What Caused the Recent Bombings in London?

[GENIERE]

...I said "you cannot condemn an entire religion for this".

Why not? I can easily and correctly condemn past Christianity for bringing misery and death to millions over many centuries. The horror of centuries of violence spawned by Islamic and Christian zealots is mind-boggling. I can correctly condemn the tacit approval of terrorists by the Moslem community. Despite Astronuc’s admonishment, I find no unqualified condemnation by a Muslim cleric or government.

I am embarrassed that I did not previously offer my sympathy to the families and victims of this most grievous atrocity in London.


...

 

[Townsend]

Why not?

Ok, I see your point and I suppose that you are right. You can condemn it much like you can condemn the KKK or Christianity but you must allow people to practice their beliefs and respect their right to do so. If you believe in things like individual liberty and freedom of religion then you must allow and even fight to protect people's right to believe in and practice whatever religion they so choose.

Now if any particular organization happens to do something that is beyond reproach does that mean its ok to dismiss all facets of that religion? I don’t think so and that is what I wanted to get at. I hope that is more agreeable.

Of course I have never read the Koran but I am hearing a lot of opinion on both sides. I honestly don't know what to believe but I would hope that such a large religion would be good but I suppose what is good to me might seem evil to someone else.

 

[Anttech]

Why not?

Becuase a relgion doesn't kill people, people kill people

I can correctly condemn the tacit approval of terrorists by the Moslem community.

Total and utter bogus, Move to London for a year and experience first hand that ISLAM condems these attacks! You have probably only experienced some extreem cleriks that are demonised by CNN and FOX, well these people are seriously in the minority

 

[GENIERE]

…If you believe in things like individual liberty and freedom of religion then you must allow and even fight to protect people's right to believe in and practice whatever religion they so choose.

Of course I would not support a religion that sacrifices a virgin nor one that tolerates terrorism. If a Muslim denounces terrorism without qualification I can happily accept him as a neighbor. I am equally able to turn the screw if he does not.

Now if any particular organization happens to do something that is beyond reproach does that mean its ok to dismiss all facets of that religion? I don’t think so and that is what I wanted to get at. I hope that is more agreeable.

I don’t have much use for any religion, but most provide guidelines for social interaction. The US is a primarily a product of religious traditions of the western world, the common law and culture of the UK, and influenced greatly by our African heritage. It is these traditions I have learned to cherish and wish to endure.

Of course I have never read the Koran but I am hearing a lot of opinion on both sides. I honestly don't know what to believe but I would hope that such a large religion would be good but I suppose what is good to me might seem evil to someone else.

I’ve perused it but not read it, nor have I read the Bible except when it was the only reading material available in a hotel room. I have only a curious and historical interest in religion. I was once accosted in an airport by a very pretty Indian girl who lectured me for several hours on the virtues of the Hindu religion. I bought about $25.00 worth of religious material from her that I later dutifully read. Both Muhammad and Osama Bin Laden accept the tenets of the Old Testament. I think the Muslim considers Muhammad to be the last of the prophets and that the Koran is not a book of revelations but a way of life commanded by god. It seems to me that if Jesus is considered to be a prophet only, and compares him with Muhammad, Jesus would be the better man. To me Jesus comes across as a kindly, peaceful person with occasional lapses. Muhammad comes across as a brilliant military strategist who initially raised armies by promising a share of the booty. Whereas Islam was born in battle, Christianity took several hundred years to degenerate.

The Old Testament is simply a collection of myths of several religions and assembled by ancient religious scholars. They saw fit to include some and discard others dealing harshly with dissidents. Later the Jews compiled the Talmud by minutely scrutinizing the Old Testament in an attempt to discern the laws of god that must govern ones life. The Orthodox Jew would conduct his life in accordance with the Talmud. It seems to me that Muhammad borrowed that concept.

Muhammad could have written the Koran only if he was gifted with literacy after god spoke to him. Apparently he had seven disciples who were dispatched to recite the Koran in the language or dialect of their audience. I think that the Koran was committed to writing only after the Prophet’s death. It seems that there were seven versions that were actively promoted as the true Koran. This led to much bloodshed as each considered the other to be infidels. Apparently Muhammad himself thought only four of the seven were accurate reciters. To end the bloodshed a Caliph formed a committee to create the true Koran and destroyed the seven competing versions, even those of the four reciters favored by Muhammad.

