The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: Happy Fun Ball on June 03, 2009, 06:34:25 AM
-
From The Caucus (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/obama-signals-themes-of-mideast-speech/?hp):
Obama Says U.S. Could Be Seen as a Muslim Country, Too
HAHN, Germany — As President Obama prepared to leave Washington to fly to the Middle East, he conducted several television and radio interviews at the White House to frame the goals for a five-day trip, including the highly-anticipated speech Thursday at Cairo University in Egypt.
In an interview with Laura Haim on Canal Plus, a French television station, Mr. Obama noted that the United States also could be considered as “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.†He sought to downplay the expectations of the speech, but he said he hoped the address would raise awareness about Muslims.
“Now, I think it’s very important to understand that one speech is not going to solve all the problems in the Middle East,†Mr. Obama said. “And so I think expectations should be somewhat modest.â€
He previewed several themes and objectives for the speech, which aides said the president intended to tinker with — and rewrite — aboard Air Force One during his 12-hour flight to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
“What I want to do is to create a better dialogue so that the Muslim world understands more effectively how the United States, but also how the West thinks about many of these difficult issues like terrorism, like democracy, to discuss the framework for what’s happened in Iraq and Afghanistan and our outreach to Iran, and also how we view the prospects for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians,†Mr. Obama said.
The president said the United States and other parts of the Western world “have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam.â€
“And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world,†Mr. Obama said. “And so there’s got to be a better dialogue and a better understanding between the two peoples.â€
-
What a brainless dickehead. I can't believe people calling themselves Christians voted for this guy!
-
I'm dying of not surprise.
-
What a brainless dickehead. I can't believe people calling themselves Christians voted for this guy!
................and Jews..............<shaking head> Thank G-d Benny's in charge in Israel now!
-
He's safe, so he can come out now. Nice going, America. You thought about who you'd vote for on American Idol more than for president, and it's showing BIG TIME.
-
Video of interview. (http://alamaisonblanche.blog.canal-plus.com/laurence_haim_sur_canal_/) It has French dubbing, but you can still hear it at around 2:25.
-
What next? Will he turn the field of blue on the American flag to green?
I'm waiting to see how much the MSM can spike the story. They aren't what they used to be so this may gush around the seams. If it does Obama could see his polls drop below 50% for a crack like this.
-
And as expected, the DUmmies (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8446958) don't seem to be in an uproar over it. In fact, they're going on about how the "Freepers" and "Christianists" (whatever that means) are reacting.
They have a conniption whenever someone even hints that the US is a Christian nation. They've been trying to get God out of just about everything for decades now. "Separation of church and state!" "Separation of church and state!" "No prayer in school!" "Nativity scenes are offensive!" Blah blah blah...
Yet, when someone calls the US a Muslim nation...nooooo problem.
-
According to the CIA World Factbook, the USA ranks about 56th overall among nations for total population of Muslims as residents. Maybe they are misleading the Dem leadership yet again? :rotf:
-
And as expected, the DUmmies (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8446958) don't seem to be in an uproar over it. In fact, they're going on about how the "Freepers" and "Christianists" (whatever that means) are reacting.
They have a conniption whenever someone even hints that the US is a Christian nation. They've been trying to get God out of just about everything for decades now. "Separation of church and state!" "Separation of church and state!" "No prayer in school!" "Nativity scenes are offensive!" Blah blah blah...
Yet, when someone calls the US a Muslim nation...nooooo problem.
Does that mean we can stuff their fat, saggy-titted skanks inside burqas now?
And their women too?
-
Uh, America was a Christian nation, not a Muslim nation. Obama is not going to change Muslim extremist's views about America. In fact I heard on the radio, that Al-Qaeda's second in command said that it was propaganda from Obama.
-
I'm kind of having fun watching 0bama try to be all things to all people. That's gotta be exhausting.
-
Isn't this the same jackass that said this was NOT a Christian nation? ::)
-
THE 51ST THRU 57TH State's will be represented by a Crescent Moon and Star added to the Stars and Stripes, by Executive Order. :evillaugh: Dear Obama Asdmin::bird:
-
if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world
Facts:
According to the CIA World Fact Book, if we did have 7 million Muslims, which is close, That would mean we have more Muslims than the following countries, many are Muslim majority countries:
Countries with more than 70% Muslim populations are in bold
Tajikistan 6,368,938
Côte d'Ivoire 6,304,693 - 7,205,364
Libya 5,855,807
Jordan 5,750,533
Chad 5,041,678
Philippines 4,553,864
All of the following have less than or equal to 4-6 million Muslims
Philippines
Turkmenistan
France
Mozambique
Kyrgyzstan
Kenya
Sierra Leone
Uganda
Cameroon
Ghana
West Bank and Gaza
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Mauritania
Oman
United Arab Emirates
Lebanon
Kosovo
Kuwait
Gambia
-
I'm kind of having fun watching 0bama try to be all things to all people. That's gotta be exhausting.
Not nearly as exhausting as the job of all the apologists running to every discussion board they can find to tell us what he really ment to say.
-
Facts:
According to the CIA World Fact Book, if we did have 7 million Muslims, which is close, That would mean we have more Muslims than the following countries, many are Muslim majority countries:
Countries with more than 70% Muslim populations are in bold
Tajikistan 6,368,938
Côte d'Ivoire 6,304,693 - 7,205,364
Libya 5,855,807
Jordan 5,750,533
Chad 5,041,678
Philippines 4,553,864
All of the following have less than or equal to 4-6 million Muslims
Philippines
Turkmenistan
France
Mozambique
Kyrgyzstan
Kenya
Sierra Leone
Uganda
Cameroon
Ghana
West Bank and Gaza
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Mauritania
Oman
United Arab Emirates
Lebanon
Kosovo
Kuwait
Gambia
"7 million Muslims in the US" is not even close. It is off in precision at about 400%. If you take the estimated population of the US from this page (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html), which is 307,212,123 residents, and multiply by .06%, which is also the number of estimated Muslims living in this country from the same page, the total population of Muslims within this country is 1,843,273. That number would put the ranking among all nations at 56th overall for total Muslims within a nation. Either he is purposely inflating the numbers for effect in his speeches or his writers are absolutely ignorant in making simple, mathematical calculations.
-
Facts:
Fact we are a Christian nation founded on Christian beliefs and principals.
What seperates us from the rest of the world is our tolerance and acceptance of people from other religions.
The same can't be said for most of the countries listed above.
-
"7 million Muslims in the US" is not even close. It is off in precision at about 500%. If you take the estimated population of the US from this page (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html), which is 307,212,123 residents, and multiply by .06%, which is also the number of estimated Muslims living in this country from the same page, the total population of Muslims within this country is 1,843,273. That number would put the ranking among all nations at 56th overall for total Muslims within a nation. Either he is purposely inflating the numbers for effect in his speeches or his writers are absolutely ignorant in making simple, mathematical calculations.
How about all of the above.
-
I'll be willing to stipulate your 7M Muslims in the US, I'll even spot you another 500K to make the math easier.
OK, 7.5M out of 300M (your number for total population of the US) is, anyone? 2.5%
While there may be a large number of individuals, the overall proportion is small.
To further illustrate, if China had 30M Muslims, where would that put them on the list of nations with most Muslim residents? I'm guessing around the top 10. That would also be 2.5% of their population. Based on that, would you call China a Muslim nation?
-
I'll be willing to stipulate your 7M Muslims in the US, I'll even spot you another 500K to make the math easier.
OK, 7.5M out of 300M (your number for total population of the US) is, anyone? 2.5%
While there may be a large number of individuals, the overall proportion is small.
To further illustrate, if China had 30M Muslims, where would that put them on the list of nations with most Muslim residents? I'm guessing around the top 10. That would also be 2.5% of their population. Based on that, would you call China a Muslim nation?
