religious freedom does not seem to have won over the minds of many religious elites, or for that matter, the public in general.

and
Quote:
The MUI fatwas that prohibit interfaith prayer, interfaith marriage, interfaith inheritance, religious pluralism, liberalism, secularism, and Ahmadiyah, are largely counter-productive to the ideals of freedom of religion and religious tolerance when one strand of religious interpretation has to be introduced to public in order to attack other interpretations existing in the community.


http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2005/08/02/mui-slammed-over-controversial-fatwas.html
Quote:
The MUI concluded a four-day national congress last Friday with the issuing of 11 edicts, one of which stipulates that Islamic interpretations based on liberalism, secularism and pluralism ""contradict Islamic teachings.""

[url]
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2004/06/05/antimega-039fatwa039-deplored-called-misuse-religion.html[/url]
Quote:

Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) acting chairman Masdar Faried Mas'udi said the country's largest Muslim organization had ordered all its clerics through the issuance of an edict (fatwa) to vote against any woman candidate in the upcoming election. Incumbent Megawati Soekarnoputri who was nominated by the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), is the only woman in the race.


The evidence is overwhelming.

Muslim groups in the west indeed condemn and speak out against terrorism, religious intolerance etc. because they are a minority and must do so to be accepted.
Please show me how any mainstream Islamic groups are vocal and active in speaking out for religious tolerance and pluralism in the Islamic countries?
I believe you will find that there are not that many.

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
Quote:
A Message from the Council on American-Islamic Relations

American Muslim Leaders Condemn Attacks

American Muslims Denouncing Terrorism

American Muslims and Scholars Denounce Terrorism on Anniversary of 9/11

Australian Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attack

Bin Laden Distorts Islam, Islamic Scholars Say

Bin Laden's Idea of 'Jihad' is Out of Bounds, Islamic Scholars Say

British Muslim leaders condemn terrorism

British Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attacks

Canadian Muslims Condemn Terorist Attacks

Islamic Statements Against Terrorism in the Wake of the September 11 Mass Murders

Islamic World Deplores U.S. Losses

Looking for Answers in Islam's Holy Book: What Islamic Scholars Have to Say

Muslim Reactions to Sept 11

Muslim Voices Against Extremism & Terrorism - Part II - Statements by Organizations

Muslim World Condemns Attacks on U.S.

Muslim rulers condemn WTC attacks

New Zealand Muslims Condemn Terrorism


Most seem to be Western groups and only an insane maniac would not condemn 911, what about closing churches and Christian schools? there needs to be condemnation over less spectacular, but ultimately more important issues such as these and it needs to come from the Islamic countries, not the western Muslims,although that is better than nothing.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641260941
Quote:
London Muslims Condemn Violence


Say no more.

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=64935
Quote:
ISLAMIC and Christian leaders and scholars condemned religious viol­ence in a communiqué issued on Wednesday at Lambeth Palace, at the end of a three-day conference to mark the first anniversary of the Muslim letter “A Common Word”.


I don't suppose Lambeth place is in an Islamic country?

There are a dedicated group of tolerant Muslims who are fighting against this sort of insanity but they are largely ignored or called unislamic, and as I stated previously, until the majority of Muslims who hold rational views are prepared to stand up and be counted Islam can not be an accepted and iintegral part of the modern world.

Hopefully sanity and tolerance will prevail.
jwellsy
Is it OK between Muslims if they tell lies to infidels?
SonLight
jwellsy wrote:
Is it OK between Muslims if they tell lies to infidels?


There are some verses in the Quran which have been interpreted to allow telling lies any time it will benefit the Islamic religion. I suspect most Muslims would not agree, except in some very special cases.

I don't claim to know the Quran well, but I do know that the Quran generally speaks favorably of both the Jewish and the Christian Bibles. The fact that the Quran claims that either some parts of the Bible are corrupt or that corrupt readings or interpretations were presented to Mohammed and his followers is not a valid reason to reject a principle stated repeatedly in the Bible, and lying is dealt with as wrong in many places, from the ten commandments to the epistles of Paul.
jwellsy
Would Muslims ever be content occupying part of Jeruselem, while Jews occupied the other half? Is it possible for Islam to produce long term trustworthy peaceful good neighbors with Jews?
Related topics
Need For Speed Most Wanted
World's First 3D Display Revealed
Retarded leaders
P.O.V on the world
IRAN'S MILITANT STUDENTS TO SEIZE BRITISH EMBASSY
Justification for War in Iraq
Oh, the evil that Bush has done to this world...
Conservative Christian Dictionary.
US & Iran
The Middle East Conflict
Islamic tolerance?
Rule for muslims in Malaysia
Can the church make up its mind?
What’s your opinion on al Qaeda terrorists operation in Mali
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.