History, as I know it, may not be historically or politically correct.

 

[Bilal]

There are no similarities between Koran and Old Testament. Koran is completely peaceful comparing with this holy book.

You should check the political background of the conflict instead to blame the religion for these crimes. Just think about war on Iraq, creation of Israel, barbarism occupation of third countries for decades...

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Koran is completely peaceful

certainly the old testament of the christian bible is far from peaceful, but the koran is completely peaceful? i don't think so.

what about the following passages:

“Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors.” (2:190)

“Strike terror (into the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies.; But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).” (8:60-61)

“What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers. Fight them, and Allah will punish (torment) them by your hands, cover them with shame.” (9:13-14)

“Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (9:29)

"Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been God's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He let's you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of God,- He will never let their deeds be lost." (47:4)

 

[Art]

certainly the old testament of the christian bible is far from peaceful, but the koran is completely peaceful? i don't think so.

That was my point earlier. Both books (probably because of the times they were written in) extol the virtues of religious inspired violence and so those of a violent bent have throughout the ages used holy scriptures to justify just about anything and everything.
Militant ayatollahs of the east have there counterparts in the west both sides speak of the fight between good and evil and how God is on their side and use this even today to justify all manner of unacceptable acts of brutality.
Personally I think the world would be a far better place if everybody practiced a little more tolerance and kept religion far away from politics.

 

[Art]

'Who guards the guards'
[deleted: Art, I told you that if you have a complant you should post it in the feedback section]

 

[Astronuc]

People often talk of "Christianity" as a single religion, but I was thinking that the Protestant Reformation changed an awful lot of the bad things in it that caused things such as the Crusades. And while the Catholic church still exists, it too was forced to change by the Protestant Reformation. And recent rifts suggest we may be nearing a second Reformation.

Careful. Crusades preceded the Protestant Reformation by centuries.

The Protestant Reformation was a movement which emerged in the 16th century as a series of attempts to reform the Roman Catholic Church in Western Europe. The main front of the reformation was started by Martin Luther and his 95 Theses. The reformation ended in division and the establishment of new institutions, most importantly Lutheranism, the Reformed churches, and Anabaptists. It also led to the Counter-Reformation within the Roman Catholic Church.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation

The course of the Reformation was different in England. There had long been a strong strain of anti-clericalism, and England had already given rise to the Lollard movement, which had inspired the Hussites in Bohemia. By the 1520s, however, the Lollards were not an active force, or, at least, certainly not a mass movement. The different character of the English Reformation came rather from the fact that it was driven initially by the political necessities of Henry VIII. Although Henry had once been a sincere Catholic, he found it expedient and profitable to break with the Papacy. In 1534 The Act of Supremacy put Henry at the head of the church in England (that is, not the Church of England). Between 1535 and 1540, under Thomas Cromwell, the policy known as the Dissolution of the Monasteries was put into effect. The veneration of Saints, pilgrimages and pilgrim shrines were also attacked. Huge amounts of church land and property passed into the hands of the crown and ultimately into those of the nobility and gentry. The vested interest thus created made for a powerful force in support of the dissolutions.

ibid

The Crusades were a series of several military campaigns—usually sanctioned by the Papacy—that took place during the 11th through 13th centuries. Originally, they were Roman Catholic endeavors to re-capture the Holy Land from the Muslims, but some were directed against other Europeans, such as the Fourth Crusade against Constantinople, the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars of southern France and the Northern Crusades.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

Crusades preceded the Protestant Reformation.

I highly recommend James Carroll's, "Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews -- A History"

Constantine is perhaps best known for being the first Roman Emperor to freely allow Christianity, traditionally presented as a result of an omen — a chi and rho in the sky, with the inscription "By this sign shalt thou conquer" — before his victory in the Battle of Milvian Bridge on October 28, 312, when Constantine is said to have instituted the new standard to be carried into battle, called the labarum.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I_(emperor)
Constantine politicized Christianity by making it a state religion, and effectively putting himself as the supreme being in the world. Of course, this conflicted with others who thought they were the supreme being.

That was my point earlier. Both books (probably because of the times they were written in) extol the virtues of religious inspired violence and so those of a violent bent have throughout the ages used holy scriptures to justify just about anything and everything.