AND- if you take the Holocaust, which many muslims deny, and wipe out 6 million, you'd still have a million and a half...
-
Facts:
According to the CIA World Fact Book, if we did have 7 million Muslims, which is close, That would mean we have more Muslims than the following countries, many are Muslim majority countries:
Countries with more than 70% Muslim populations are in bold
Tajikistan 6,368,938
Côte d'Ivoire 6,304,693 - 7,205,364
Libya 5,855,807
Jordan 5,750,533
Chad 5,041,678
Philippines 4,553,864
All of the following have less than or equal to 4-6 million Muslims
Philippines
Turkmenistan
France
Mozambique
Kyrgyzstan
Kenya
Sierra Leone
Uganda
Cameroon
Ghana
West Bank and Gaza
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Mauritania
Oman
United Arab Emirates
Lebanon
Kosovo
Kuwait
Gambia
Sir, I've read your posts, and up until now have refrained from commenting, but now I feel I must. You, sir, are an idiot. One doesn't rate muslim nations by number, but by percentage. At least any normal thinking person would, which I guess would leave you out.
Your whole concern about the soldiers that were killed by the terroritst representative of Islam is that it not shed a poor light on the muslim community. That's it. You don't give a rats ass about the men who died, or all the men who died so that you can practice whatever "faith" you want to practice in this country. So to that, sir, I say, go walk off a cliff.
-
One doesn't rate muslim nations by number, but by percentage.
One may as well call Chicago a Polish city, since it has more people of Polish descent in it than any other city in the world except for Warsaw. The whole procedure is very misleading.
-
One may as well call Chicago a Polish city, since it has more people of Polish descent in it than any other city in the world except for Warsaw. The whole procedure is very misleading.
Ditto with Westminster (Orange County) and Saigon.
-
Sir, I've read your posts, and up until now have refrained from commenting, but now I feel I must. You, sir, are an idiot. One doesn't rate muslim nations by number, but by percentage. At least any normal thinking person would, which I guess would leave you out.
Your whole concern about the soldiers that were killed by the terroritst representative of Islam is that it not shed a poor light on the muslim community. That's it. You don't give a rats ass about the men who died, or all the men who died so that you can practice whatever "faith" you want to practice in this country. So to that, sir, I say, go walk off a cliff.
Well said madam. He's a one trick pony with nothing to contribute.
-
Salaam,
Screw the CIA "Fact Book". Anything that the government produces as "fact", I immediately question.
Take a look at this:
Box: The CAIR Population Estimate
According to an April 2001 survey released by four Islamic organizations, 2 million American Muslims "associate with a mosque."101 It then took this number and multiplied it by 3-3½ to find a total U.S. Muslim population of 6-7 million. But where did the multiple of 3-3½ come from? The principal author of the study, Ihsan Bagby, himself admitted to the Los Angeles Times that taking this step was based on "guesswork."102
There are other problems with the study. It assumes that percentages for regular mosque participants are the same as percentage of the Muslim population.103 Thus, if 30 percent of the regular mosque-goers are African Americans, it concludes that 30 percent of all U.S. Muslims must be African-American. But mosque attendance and general ethnicity do not necessarily tally. Some ethnicities attend mosque more than the average, others less.
The survey finds that only 0.7 percent of the total number of regular mosque participants are Iranians, or just above the figure given for the tiny numbers of Hispanic converts. If one uncritically accepts the CAIR total of 2 million mosque participants, just 14,000 Iranians go to mosque. Using the survey's rule-of-thumb— i.e., multiplying mosque participants by roughly three to arrive at a "total" figure—we can extrapolate that the total number of Iranians living in the United States is under 50,000. This is clearly nonsense: according to the 1990 U.S. Census—an age ago, but the latest figures available—there were 54,114 Iranians residing in Los Angeles county alone.
These methodological problems raise questions about the entire study. Unfortunately, one must conclude that the total number of American Muslims remains shrouded in mystery.
Alexander Rose, Ph.D., is the Washington bureau chief for Canada's National Post.
The CAIR bullshit figure of 7 million (and that was the figure quoted by Lord Zero in his Cairo speech) is predicated on "guestimates." Who woulda thunk, considering it was a CAIR number to begin with?
The above article is linked here, so that you can check the numerous endnotes:
Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum (http://www.meforum.org/13/how-did-muslims-vote-in-2000)
-
:rotf:
Do you guys read before you start typing, or do you just see "salaam" and go on a rampage?
First comment on the subject:
if we did have 7 million Muslims, which is close, That would mean we have more Muslims than the following countries
"If" in the context used in this sentence according to grammatical rules which I thought adults would understand, means implied as in, I'm not agreeing with or denying this metric.
For the record, I don't believe there are 7 million Muslims in the US, but none of you asked, you just blew your tops.... I would say more like 4-5 million and even that is stretching it....
Moving right along...
The point was not does 7 million Muslims make the US a Muslim country, that's stupid, as someone pointed out for no apparent reason because it wasn't my original point in the first place, percentage is how you determine the make up of a country or better yet, whether or not that country has a state religion.
Many of the countries I listed are not Muslim majority countries either. (I forgot to bold the ones that did, my bad) but it was only like 8 of them.
There is a huge difference between stating that there are so many Muslims in America that compared to other countries in which Muslims are the majority we have more and America is a majority Muslim country.
Who in the hell said America was a majority Muslim country when 74%-76% of America is Christian?
Why argue just to argue?
The comment in context means that there are more Muslims in the US than some Muslim countries, the entire point in even broader context was illustrated in his speech where he talked against the stereotypes about America. He pointed to the fact that there are so many Muslim in America to highlight the need for religious freedom in the Middle East. :thatsright:
if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world
To me that plainly states that if you took the American Muslim population out of America and made it a separate country it would be as large as other Muslim countries.
How the hell someone got America is a Muslim country out of that, I will never know, maybe if I switched parties and watched more Fox News, I will learn the "real" English language! :-)
-
:rotf:
Do you guys read before you start typing, or do you just see "salaam" and go on a rampage?
Do you see any of us reply to you and immediately start your smoke generator?
How the hell someone got America is a Muslim country out of that,
Ask the President.
I will never know, maybe if I switched parties and watched more Fox News, I will learn the "real" English language! :-)
Maybe if you stopped acting like a typical DU troll you might learn something.
-
So a "troll" is one who doesn't toe the line huh?
Dissension is not allowed on this board? I guess I need to read the rules.
-
Wiccans are , proportionally, growing as rapidly as Islam in the USA. sOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca
-
So a "troll" is one who doesn't toe the line huh?
Never said that now did I?
Dissension is not allowed on this board? I guess I need to read the rules.
Never said that either. Perhaps you just need to learn to read period.
All you're doing is coming in here and posting massively long paragraphs that amount to a whole lot of nothing.
And fixed to either end of your sleep inducing tomes are the same kind of snarky taunts and insults you wag a finger at us about.
Your behavior is troll like...never once said you actually were a troll.
If you can't figure out the difference...ask one of the Navy guys in here...they can break it down Barney style for you.
-
:rotf:
Do you guys read before you start typing, or do you just see "salaam" and go on a rampage?
First comment on the subject:
"If" in the context used in this sentence according to grammatical rules which I thought adults would understand, means implied as in, I'm not agreeing with or denying this metric.
For the record, I don't believe there are 7 million Muslims in the US, but none of you asked, you just blew your tops.... I would say more like 4-5 million and even that is stretching it....
Moving right along...
The point was not does 7 million Muslims make the US a Muslim country, that's stupid, as someone pointed out for no apparent reason because it wasn't my original point in the first place, percentage is how you determine the make up of a country or better yet, whether or not that country has a state religion.