Definitely. The Torah, Bible (Old Testament = Torah and New Testament) and the Koran reflect the reality of their respective times and cultures. They are also some of the few pieces of writing from those times because of such tragedies as the burning of the Library of Alexandria.

As for modern reformations - cultures and religions seem to be more inclined to diverge than converge.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Astronuc, this sentence:

People often talk of "Christianity" as a single religion, but I was thinking that the Protestant Reformation changed an awful lot of the bad things in it that caused things such as the Crusades.

Means "Christianity had a bad thing in it, that caused the the Crusades, and then the Protestant Reformation came along and fixed it so it didn't". You can disagree with the sense of the sentence (Christianity after the Reformation introduced colonialism and African slavery), but it does not assert that the Crusades came after the Reformation.

 

[russ_watters]

Means "Christianity had a bad thing in it, that caused the the Crusades, and then the Protestant Reformation came along and fixed it so it didn't". You can disagree with the sense of the sentence (Christianity after the Reformation introduced colonialism and African slavery), but it does not assert that the Crusades came after the Reformation.

Mostly correct (about my meaning), with the caveat that I said "an awful lot of the bad things", meaning some, but not all of them were corrected. In fact, I think my posts imply that I believe an awful lot of bad things still exist. This sentence was meant to imply exactly that: "And recent rifts suggest we may be nearing a second Reformation." This means that I think there are enough bad things to warrant a second reformation - a second major reorganization of the Catholic Church specifically, and pretty much all of Christianity in general.

 

[Bilal]

Dear quetzalcoatl9,

Please, I am against religious conflicts or even religious dicusions … religion should be only between the person and his god, but my duty to show the other side of story instead to see the others just following blindly some misleading information.

I do not think we have any problem with the first two verses you presented already.
Fighting in sake of God = fighting to protect your life, your family, your homeland... (Defensive war))

The rest of verses from Surah 9 which is representing special case ... these verses allowed Muslims to fight strongly because at that moment they war under attack and siege from large pagan army who decided to annihilate them.

So these verses are valid only if Islamic world under dangerous attack (e.g. Crusader wars). Read carefully this verse to realize that Islam is the only religion who accepts the other religions, which is not the case in Christianity and Judaism:

Koran, Chapter/Surah 2, Al-Baqarah, the Cow, Verse 62:
"Those who believe (Muslims), the Jews, the Christians, and the Sabeans - whosoever believes in God and the Last Day and do good deeds, theyshall have their reward from the Lord, and shall have nothing to fear, nor shall they come to grief"


Here is the general verses of Koran arrange the relation between Muslims and Muslims.


MUSLIM SACRED TEXTS CONDEMNING

WANTON DESTRUCTION

AND

INDISCRIMINATE KILLING


Islamic rulings are derived from the Qur'an (the words of God revealed word-for-word by the Angel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad, also his greatest miracle) and the Sunnah (teachings of the Prophet Muhammad which are also of divine origin or approval, but were not necessarily transmitted word-for-word).

A. From the Qur'an


1. "…We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul - unless for a soul[1] or for corruption [done] in the land[2] - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And, whoever saves one, it is as if he had saved mankind entirely." [Qur'an, 5:32]

This verse establishes the sanctity of life.

2. "…And do not kill the soul[3] which Allah has forbidden except by right…" [Qur'an, 6:151]


3. "And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden except by right. And whoever is killed unjustly, We have given his heir authority[4] but let him not exceed limits in [the matter of] taking life. Indeed, he has been supported [by the law]. " [Qur'an, 17:33].


5. "And fight, in the path of Allah, those who fight you…" [Qur'an, 2:190]

This verse indicates that only those involved in combat are to be fought, which excludes non-combatants such as women, children and civilians; a regulation detailed further by narrations from the Sunnah, as mentioned in the following section.


6. "Among mankind is he whose speech impresses you in worldly life, and he calls Allah to witness as to what is in his heart, yet he is the fiercest of opponents. And, when he goes away, he strives throughout the land to cause corruption therein, and to destroy crops[7] and lives[8]. And Allah does not love corruption." [Qur'an, 2:204-5]


These verses indicate that wanton destruction and indiscriminate killing are tantamount to working mischief /corruption upon earth.



B. From the Sunnah


Warning Against Causing Suffering Even To Animals

1. "A woman entered the Fire on account of a cat, which she tied up, neither feeding it, nor letting it eat [for itself] from the vermin of the earth, until it died, and as a result she entered the Fire [of Hell]."[9]

2. "Do not take something with a soul as a target."[10]

Another version says, "Ibn `Umar passed by some youths of Quraysh who had set up a bird and were shooting at it, giving any arrows which missed to the owner of the bird. Thereupon, Ibn `Umar said, "Allah curses the one who does this. Verily, the Messenger of Allah cursed the one who takes something with a soul as a target."[11]

Another version says, "The Messenger of Allah forbade taking something with a soul as a target."[12]

Another version says, "Allah curses the one who takes something with a soul as a target."[13]




Warning Against Wrongfully Taking Life.


3. "A Muslim remains in latitude concerning his religion as long as he does not take a life."[14]

4. "Avoid the seven ruinous [sins] … associating partners with Allah, sorcery, unrightfully taking life which Allah has prohibited, consuming riba, consuming the property of an orphan, fleeing on the day of marching [in battle], and accusing a chaste, oblivious believing woman of adultery."[15]



Specific Narrations Regulating Killing During War


5. Ribah ibn al-Rabi` al-Tamimi says, "We were with the Messenger of Allah in a battle. He saw people gathered, and then he saw a slain woman, whereupon he said, "This [woman] was not fighting!""[16]

Another version adds, "Thereupon, the Prophet objected to the killing of women and children."[17]

Another adds, "Catch up with Khalid and tell him: The Messenger of Allah commands you not to kill [women and] children, nor hired workers."[18]

6. Ibn `Abbas says: The Messenger of Allah, when dispatching his troops, would tell them, "….Do not behave treacherously, nor misappropriate war-booty, nor mutilate [those whom you kill], nor kill children, nor the people in cloisters."[19]

Another version contains, "…Do not kill a decrepit old man, nor a child, nor a youngster, nor a woman…"[20]

Another contains, "…Do not kill a woman, nor a child, nor an old, aged man…"[21]

Another contains, "Do not kill a child, nor a woman, nor an old man, nor obliterate a stream, nor cut a tree…"[22]



7. The words of anyone after the Prophet do not carry independent religious authority, but the above teachings of the Prophet are clearly reflected in the practice of his immediate successor, the first Caliph, Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr gave 10 directions to Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan, one of his commanders, when dispatching him at the head of an army to the Levant:



"Do not kill a woman,

nor a child,

nor a decrepit aged person,

Do not cut down a fruit-bearing tree,

Do not destroy a dwelling,

Do not kill a sheep or camel, unless [you need to kill it] for food,

Do not set bees on fire, nor drown them,

Do not misappropriate war-booty, and

Do not be cowardly."[23]

certainly the old testament of the christian bible is far from peaceful, but the koran is completely peaceful? i don't think so.

what about the following passages:

“Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors.” (2:190)

“Strike terror (into the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies.; But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).” (8:60-61)

“What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers. Fight them, and Allah will punish (torment) them by your hands, cover them with shame.” (9:13-14)

“Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (9:29)

"Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been God's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He let's you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of God,- He will never let their deeds be lost." (47:4)

 

[Evo]

'Who guards the guards'
Following censorship of posts about Russ by Russ here is a copy of our PM exchange (which I have informed Russ I would publish)
So as I understand it it is okay for Russ to suggest near 50% of muslims are terrorists but it is not okay for me to point out that he said it..

Well folk make your own minds up.

Russ has equal authority to mine in this forum. Russ had concerns with editing posts he was involved in and had asked for approval. I gave Russ approval, I have had trouble with my connection since losing my dsl the other day and edits are dificult for me to make right now. I should have made that clear here.

A mentor can take several actions when posts become personal (towards a member or a mentor), the post can be edited or deleted, the poster can then also receive either an official points warning, or a general warning in the thread, or private warnings to change behavior.

Once a poster responds in a personal manner to another person's post, it immediately sets that person on the offensive. This usually results in a more "personal" response, other members start taking sides and very quickly we have a board full of people more concerned with getting in the last "zing" instead of a rational , productive discussion.