Many of the countries I listed are not Muslim majority countries either. (I forgot to bold the ones that did, my bad) but it was only like 8 of them.
There is a huge difference between stating that there are so many Muslims in America that compared to other countries in which Muslims are the majority we have more and America is a majority Muslim country.
Who in the hell said America was a majority Muslim country when 74%-76% of America is Christian?
Why argue just to argue?
The comment in context means that there are more Muslims in the US than some Muslim countries, the entire point in even broader context was illustrated in his speech where he talked against the stereotypes about America. He pointed to the fact that there are so many Muslim in America to highlight the need for religious freedom in the Middle East. :thatsright:
To me that plainly states that if you took the American Muslim population out of America and made it a separate country it would be as large as other Muslim countries.
How the hell someone got America is a Muslim country out of that, I will never know, maybe if I switched parties and watched more Fox News, I will learn the "real" English language! :-)
I have to admit, salaam, when I see your name on the screen, I start looking for the "post" button. Why? Because you're a one-trick pony - you've been that way at usmilnet and you carry that shit over here too.
Your sole purpose in life is to sell yourself. You bring your religion, wear it like a cross around your neck (except you guys don't believe in crosses), and trumpet reams of bullshit, all intended to show just how harmless you and your buddies are. You do your very best to sell yourself, because at heart you're a politician.
Kinda surprised to see that you're not quite running for office yet. Or are you?
I'd probably agree that you're pretty harmless, from a terrorist point of view, but I definitely am not so sure about your buddies.
We've gone around and around before, so let me remind you (just in case you forgot) - I don't trust Muslims. Not a freaking bit. I'll agree that not all of you are terrorists, but most of the bloodletting in this country at the hand of terrorists were Muslims. That means when I'm around a bunch of you people, I watch you. Carefully.
But I digress.
Actually, your figure of 7 million - and you have to admit, it's YOUR figure since you brought it to this party - matches that EXACTLY of His Holiness' in his Cairo speech. Kinda makes me wonder if you guys are asshole buddies. It wouldn't surprise me, since you're both Muslims. Correction - since BO publicly called himself a "Christian" (now that's yet another line of shit, isn't it, since he hasn't found a church since he and his entourage landed in D.C.?), I guess that makes him an apostate and worthy of execution, or whatever the sharia punishment is.
I'd say it's good to see you again, Robert, but that would be a lie.
-
Very Christ-like of you Eupher, glad to see your once again showing the right example of faith.
Moving right along, I stated that 7 million was a stretch and even stated that I personally don't believe that figure, so that pretty much kills that diatribe of yours.
I merely pointed out that "if" that number was correct (once again I don't believe it is) than according to statistics that could be a true statement.
My entire point and commentary was that he was making a generalized statement to take the wind out of the sails of terrorists who teach overseas that America is at war with Islam, by stating matter of factually that not only is that not true, but we have a large population of Muslims in America with as many as some Muslim countries.
Instead of seeing that as a positive way of countering terrorist propaganda many spinned it to mean that the President was calling this country a Muslim Nation, which is not what he stated, but since he used the world Muslim and we know how that gets to some of you, it was blown all out of proportion for know reason.
I have long ago stated and believed that the number one way to destroy the terrorists, their recruiting ability, and influence and various parts of the world is to control the message and counter their propaganda.
Apparently, many of you don't think that is a good idea as everytime Obama or anyone else has anything good to say about Islam, Muslims, etc. in the context of America you blow a gasket. President Bush started it and President Obama is continuing it. The terrorists consistently accuse America of being anti-Muslim and everytime an American official refutes that, you guys get pissy. Do you want the terrorists to be right? I never understood why many of you continually support ideas and actions that giver credibility to terrorist claims, I thought the whole point was to destroy them?
Lastly, I'm not running for office, I have decided to continue efforts with my non-profit and to continue running my IT Consulting Firm.
-
Very Christ-like of you Eupher, glad to see your once again showing the right example of faith.
:whatever:
Moving right along, I stated that 7 million was a stretch and even stated that I personally don't believe that figure, so that pretty much kills that diatribe of yours.
Not hardly. Question is, where did the 7 million figure come from? Obama used that number. Is that where you got it?
I merely pointed out that "if" that number was correct (once again I don't believe it is) than according to statistics that could be a true statement.
Fabulous. Now we're getting somewhere.
My entire point and commentary was that he was making a generalized statement to take the wind out of the sails of terrorists who teach overseas that America is at war with Islam, by stating matter of factually that not only is that not true, but we have a large population of Muslims in America with as many as some Muslim countries.
Now this is where your analysis gets bogged down in your religious fervor to further Islam. If it's Obama's intent to "take the wind out of the sails of terrorists", why does he do it by apologizing? No matter how you slice it, Salaam, Obama has gone out of his way to grovel and ingratiate himself (and by extension, the American people) before a religion, knowing full well that radical elements - and some would say principal elements of that religion - have expressed over and over again that it is their intent to destroy this nation.
Why would Obama do that? Does appeasement really work? To look at Obama's shameful display of groveling, it would appear that he thinks exactly that. Obama is going to "right all the wrongs" propagated by GWB by apologizing and bowing to Saudi royalty. Great. Just freaking great.
In a nation of over 300 million, a population of, oh, let's be generous and say there are 5 million Muslims, is "a large population"? :rotf: One-point-six percent? :lmao:
I'm not even going to waste my time by pulling up a list of predominantly Muslim countries that have an aggregate population of 5 million or less. It's pure poppycock. Making grandiose statements such as that are disengenuous at best and deliberately misleading at worst. Is it your intent to deliberately mislead people, Salaam?
Instead of seeing that as a positive way of countering terrorist propaganda many spinned it to mean that the President was calling this country a Muslim Nation, which is not what he stated, but since he used the world Muslim and we know how that gets to some of you, it was blown all out of proportion for know reason.
So a U.S. president physically bowing to a foreigner isn't alarming? If that isn't alarming to you, then what is? Had Obama kissed the Pope's ring, you can bet there would've been six times the outrage expressed on the national media. As it was, the MSM pretty much killed the bowing business within a couple days.
I have long ago stated and believed that the number one way to destroy the terrorists, their recruiting ability, and influence and various parts of the world is to control the message and counter their propaganda.
An absolutely fascinating statement. And your background in special operations, counter-insurgency, and guerilla operations is precisely what?
Apparently, many of you don't think that is a good idea as everytime Obama or anyone else has anything good to say about Islam, Muslims, etc. in the context of America you blow a gasket. President Bush started it and President Obama is continuing it. The terrorists consistently accuse America of being anti-Muslim and everytime an American official refutes that, you guys get pissy. Do you want the terrorists to be right? I never understood why many of you continually support ideas and actions that giver credibility to terrorist claims, I thought the whole point was to destroy them?
Get it through your thick head, Robert. Radical Islam is America's enemy. Apparently, you've forgotten all about the U.S.S. Cole, Khobar Towers, 9/11, and our African embassies, not to mention the cowardly attack of one of your fellow Muslims against those soldiers in Arkansas. Politicians spew all kinds of diplomatic bullshit, and GWB was no exception. You could tell every time he talked about Islam and how wonderful it was, he didn't believe it.
And I don't believe it either.
I don't trust you people. And given the opportunity, should my Nation call me to it, I'd pick up a weapon and do what has to be done against radical Islam.
Stop putting a happy face on it, Salaam. That shit doesn't wash with me.
Now, you are going to fall all over yourself in pointing out that radical Islam isn't the same as your brand of Islam. Maybe in your world.
But not in mine.
Lastly, I'm not running for office, I have decided to continue efforts with my non-profit and to continue running my IT Consulting Firm.