I see a lot of very intelligent people on this board, very politically savvy, and on different sides of the fence. This is perfect for gaining multiple perspectives from all sides, it's also the perfect set up for war to break out on the board.

Let's all try a bit harder to stay away from personal comments and snyde remarks and maybe I won't have to start handing out official warnings.

 

[Burnsys]

So as I understand it it is okay for Russ to suggest near 50% of muslims are terrorists but it is not okay for me to point out that he said it..

Hey! if 50% of muslims are terrorists, then america should start to plant bombs in the civilian areas. So they will achieve 50% terrorist killed and 50% of colateral damage.. i think they can live with those numbers...

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Dear quetzalcoatl9,

Please, I am against religious conflicts or even religious dicusions … religion should be only between the person and his god, but my duty to show the other side of story instead to see the others just following blindly some misleading information.

I do not think we have any problem with the first two verses you presented already.
Fighting in sake of God = fighting to protect your life, your family, your homeland... (Defensive war))

The rest of verses from Surah 9 which is representing special case ... these verses allowed Muslims to fight strongly because at that moment they war under attack and siege from large pagan army who decided to annihilate them.

So these verses are valid only if Islamic world under dangerous attack (e.g. Crusader wars). Read carefully this verse to realize that Islam is the only religion who accepts the other religions, which is not the case in Christianity and Judaism:

Bilal,

I hope that you are not under the impression that I am against the Islamic people. That is not the case. I also notice that your location is listed as Palestine. There are many Americans, including myself, who recognize that violence commited by Palestinians is in direct response to Israeli aggression, Palestinians being forced out of their homes, and that this is more of a political issue than necessarily a religious issue.

Having said that, what I am saying is that there sure is a lot of violence mentioned in the Koran. Whether it is for defense or offense isn't really the point, my point is that it leaves a lot of room to interpretation and abuse. The roots of Islam are militaristic in nature, with Mohammed as the General. I admit that I am not well-versed in the Koran but this point is undeniable regardless.

The point in question is not whether Islam is violent, but whether or not the texts easily allow for interpretation of violence. The old testament of the christian bible, for example, is very violent. However, the New Testament overturns a great deal of this by preaching compassion and love - violence is not condoned in any circumstances whatsoever.

It is also a historical fact that the Muslims were able to amass large forces through forced conversion of the people they conquered, thus developing a large enough force to (unexpectedly) invade and conquer Byzantium.

 

[kat]

Well, an influx of reasonable arguments has sucked me back in (damn you, Evo)... I was also thinking about that earlier. People often talk of "Christianity" as a single religion, but I was thinking that the Protestant Reformation changed an awful lot of the bad things in it that caused things such as the Crusades. And while the Catholic church still exists, it too was forced to change by the Protestant Reformation. And recent rifts suggest we may be nearing a second Reformation.

To my knowledge, Islam has not had a similar internal revolution.

It seems by your comments that you've either forgotten or didn't realize that crusades were a reactionary and defensive movement as opposed to invasive. Brutal...yes, if you read descriptions of the brutality of the invading forces...maybe not so bad in comparision. Unless of course, you were jewish.

 

[Astronuc]

Astronuc, this sentence:

Means "Christianity had a bad thing in it, that caused the the Crusades, and then the Protestant Reformation came along and fixed it so it didn't". You can disagree with the sense of the sentence (Christianity after the Reformation introduced colonialism and African slavery), but it does not assert that the Crusades came after the Reformation.

Thanks for the correction. My apologies to Russ for misinterpreting his point.

It is not clear to me however, that the reformation changed anything, particularly the culture of the time. It simply resulted in divergent paths of religious practice within the same or neighboring cultures.

John Calvin executed people for heresy (case of Miguel Serveto, aka Michael Servetus, 1553) as much as the Catholic Church did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Servetus#Imprisonment_and_execution

The anti-Semitism of the Lutheran Church has only recently been addressed -
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2166

Yet there are still denominations or individual churches with some christian denomniations whose prinicipal mission is to proselyitze and convert Jews.

And various so-called 'conservative' or evangelical churches condemn the so-called 'liberal' churches both sets within the christian religion.

And I just realized that this thread seems OT and is getting very close to a religious discussion or discussion of religion, although more from a historical or sociological perspective. Not sure where to go with this - guidance please.

 

[Daminc]

At last, I've finally came to the end of the thread.

I have some strong views against organised religion which I won't go into here (unless asked of course).

This is just going to be a short post to put some stuff on the table:

Old testament god / New testament god

One fire, wrath and vengence / One peace happiness and forgiveness

One in the same or two different gods? If it's the same god then what could change the mind of something which 'knows everything etc)

Secondly, with regards to Muslim reformations I found this link (3 pages) which I found a very interesting read: http://cremesti.com/amalid/Islam/Yemeni_Ancient_Koranic_Texts.htm

also, not so interesting but worth a look is: http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_adul2.htm

The one thing the west can't get a grip in (in general of course) is that we separate law and the land whereas the ME it's one and the same.

So where we fight because of politics and not religion they fight back because of their politics (which we see as religion), does that make sense?

 

[Anttech]

One in the same or two different gods? If it's the same god then what could change the mind of something which 'knows everything etc)

it didnt, we (humans) started to Interpret the message of God differently.

 

[kat]

Here's what the old testament says to do with non-believers

But what does the New Testament Say? and erm...what does the "New" Koran say? and well...
what does that have to do with peace loving Budhist?

THAILAND: The War on Education



July 8, 2005: The Islamic terrorism in the south has resulted in some two thousand casualties (nearly 800 dead) in the south so far this year. That's nearly a dozen casualties a day. Because most of the violence has been directed at government employees, especially teachers, there has been an exodus of teachers from the school system. Over a thousands teachers, most of the them Buddhists, have asked for transfers to jobs elsewhere in Thailand. The government is having a difficult time replacing the missing teachers, even though there is now a "combat pay" bonus for teachers in the south, and help in arming teachers down there with pistols for self-defense. The Islamic terrorists are against education for women, and education in general unless it is provided by Moslem religious schools.

 

[Bilal]

Dear quetzalcoatl9,

I agree that Muslims as any other community have ''harmful grass'' ... we have the same trouble with such extremists who wanted also to control our life and to convert our conflict with Zionism to religious wars. But they are not so powerful or popular. Just stupid decisions as war on Iraq or to consider USA and Israel fighting in the same war are enough to create strong opposite front, so those extremists can float on the top of the wave.

Iraq may be the best example, some terrorist groups got advantage of the crimes of the occupation so they succeeded to create strong networks and to attack in the name of ''revenge for Iraq".

Concerning Islamic history, I will present just few facts and I am willing to provide proofs up on request:

- 40% of Muslims exist in south East Asia (From Bangladesh till Indonesia) and in central Asia/Russia. No Muslim solider invaded that region; the people became Muslims by Muslims traders who invited them to this religion. Furthermore, 15% of Muslims live in Sub-Saharan Africa ... also no Muslims army reached that region. This means that majority of Islamic world became Muslims by peaceful relations not by sword as some people claim.

- After the end of Islamic Khilafa in 1924 and before the western colonial era, Christian represented: 25% of Palestine, 60% of Lebanon, 30% of Syria, 20% of Jordan, 20% of Egypt and 15% of Iraq ... Moreover 60% of the Jews came from Islamic world. If Islam force people to convert, how we can explain such high percentage of non Muslims who survived for 13 centuries under Islamic rule? May be you should read about the golden age of Jews in Andalusia (Spain under Islamic rule) for 800 years to understand how people from different religions succeeded to survive peacefully in spite of crusades and religious wars in that time.

The West declared Crusade in Middle Ages, but Muslims did not reply in that time by annihilation of Arab Christian, even they can do that easily after the failure of the crusaders.

-Problem of Muslims countries today is similar to any third world country. There are many horrible wars in Africa, South America and Asia. For example, one million people killed in Rwanda within 4 months, which is more than all the victims of violence in Islamic world in last 20 years.

Bilal,
It is also a historical fact that the Muslims were able to amass large forces through forced conversion of the people they conquered, thus developing a large enough force to (unexpectedly) invade and conquer Byzantium.

 

[Bilal]

Crusaders wars started by annihilation of the Jews and Eastern christian. Even the first crusade finished in Constantinople (capital of Eastern Church), so if you think that Muslims deserve to be annihilated in that time, what was the crime of Jews and other Christian sectors? What the mistake of thousands of Jews whom slaughtered in Jerusalem in 1099?