I'm so relieved.
-
According to the CIA World Factbook, the USA ranks about 56th overall among nations for total population of Muslims as residents. Maybe they are misleading the Dem leadership yet again? :rotf:
You must remember, under Uncle Zer0, there are 57 states. There must be LOTS of muslims in those extra 7 states.
-
:whatever:
Of course that's your response, because that's how you believe apparently.
Not hardly. Question is, where did the 7 million figure come from? Obama used that number. Is that where you got it?
Obviously, if you paid attention you would know that I'm not a partisan like many of you, I just played devils advocate stating that his numbers while not accurate in my estimation are true in the context he used them and it wasn't in the context of "America is a Muslim Nation".
Now this is where your analysis gets bogged down in your religious fervor to further Islam.
That's a lie from the pits of hell and you know it. Show facts as in proof and/or evidence that I have ever at anytime on the net made an effort to "further Islam". To the contrary I have made it clear time and time again in print and on air that I don't support missionary type efforts as I do the overwhelming majority of work within my community with Muslims. The only times I ever even speak to non-Muslims concerning religion in any capacity is when my faith is brought up first by them and often brought up erroneously. If one was to do a search of my postings over the years and compare it with the postings in general about Islam or Muslims, it could easily be noted that I have only responded in those threads where a statement about my faith has been made in the negative or in error. I rarely if ever respond in threads that specifically target terrorists other than to state I agree. It's only when statements about Islam/Muslims is predicated with "All...." that I state anything.
If it's Obama's intent to "take the wind out of the sails of terrorists", why does he do it by apologizing? No matter how you slice it, Salaam, Obama has gone out of his way to grovel and ingratiate himself (and by extension, the American people) before a religion, knowing full well that radical elements - and some would say principal elements of that religion - have expressed over and over again that it is their intent to destroy this nation.
Typical partisan talking point. I don't consider positive statements that directly challenge those made by terrorists as "apologizing". I truly believe that some elements in the GOP consider anything stated about Muslims or Islam in general in the positive is somehow "apologizing" and/or "appeasement" to the delight of terrorists of course as they are the only elements who validate their claims by those who have nothing but ill to state or claim about Muslims/Islam.
Why would Obama do that? Does appeasement really work? To look at Obama's shameful display of groveling, it would appear that he thinks exactly that. Obama is going to "right all the wrongs" propagated by GWB by apologizing and bowing to Saudi royalty. Great. Just freaking great.
Like I stated, it's a partisan debate your looking for, I don't have one to offer as I'm not a partisan. Your very words "appeasement" and "groveling" wreaks of partisanship. Regardless how you categorize the Presidents actions in these first 6 months I will at least agree that I don't believe we should be apologizing for anything. Now whether or not the POTUS has done that, well I will leave that debate up to those who tend to get red in the face over such debate.
In a nation of over 300 million, a population of, oh, let's be generous and say there are 5 million Muslims, is "a large population"? :rotf: One-point-six percent? :lmao:
You missed the point entirely and your smiley doesn't make you seem clever, but validates that you don't get the context of the argument. The debate is not about population density but a comparison of the facts based on a simple premise in which many of you got your panties in a bunch over:
Is the American Muslim population larger than the population of some Muslim countries? Yes or No. The answer is simply yes, whether that number is 5 million, 7 million, or 3 million. The entire context of that reality is not to as many of you claimed illustrate that America is a Muslim Nation, but to point out to Muslims overseas that contrary to the propaganda that is fed to them that states how evil and anti-Muslim America is, that the truth is that America has religious freedoms which they don't have, so much so that we have enough Muslims within our borders that their population would eclipse that of some Muslim majority countries. That statement was squarely targeted at anti-American propaganda, yet somehow it went over the heads of those who only saw the words "Muslim" and "America" and flew off the handle....
I'm not even going to waste my time by pulling up a list of predominantly Muslim countries that have an aggregate population of 5 million or less. It's pure poppycock. Making grandiose statements such as that are disengenuous at best and deliberately misleading at worst. Is it your intent to deliberately mislead people, Salaam?
If partisan spin is all your capable of then this "debate" would be best suited for a partisan, but the question remains, is the population of American Muslims greater than the population of some Muslim Majority countries?
So a U.S. president physically bowing to a foreigner isn't alarming? If that isn't alarming to you, then what is? Had Obama kissed the Pope's ring, you can bet there would've been six times the outrage expressed on the national media. As it was, the MSM pretty much killed the bowing business within a couple days.
Now I don't know how this little gem creeped into the discussion other than to present a red-herring partisan talking point wondering if you could get a reaction. But if you must know I don't believe any US President should be bowing to any other head of state especially the Saudi's. I will go a step further and state that I believe that we should not engage with any dictators and oppressive regimes in that region. So yes I was upset with Obama's bowing, but I was no more upset than President Bush's holding hands, visiting, begging to drop oil prices, etc. I believe in complete disengagement with those leaders and would be upset regardless of the party of our POTUS now or in the future.
An absolutely fascinating statement. And your background in special operations, counter-insurgency, and guerilla operations is precisely what?
Not those specifically....nor would I share what my background is as it relates to the GWOT. Suffice to know that I have and am doing my part in agencies that you may only read about. To be more specific my background is as an analyst and in policy. My work is often within national security agencies. Don't waste your time with conjecture, this has been independently verified in the past and there are members on many sites that we have crossed paths will verify this, some having actually seen my resume.
Get it through your thick head, Robert. Radical Islam is America's enemy. Apparently, you've forgotten all about the U.S.S. Cole, Khobar Towers, 9/11, and our African embassies,
And that has what to do with this discussion? I know this and am on the ground upholding my oath. I'm not just an armchair quarterback or keyboard warrior like some of you. Yet you guys tend to have all the answers, but do little to nothing in real life. What agency do you work for in DC?
not to mention the cowardly attack of one of your fellow Muslims against those soldiers in Arkansas.
And therein lies my beef with you and other "conservative" partisans who continually put your foots in your mouths concerning me and Muslims like myself. That murderer is not a fellow Muslim no matter how much you guys and terrorists would like to state that he is. As my religion teaches, the scholars have verified, and fatwa after fatwa has declared (somehow you guys can't use Google to verify that), the moment one decides to murder innocents or commit any act of terror, they leave the fold of Islam and are destined for the hellfire. Any who supports those actions either verbally, physically, or apathetically, are also considered one of them. My fellow brethren are those soldiers who were attacked, but I already stated this before, you just couldn't help yourself with the attempted swipe and attack against my character.
Here's a listing of declarations against terror from the Grand Mufti of Mecca and others as a start, but then again, I'm certain you guys know more about Islam than them.... ::)
http://www.fatwa-online.com/worship/jihaad/jih004/index.htm
6000 Muslim clerics endorse anti-terror fatwa
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/08/Muslim-clerics-endorse-anti-terror-fatwa/UPI-38241226199440/
"Islam rejects all kinds of unjust violence, breach of peace, bloodshed, murder and plunder and does not allow it in any form. Cooperation should be done for the cause of good but not for committing sin or oppression,"
U.S. Muslims issue ‘fatwa’ against terrorism
Scholars condemn attacks on civilians as a violation of Islamic teaching
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8740980/
In the statement, called a fatwa, the 18-member Fiqh Council of North America wrote that people who commit terrorism in the name of Islam were “criminals, not ‘martyrs.â€â€™
“There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism,†the scholars wrote. “Targeting civilians’ life and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram — or forbidden.â€
Cleric condemns suicide attacks
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3059365.stm
One of the world's most influential Islamic leaders has condemned all attacks by suicide bombers at an international conference for Islamic scholars.
Grand Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of the Al-Azhar mosque of Cairo - which is seen as the highest authority in Sunni Islam - said groups which carried out suicide bombings were the enemies of Islam.
There's much more, but of course, you guys know more about Islam, so I won't bother any further...
Politicians spew all kinds of diplomatic bullshit, and GWB was no exception. You could tell every time he talked about Islam and how wonderful it was, he didn't believe it.
And I don't believe it either.
Who asked what you believe?
I don't trust you people.
Not surprising at all. I'm certain "you people" consists of divergent images not similar to the reflection in your mirror.
And given the opportunity, should my Nation call me to it, I'd pick up a weapon and do what has to be done against radical Islam.
Why not do that now? The GWOT is still going on. I would ask you to help, but since I don't look or believe like you do, I doubt you would be willing to fight side by side to defend OUR Nation.
Stop putting a happy face on it, Salaam. That shit doesn't wash with me.
Now, you are going to fall all over yourself in pointing out that radical Islam isn't the same as your brand of Islam. Maybe in your world.
But not in mine.
I'm so relieved.
And it's obvious "your world" consists of fanciful xenophobic ideals that haven't caught up with the realistic fact that whether you like it our not there are other citizens in this nation that love this nation too, even though you lump us in the category of "you people". Hasn't that attitude died yet? It seems that we just can't kill the mentality of decades past, we just keep changing the groups with whom "you people" applies. Thankfully, time in on the side of the youth and eventually, that mentality will die out with those who perpetuated it several decades ago and hold on to that mentality as if their lives depended on it. Wake up and smell the coffee, pretty soon you will be the minority, but I doubt you would be considered "you people".
-
Obviously, if you paid attention you would know that I'm not a partisan like many of you, I just played devils advocate stating that his numbers while not accurate in my estimation are true in the context he used them and it wasn't in the context of "America is a Muslim Nation".
Obviously, if YOU paid attention you would know that I've called you out a number of times. You're no devil's advocate. You have an agenda - and that's to further yourself and your religion. Lord Zero's opinion, despite your lofty estimation, is NOT true in any context, especially the one that you keep wanting to drive home - that Muslims are a formidable political force in this country, to wit, that they (you) number up to 7 million. Seven million, all by itself, is a large number - but not when you compare it with 300+ million, which is a minor omission on your part, dontcha think?
That's a lie from the pits of hell and you know it. Show facts as in proof and/or evidence that I have ever at anytime on the net made an effort to "further Islam".
No problem. It's been awhile since I visited your web site, and I see that it's "under construction." This is the same URL on which I saw thousands upon thousands of words about how glorious Islam is and about how you, a simple person, were going to bring America to Islam (in a manner of speaking). Your agenda, Salaam, is as transparent as you are.
Btw, that I clearly recall you having said that you did what you did on your site free of charge. But you forgot that you had a "donate" button on the site. When called on it, you professed that you had didn't know it was there, that your web site designer had apparently put it there without your knowledge or consent. Yeah, right. In a pig's ass. :whatever: In a matter of a day or so, the button magically disappeared.
Robert Salaam (http://)
To the contrary I have made it clear time and time again in print and on air that I don't support missionary type efforts as I do the overwhelming majority of work within my community with Muslims. The only times I ever even speak to non-Muslims concerning religion in any capacity is when my faith is brought up first by them and often brought up erroneously. If one was to do a search of my postings over the years and compare it with the postings in general about Islam or Muslims, it could easily be noted that I have only responded in those threads where a statement about my faith has been made in the negative or in error. I rarely if ever respond in threads that specifically target terrorists other than to state I agree. It's only when statements about Islam/Muslims is predicated with "All...." that I state anything.
Uh huh. Yeah. Right. Sure. Fact is, Salaam, you've built yourself a cottage industry by your drive-by postings on this site, usmilnet, and God knows how many other sites. Your sole objective is to paint Islam as some kind of noble enterprise when this country has seen ample evidence of the kind of mayhem and destruction that people have done in your religion's name. It's disgraceful, Salaam, and as long as you continue your drive-by postings, I'll illustrate publicly your transparency and your agenda. Your religion is not the be-all, end-all, despite your protestations to the contrary. Your religion harbors evil and murderous and wanton brutality - sugarcoat it all you want, but that doesn't alter the truth.
Typical partisan talking point. I don't consider positive statements that directly challenge those made by terrorists as "apologizing". I truly believe that some elements in the GOP consider anything stated about Muslims or Islam in general in the positive is somehow "apologizing" and/or "appeasement" to the delight of terrorists of course as they are the only elements who validate their claims by those who have nothing but ill to state or claim about Muslims/Islam.
Of course you don't. News flash for you, Salaam. I'm not a Republican. And I believe my last post really said NOTHING about what Lord Zero SAID as opposed to what he DID. So once again, your attempt to deflect the issue fails.
Like I stated, it's a partisan debate your looking for...
There's nothing partisan about 3,000 people being murdered.
, I don't have one to offer as I'm not a partisan.
I'll buy that. Your entire agenda involves you, yourself, and those around you. You sell yourself routinely. You're doing it now.
Your very words "appeasement" and "groveling" wreaks of partisanship.
It reeks (sorry, you used the homophone of "reeks") of nationalism and the horror I felt when I saw my president (as scurrilous as that sounds) bow to Saudi royalty. It's appeasement and groveling of the worst order and I felt (and still do) that Obama has sold out the country with his drive to suck up to the world, Muslims first.
Regardless how you categorize the Presidents actions in these first 6 months I will at least agree that I don't believe we should be apologizing for anything. Now whether or not the POTUS has done that, well I will leave that debate up to those who tend to get red in the face over such debate.
No need to get red in the face. As long as Obama bows to royalty and apologizes for our Nation's reaction to 9/11, that's all the evidence I need.
Here comes your smoke and mirrors now:
You missed the point entirely and your smiley doesn't make you seem clever, but validates that you don't get the context of the argument. The debate is not about population density but a comparison of the facts based on a simple premise in which many of you got your panties in a bunch over:
Is the American Muslim population larger than the population of some Muslim countries? Yes or No. The answer is simply yes, whether that number is 5 million, 7 million, or 3 million. The entire context of that reality is not to as many of you claimed illustrate that America is a Muslim Nation, but to point out to Muslims overseas that contrary to the propaganda that is fed to them that states how evil and anti-Muslim America is, that the truth is that America has religious freedoms which they don't have, so much so that we have enough Muslims within our borders that their population would eclipse that of some Muslim majority countries. That statement was squarely targeted at anti-American propaganda, yet somehow it went over the heads of those who only saw the words "Muslim" and "America" and flew off the handle....
If partisan spin is all your capable of then this "debate" would be best suited for a partisan, but the question remains, is the population of American Muslims greater than the population of some Muslim Majority countries?
Let's see. Salaam comes to an internet forum entitled "Conservative Cave." And he wonders why he's getting partisan arguments? :rotf: :lmao:
Now, this next bit is useful, because it illustrates just how Salaam does a masterful job of backing up and regrouping. He paints the picture that he's just as offended as I am that Obama actually stooped to Saudi royalty when, point in fact, the entire concept hadn't been discussed until I starting talking about Obama's apologist policies.
Now I don't know how this little gem creeped into the discussion other than to present a red-herring partisan talking point wondering if you could get a reaction. But if you must know I don't believe any US President should be bowing to any other head of state especially the Saudi's. I will go a step further and state that I believe that we should not engage with any dictators and oppressive regimes in that region. So yes I was upset with Obama's bowing, but I was no more upset than President Bush's holding hands, visiting, begging to drop oil prices, etc. I believe in complete disengagement with those leaders and would be upset regardless of the party of our POTUS now or in the future.