It seems by your comments that you've either forgotten or didn't realize that crusades were a reactionary and defensive movement as opposed to invasive. Brutal...yes, if you read descriptions of the brutality of the invading forces...maybe not so bad in comparision. Unless of course, you were jewish.

 

[Daminc]

it didnt, we (humans) started to interpritate the message of God differently.

What message of god? The bible? I've always failed to understand why some people believe in that which is written are words from 'god' just because someone says they are (baring in mind, those that disagreed were often put to death because of 'heresy').

 

[Astronuc]

It is also a historical fact that the Muslims were able to amass large forces through forced conversion of the people they conquered, thus developing a large enough force to (unexpectedly) invade and conquer Byzantium.

On the other hand, how about what the Romans did?

Amass large forces through forced conversion of the people they conquered, thus developing a large enough force to (unexpectedly) invade and conquer . . . Gaul, England, Northern Europe, Dacia, Thrace . . .

After Constantine, Christianity was 'imposed' on various non-Christian populations.

The point - for what some seem to be condemning as being unique to Islam is in fact not unique to Islam, but historically present in all major cultures.

As for peaceful Buddhists - I wish it were so. Look at the struggle in Sri Lanka between Tamil Tigers and Singhalese.

Or more recently - Brawling Buddhists

BANGKOK (Reuters, May 31, 2005) - Five Thai Buddhist monks have been defrocked and fined after a brawl with monks from a nearby temple, police and newspapers said Tuesday.

or

COLOMBO, Sri Lanka - Government and opposition lawmakers brawled on the floor of Sri Lanka's parliament Tuesday, in a fistfight that injured two Buddhist monks. (from Charlotte Observer, June 8, 2005)

 

[Anttech]

If you believe Jesus was God made flesh, then his stories and teaching are the word of God...

Old testament god / New testament god

One fire, wrath and vengence / One peace happiness and forgiveness

One in the same or two different gods? If it's the same god then what could change the mind of something which 'knows everything etc)

What message of god? The bible? I've always failed to understand why believe in that which is written are words from 'god' just because someone says they are

Are you not contridicting yourself, or did I misinterprete what you are saying..
Your first post is saying the bible is painting a picture of God (Message of God)

Your second post is saying you fail to understand that the Bible is the message of God? Yet you were able to paint a picture of God... If God is the All Powerful (Knows everything) how can we Humans understand him without his Message?

 

[Anttech]

The point - for what some seem to be condemning as being unique to Islam is in fact not unique to Islam, but historically present in all major cultures.

Very True!

oreover 60% of the Jews came from Islamic world. If Islam force people to convert, how we can explain such high percentage of non Muslims who survived for 13 centuries under Islamic rule?

Lets not forget about the Assyrians and Greeks in Asia Minor, they were almost wiped out by the Otomen Turks.. My Point being Both Christians and Muslims have Dark Histories.. But with what we know now, we both should be able to live side by side in Harmony, and all fight the real major evils: Povertiy, and Greed..

Islam Christiandom and Jewdism are one and the same... All 3 believe in 1 God and the essence of the 3 are to Love your Neighbor! We Humans just *beep* it up!

 

[Bilal]

Actually we have no religious states except: Iran after 1979 and Saudi Arabia (partially: Pakistan)... the rest of countries follow the Anglo-French laws after the colonial era. Just check the laws in Syria, Jordan, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt... It is all secular laws originated from the former colonial countries (UK-France).

The Western countries withdrew but they left ‘’protected dictators’’ and new nation/State called (Israel) which established based on religion. The protection of those dictators created a lot of anger. The opposite (against Israel and the dictators) used to be liberal-nationalist –left till the revolution in Iran in 1979, when the Islamic opposition started to grow up. After the fall of USSR, the left lost most of its power and the Islamic movement succeeded to fill the gap...
War on Iraq destroyed the nationalism and left the place for the Islamic movements to take the leadership of the opposition.

Take example Palestine:

Arafat (secular) , George Habash (Christian-nationalist-left) and Naif Hawtmeh (chrsiatin-left) represented the first generation of the Palestinian liberation movement in 50s-60s.

In 1988, after 40 years of organization the Palestinian resistance, Hamas and Islamic Jihad started to fight against the occupation, and they gain a lot of support because of hopless from the double standard of the West.