Now here comes Salaam, the mysterious:
Not those specifically....nor would I share what my background is as it relates to the GWOT. Suffice to know that I have and am doing my part in agencies that you may only read about. To be more specific my background is as an analyst and in policy. My work is often within national security agencies. Don't waste your time with conjecture, this has been independently verified in the past and there are members on many sites that we have crossed paths will verify this, some having actually seen my resume.
Hello!!! Salaam! Hey! Over here! You'll note that I don't give a rat's ass what you do professionally! I know what you do as a matter of course - sell yourself!
And that has what to do with this discussion? I know this and am on the ground upholding my oath. I'm not just an armchair quarterback or keyboard warrior like some of you. Yet you guys tend to have all the answers, but do little to nothing in real life. What agency do you work for in DC?
And this is the guy who writes REAMS of copy - using, oddly enough, a KEYBOARD! :-)
Here's more faux outrage:
And therein lies my beef with you and other "conservative" partisans who continually put your foots in your mouths concerning me and Muslims like myself. That murderer is not a fellow Muslim no matter how much you guys and terrorists would like to state that he is. As my religion teaches, the scholars have verified, and fatwa after fatwa has declared (somehow you guys can't use Google to verify that), the moment one decides to murder innocents or commit any act of terror, they leave the fold of Islam and are destined for the hellfire. Any who supports those actions either verbally, physically, or apathetically, are also considered one of them. My fellow brethren are those soldiers who were attacked, but I already stated this before, you just couldn't help yourself with the attempted swipe and attack against my character.
No attack against your character, Salaam. Just your religion.
And this next is Salaam's attempt to portray Islam as being led by all sorts of wonderful people. Uh huh.
Here's a listing of declarations against terror from the Grand Mufti of Mecca and others as a start, but then again, I'm certain you guys know more about Islam than them.... ::)
http://www.fatwa-online.com/worship/jihaad/jih004/index.htm
6000 Muslim clerics endorse anti-terror fatwa
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/08/Muslim-clerics-endorse-anti-terror-fatwa/UPI-38241226199440/
U.S. Muslims issue ‘fatwa’ against terrorism
Scholars condemn attacks on civilians as a violation of Islamic teaching
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8740980/
Cleric condemns suicide attacks
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3059365.stm
There's much more, but of course, you guys know more about Islam, so I won't bother any further...
Who asked what you believe?
I think the First Amendment protects my right to say what I believe. Is that okay with you? :rotf:
And here's the race card, thinly disguised, of course:
Not surprising at all. I'm certain "you people" consists of divergent images not similar to the reflection in your mirror.
Why not do that now? The GWOT is still going on. I would ask you to help, but since I don't look or believe like you do, I doubt you would be willing to fight side by side to defend OUR Nation.
Another reading comprehension issue. I said IF CALLED. As a retiree, I may be recalled at the pleasure of DoD. That won't happen, most likely, since I'm not a counter-insurgency expert like you are.
More vitriole:
And it's obvious "your world" consists of fanciful xenophobic ideals that haven't caught up with the realistic fact that whether you like it our not there are other citizens in this nation that love this nation too, even though you lump us in the category of "you people". Hasn't that attitude died yet? It seems that we just can't kill the mentality of decades past, we just keep changing the groups with whom "you people" applies. Thankfully, time in on the side of the youth and eventually, that mentality will die out with those who perpetuated it several decades ago and hold on to that mentality as if their lives depended on it. Wake up and smell the coffee, pretty soon you will be the minority, but I doubt you would be considered "you people".
Here's another news flash, Salaam. I've already lived in a number of places where I've been the "minority." So don't preach to me as to what that constitutes.
Go back and reload after your drive-by post, and come back to play again. I look forward to it!
-
Very Christ-like of you Eupher, glad to see your once again showing the right example of faith.
Easy, cowboy. Not all on this site are Christians. I am pretty sure my chosen deity would revel in the blood of our foes.
Hey- what do you know. We do have stuff in common.
-
Very Christ-like of you Eupher, glad to see your once again showing the right example of faith.
Moving right along, I stated that 7 million was a stretch and even stated that I personally don't believe that figure, so that pretty much kills that diatribe of yours.
I merely pointed out that "if" that number was correct (once again I don't believe it is) than according to statistics that could be a true statement.
My entire point and commentary was that he was making a generalized statement to take the wind out of the sails of terrorists who teach overseas that America is at war with Islam, by stating matter of factually that not only is that not true, but we have a large population of Muslims in America with as many as some Muslim countries.
That's not what he said.
Instead of seeing that as a positive way of countering terrorist propaganda many spinned it to mean that the President was calling this country a Muslim Nation, which is not what he stated, but since he used the world Muslim and we know how that gets to some of you, it was blown all out of proportion for know reason.
Here's what he said:
“And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world,†Mr. Obama said.
I have long ago stated and believed that the number one way to destroy the terrorists, their recruiting ability, and influence and various parts of the world is to control the message and counter their propaganda.
Apparently, many of you don't think that is a good idea as everytime Obama or anyone else has anything good to say about Islam, Muslims, etc. in the context of America you blow a gasket.
Over generalize much? :whatever:
President Bush started it and President Obama is continuing it. The terrorists consistently accuse America of being anti-Muslim and everytime an American official refutes that, you guys get pissy. Do you want the terrorists to be right? I never understood why many of you continually support ideas and actions that giver credibility to terrorist claims, I thought the whole point was to destroy them?
No, the whole point is that the purpose of Islam is to force the rest of the world to convert or die. It is not a religion of peace. Never has been.
Lastly, I'm not running for office, I have decided to continue efforts with my non-profit and to continue running my IT Consulting Firm.
-
No problem. It's been awhile since I visited your web site, and I see that it's "under construction." This is the same URL on which I saw thousands upon thousands of words about how glorious Islam is and about how you, a simple person, were going to bring America to Islam (in a manner of speaking). Your agenda, Salaam, is as transparent as you are.
Well if it's so transparent, why is it that after allegation after allegation you have yet to provide any evidence other than your claims? I write alot and speak alot, the records are all over the net, yet somehow you can't seem to post anything that would back up your claims. ::)
Btw, that I clearly recall you having said that you did what you did on your site free of charge. But you forgot that you had a "donate" button on the site. When called on it, you professed that you had didn't know it was there, that your web site designer had apparently put it there without your knowledge or consent. Yeah, right. In a pig's ass. :whatever: In a matter of a day or so, the button magically disappeared.
You called me on something several years ago about a paypal link that was removed? Your a freaking genius, I stated matter of factly as you reported (but don't believe) and removed the button. The real question is what are you proving with your comment other than throwing out another logical fallacy? The button is gone, do you have any records, proof, or anything that I have asked anyone to give me one red cent? Any proof whatsoever? So is your issue that I removed the paypal button and don't ask for money or that the button was there a couple of years ago for a few days and then deleted? Either way what's your point?
Uh huh. Yeah. Right. Sure. Fact is, Salaam, you've built yourself a cottage industry by your drive-by postings on this site, usmilnet, and God knows how many other sites. Your sole objective is to paint Islam as some kind of noble enterprise when this country has seen ample evidence of the kind of mayhem and destruction that people have done in your religion's name. It's disgraceful, Salaam, and as long as you continue your drive-by postings, I'll illustrate publicly your transparency and your agenda.
Do you have any honor? I'm not questioning your service which I thank you for, but as a human being. Here you go ranting on and on about my "agenda" and what I'm supposedly doing, but when called on it directly you don't have any proof. Please, out of probably hundreds of thousands of words out there that I produced, why is it you can't post anything that proves my "agenda"?
Be a man about it, if you don't have facts, at least admit that your just doing what's akin to name-calling. I'm certain you would have many allies that would love to comb through my writings looking for something (it has been done numerous times) and you and I both know you won't find anything. But for the love of God, if your going to keep making accusations about my person, at least have the ability to back it up with something.