The other example is Iraq, it was one of the most secular nations in ME till the first gulf war (1991) and the 13 years sanction... many people decided to return to religion to face the hard life.

These are pure political conflicts, but they got religious cover recently because of the rise of extremism and religion in both sides: USA and the Islamic world.

By the way, most of Islamic movements are against Alqaeda and its terrorist tactics to target randomly the civilians.

At last, I've finally came to the end of the thread.

The one thing the west can't get a grip in (in general of course) is that we separate law and the land whereas the ME it's one and the same.

So where we fight because of politics and not religion they fight back because of their politics (which we see as religion), does that make sense?

 

[Daminc]

If you believe Jesus was God made flesh, then his stories and teaching are the word of God...

Why would anyone believe this?

Are you not contridicting yourself, or did I misinterprete what you are saying..

The bible describes two different versions of god and is a compilation of a lot of different people writing about a common theme (religion). The book was written by humans just as every other religious text and yet, for some reason, some people read them and come to the conclusion the god exists.

fail to understand that the Bible is the message of God

what proof is there that a diety of some kind had anything to do with any written religious text.

(especially text which has inspired people to kill millions of other people with 'god on their side')

 

[Anttech]

Why would anyone believe this?

Anyone who clams to be a christian! (over a Billion people)

{snip}..and is a compilation of a lot of different people writing about a common theme (religion). The book was written by humans just as every other religious text and yet...{/snip}

This is absolutly accurate, however as you said yourself in differing words God is (supposed to be) the all knowing all seeing etc. Now the only way one can begin to understand God/diety is by his doing alone, the message of God, handed to his prophets which were written down so as we (others) could understand him...

what proof is there that a diety of some kind had anything to do with any written religious text.

Thats where faith comes in... You have to believe in God before you can believe that His message was writen.

(especially text which has inspired people to kill millions of other people with 'god on their side')

Texts are misinterpreted

 

[Yonoz]

The Western countries withdrew but they left ‘’protected dictators’’ and new nation/State called (Israel) which established based on religion.

How exactly was Israel established based on religion?

 

[Daminc]

Anyone who clams to be a christian! (over a Billion people)

I asked why not who.

You have to believe in God before you can believe that His message was writen.

I believe there is a phrase for this particular argument (is it circular?)

e.g. you have to believe in god to believe his/her message but you have to believe in the message to believe in god

 

[Anttech]

Palestinian-Israeli citizens are excluded and must carry identification that distinguishes them as "non-Jews"... The are also denied the right of full citizenship...

It may not have been established based on religion but that is the way it is now, Isreal is based on Religion

 

[Anttech]

Anyone who clams to be a christian! (over a Billion people)

I'll rephrase then, anyone who has Christian FAITH... Thier FAITH is the reason why people believe this...

You have to believe in God before you can believe that His message was writen.

This is not circular, its logical... To believe that Gods message was written you first have to believe there is a God.

 

[Yonoz]

Palestinian-Israeli citizens are excluded and must carry identification that distinguishes them as "non-Jews"... The are also denied the right of full citizenship...

"excluded"?! What does that mean? All Israeli citizens carry an ID certificate, that used to state their religion - it no longer does after a supreme court ruling. No one is labeled "non-Jewish". No Israeli citizen is denied the right of full citizenship.

It may not have been established based on religion but that is the way it is now, Isreal is based on Religion

I beg to differ.

 

[Bilal]

Israel is established as Jews State. This means any person convert to Judaism (usually after complex process) will be granted automatically the Israeli nationality as he/she arrives the country, while people who live there for centuries have no equal right because they are not Jews.

Nobody can ignore the effect of religious parties in Israel today (Shas, Hamevdal ..etc) , also they still used the theory of (promised biblical land) to justify building more settlements in the occupied land.

Important links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3111727.stm
((Israeli law limits Arab citizenship

The Israeli parliament passed a law preventing Palestinians married to Israelis from gaining Israeli citizenship.
Human rights groups have condemned the law as racist but supporters say it is necessary for security reasons and to maintain the Jewish character of the state of Israel.
The law will prevent Palestinians from the occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza from marrying Arab-Israelis, who make up about 20% of the population of Israel. ))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return

For example if USA is considered as homeland of christain Anglo-Saxon , then it is far from democracy ...