Your religion is not the be-all, end-all, despite your protestations to the contrary.
Yet another unfounded claim. Have I ever stated that anywhere?
Your religion harbors evil and murderous and wanton brutality - sugarcoat it all you want, but that doesn't alter the truth.
:thatsright: Prove it! Prove how a religion and not people commit acts. I would love to see you explain away how something that has no physicality can act.
Of course you don't. News flash for you, Salaam. I'm not a Republican. And I believe my last post really said NOTHING about what Lord Zero SAID as opposed to what he DID. So once again, your attempt to deflect the issue fails.
WTH are you talking about now? Deflect? Your the red-herring master. I was debating the absurd spin that claimed the POTUS called America a Muslim nation, and once you threw your hat in the ring, you made it about me, making all kinds of outlandish claims with no evidence, sideswiping my religion, and a couple of insults about Obama for good measure. None of which debated the core question did Obama or did Obama not call America a Muslim nation. So don't be a hypocrite talking about deflections. ::)
There's nothing partisan about 3,000 people being murdered.
That's the best argument you got? Bring up 9/11? I absolutely detest when people use 9/11 as a scapegoat to sugar coat why they have idiotic ideological views about Muslims. It's a dishonor to those who were murdered and our nation that was attacked, and on a side it's insulting to Muslim Americans with whom you and others use 9/11 as an excuse to hate specifically when you speak so reverently about 9/11 as if the only people who were killed, helped, and serving in the GWOT were white anglo Christians! The facts that seem to get lost in the sauce with those so quick to hail 9/11 as their great excuse for being xenophobic assholes is that there were Muslims who worked in the WTC who were murdered that day, there were Muslims who helped in the NYPD and NYFD who helped that day, and there are Muslims currently serving and dying fighting the terrorists right now as we speak, who as Americans were just as outraged, just as angry, and just as willing to fight terrorism as any other American. And to be perfectly honest, everytime I get an email from a Muslim inquiring about serving our country which is a stark contradiction to the lies that people like you spread, it makes me that much more willing to slap the taste out of someones mouth who wants to use 9/11 as a scapegoat to explain why they are a xenophobe. 19 terrorists mainly from Saudi Arabia attacked America. They didn't attack White Americans, Black Americans, Christian Americans, Muslim Americans, etc. They attacked America. They could care less what we look like or what we believe, they will kill you just as fast as they would kill me. So please spare me the BS argument about your perceived justification for your warped ideology. Last I checked more Muslims have been killed and die more each day than anyone else on the planet at the hands of terrorists, yet your the one that should be worried. Next time you go to your local store, ask yourself if your more likely to be a victim of a terrorist attack or a Muslim in anytown, Middle East, going to get groceries for their family or pray at the mosque? When you get that answer, then you would know why I think all your anti-Muslim types are just making excuses to make your hate seem justified. Terrorists target more Muslims than anyone on the planet and have more Muslim blood on their hands than any other religious group, but if we listened to people like you, we would be led to believe that the Christians here in America have more to fear from the "evils of Islam" than actual Muslims who practice their faith who get slaughtered by terrorists! Riddle me this one, Mr. Brain, how is it possible that Islam is a violent religion with over a billion followers yet the only actual violent "adherents" just happen to kill more of those who supposedly believe the same as they do? Logic would dictate that if we all believed the same, we would unite against non-Muslims right? I know, I know, and Jesus (as) cast out the demons in Satan's name too! (that's what your argument amounts to)
I'll buy that. Your entire agenda involves you, yourself, and those around you. You sell yourself routinely. You're doing it now.
Well articulate and prove what this agenda is. Why can't you do it? Cat got your tongue?
It reeks (sorry, you used the homophone of "reeks") of nationalism and the horror I felt when I saw my president (as scurrilous as that sounds) bow to Saudi royalty. It's appeasement and groveling of the worst order and I felt (and still do) that Obama has sold out the country with his drive to suck up to the world, Muslims first.
Well, I'm glad you can spell, now can you back up your accusations against me? And as far as nationalism is concerned, when you would piss on segments of your countrymen because they don't look, believe, etc. as you do, one has to wonder if your allegiance is truly to the entire Nation or just one segment of society....
No need to get red in the face. As long as Obama bows to royalty and apologizes for our Nation's reaction to 9/11, that's all the evidence I need.
A: I can't get red in the face. :-)
B: You used the word "evidence" interesting, since you can't seem to ever provide any to back up your claims....
Here comes your smoke and mirrors now:
Let's see. Salaam comes to an internet forum entitled "Conservative Cave." And he wonders why he's getting partisan arguments? :rotf: :lmao:
What's even funnier is that in the same post you stated both that your not a Republican and admitted that your giving partisan arguments, how does that work out?
Now, this next bit is useful, because it illustrates just how Salaam does a masterful job of backing up and regrouping. He paints the picture that he's just as offended as I am that Obama actually stooped to Saudi royalty when, point in fact, the entire concept hadn't been discussed until I starting talking about Obama's apologist policies.
:thatsright: :rotf: I bet you think you make sense don't you? Of course, I didn't bring up how I felt about Obama bowing because that's not the topic of the thread!!!!! Since you brought it up out of nowhere i.e. a deflection, I commented on it. In other words, this little bit of commentary is no shit sherlock. If you didn't bring it up then I wouldn't have gave an opinion, simple as that. But somehow, I'm up to something....
Now here comes Salaam, the mysterious:
Hello!!! Salaam! Hey! Over here! You'll note that I don't give a rat's ass what you do professionally! I know what you do as a matter of course - sell yourself!
And this is the guy who writes REAMS of copy - using, oddly enough, a KEYBOARD! :-)
OK, well back up your claims please! Do I have to beg now? I mean man up, if you can make claims about someone surely you have the ability to back them up, in other words I challenge you to prove yourself other than a child making outlandish statements i.e. another logical fallacy oft committed by you called "attack the messenger".
Here's more faux outrage:
No attack against your character, Salaam. Just your religion.
And your a liar. Several times in this thread you talked about my "agenda" and alluded to things about my character with zero evidence. I would quote you verbatim, but you do it so often, I don't need to, you will step on your willy again soon enough.
And this next is Salaam's attempt to portray Islam as being led by all sorts of wonderful people. Uh huh.
Are you just a chronic liar or what? Quote me where I stated that? Or is it that you just don't have the ability to engage in an adult debate in which points and counterpoints are offered? Instead of making claims, why not produce evidence and debate what is stated.
I posted actual fatwa's from leaders in Islam that specifically state the opposite of what you and so many others constantly lie about by saying in essence that all Muslims support terrorism and our religion is violent. Then when faced with the facts that our leaders i.e. the ones who teach the religion to 1 billion people make it clear that terrorism is against Islam, then instead of dealing with the proof that so many claim doesn't exist, you try to deflect with yet another sarcastic remark and smear campaigns trying to words in my mouth.
I think the First Amendment protects my right to say what I believe. Is that okay with you? :rotf:
And you and I and a host of others proudly defend that right, but it doesn't mean I can't believe that what you believe is shear idiocy. :)
And here's the race card, thinly disguised, of course:
Number one talking point to deflect from the issue. I know, I'm supposed to now run because you spoke of the infamous card, because I called you out on your BS xenophobic arguments? I think not. Prove that I'm a racist or called you one first bud.
Another reading comprehension issue. I said IF CALLED. As a retiree, I may be recalled at the pleasure of DoD. That won't happen, most likely, since I'm not a counter-insurgency expert like you are.
Yeah, well good for you. While you wait on your "IF" I will continue to serve in every capacity my country allows me to while you make outlandish claims about me that you can't back up.
More vitriole:
Here's another news flash, Salaam. I've already lived in a number of places where I've been the "minority." So don't preach to me as to what that constitutes.
Go back and reload after your drive-by post, and come back to play again. I look forward to it!
And it's vitriol Mr. Petty... And don't give me the "I've been the minority" speech,
A: No one cares and I sure didn't bring it up (but since you like to deflect....)
B: What does this have to do with anything? Did Obama state that America is a Muslim nation or not?
Keep trying. I look forward to you attempting at integrity with actual proof to back up your claims about me.
-
Apparently, you've forgotten all about the U.S.S. Cole, Khobar Towers, 9/11, and our African embassies, not to mention the cowardly attack of one of your fellow Muslims against those soldiers in Arkansas.
Maybe Robert thinks we had it coming.
-
nor would I share what my background is as it relates to the GWOT. Suffice to know that I have and am doing my part in agencies that you may only read about. To be more specific my background is as an analyst and in policy. My work is often within national security agencies.
TiT is that you????
-
nor would I share what my background is as it relates to the GWOT. Suffice to know that I have and am doing my part in agencies that you may only read about. To be more specific my background is as an analyst and in policy. My work is often within national security agencies.
TiT is that you????
My question would be: for which side is he working?
-
Well if it's so transparent, why is it that after allegation after allegation you have yet to provide any evidence other than your claims? I write alot and speak alot, the records are all over the net, yet somehow you can't seem to post anything that would back up your claims. ::)
Salaam, if you think I'm going to chase all over the internet to play your silly game, you're sadly mistaken. Fact of the matter is, you have a long and checkered history on usmilnet - and I know that YOU know exactly what I'm talking about. You can play your childish games, but in the end it goes nowhere. You're still going to spout your Muslim bullshit as if you're actually going to find a sympathetic ear.
You called me on something several years ago about a paypal link that was removed? Your a freaking genius, I stated matter of factly as you reported (but don't believe) and removed the button. The real question is what are you proving with your comment other than throwing out another logical fallacy? The button is gone, do you have any records, proof, or anything that I have asked anyone to give me one red cent? Any proof whatsoever? So is your issue that I removed the paypal button and don't ask for money or that the button was there a couple of years ago for a few days and then deleted? Either way what's your point?
Reading comprehension again. I didn't say "PayPal", I said "Donate" button. But now that you mention it, maybe it was a PayPal button, Either way, you were fishin' for cash and lied about it. Got caught, too. Your credibility is ZERO, Salaam. Sorta like your president.
IIRC, your little stunt occurred in early 2007. Quite the little charade you were pulling there. Going on and on and on about how noble you are, about how you did all that you do (whatever the hell that is, besides try to shove Islam down other's throats) for no compensation, only to find out that OOPS!, there's a donate button that you knew nothing about. Again, Robert, I'm not going to research through two years of data just to find this stuff. I have better things to do with my time. It's enough for me to know that YOU know what I'm talking about. Right?
I'd think that Rebel probably remembers a little bit about this, as would Thor. They both witnessed this bullshit.
The point is, since you have a hard time connecting the dots, you come onto this site and others like it, ready to leap on the first thread that pops up concerning Islam - to that end, I'll agree with you. You're a one-trick pony with little to no other interests other than spouting off about your new-found religion -- that is, the same religion you "found" within a few weeks of 9/11.
That one right there boggles my mind. You have some sort of epiphany within weeks after the largest loss of life due to ANY enemy on American soil since the Civil ****ing War and you run off and "follow your heart." Aww, ain't that quaint! :mental:
You see, I remember your bullshit stories. I read your web site, and I followed the links that you did have, once upon a time, on your web site. I even remembered the URL - kinda hard to forget, don'tcha think? "The American Muslim."
Do you have any honor? I'm not questioning your service which I thank you for, but as a human being. Here you go ranting on and on about my "agenda" and what I'm supposedly doing, but when called on it directly you don't have any proof. Please, out of probably hundreds of thousands of words out there that I produced, why is it you can't post anything that proves my "agenda"?
What does my honor have to do with your agenda? Obfuscation, deflection, and double-talk. You've made a career out of talking which is why I'd bet my next retirement check that you wind up in politics. You already live in the cesspool known as D.C. Right?
Be a man about it, if you don't have facts, at least admit that your just doing what's akin to name-calling. I'm certain you would have many allies that would love to comb through my writings looking for something (it has been done numerous times) and you and I both know you won't find anything. But for the love of God, if your going to keep making accusations about my person, at least have the ability to back it up with something.
:yawn:
...snip...(because it's getting boring)
WTH are you talking about now? Deflect? Your the red-herring master. I was debating the absurd spin that claimed the POTUS called America a Muslim nation, and once you threw your hat in the ring, you made it about me, making all kinds of outlandish claims with no evidence, sideswiping my religion, and a couple of insults about Obama for good measure. None of which debated the core question did Obama or did Obama not call America a Muslim nation. So don't be a hypocrite talking about deflections. ::)
There you go with your "evidence" again. Apparently you can't read. I posted statistical evidence from the *cough* gummint. Take another look - you're getting apoplectic in your rage and apparently you're blind with it.
That's the best argument you got? Bring up 9/11? I absolutely detest when people use 9/11 as a scapegoat to sugar coat why they have idiotic ideological views about Muslims. It's a dishonor to those who were murdered and our nation that was attacked, and on a side it's insulting to Muslim Americans with whom you and others use 9/11 as an excuse to hate specifically when you speak so reverently about 9/11 as if the only people who were killed, helped, and serving in the GWOT were white anglo Christians! The facts that seem to get lost in the sauce with those so quick to hail 9/11 as their great excuse for being xenophobic assholes is that there were Muslims who worked in the WTC who were murdered that day, there were Muslims who helped in the NYPD and NYFD who helped that day, and there are Muslims currently serving and dying fighting the terrorists right now as we speak, who as Americans were just as outraged, just as angry, and just as willing to fight terrorism as any other American. And to be perfectly honest, everytime I get an email from a Muslim inquiring about serving our country which is a stark contradiction to the lies that people like you spread, it makes me that much more willing to slap the taste out of someones mouth who wants to use 9/11 as a scapegoat to explain why they are a xenophobe. 19 terrorists mainly from Saudi Arabia attacked America. They didn't attack White Americans, Black Americans, Christian Americans, Muslim Americans, etc. They attacked America. They could care less what we look like or what we believe, they will kill you just as fast as they would kill me. So please spare me the BS argument about your perceived justification for your warped ideology. Last I checked more Muslims have been killed and die more each day than anyone else on the planet at the hands of terrorists, yet your the one that should be worried. Next time you go to your local store, ask yourself if your more likely to be a victim of a terrorist attack or a Muslim in anytown, Middle East, going to get groceries for their family or pray at the mosque? When you get that answer, then you would know why I think all your anti-Muslim types are just making excuses to make your hate seem justified. Terrorists target more Muslims than anyone on the planet and have more Muslim blood on their hands than any other religious group, but if we listened to people like you, we would be led to believe that the Christians here in America have more to fear from the "evils of Islam" than actual Muslims who practice their faith who get slaughtered by terrorists! Riddle me this one, Mr. Brain, how is it possible that Islam is a violent religion with over a billion followers yet the only actual violent "adherents" just happen to kill more of those who supposedly believe the same as they do? Logic would dictate that if we all believed the same, we would unite against non-Muslims right? I know, I know, and Jesus (as) cast out the demons in Satan's name too! (that's what your argument amounts to)
Feel better now that you got that out of your system? This may come as a great shock to you, Robert, but I don't really give a shit what you "detest". 9/11 was the darkest chapter in American history, bar none, and when chumps like you come along and cheapen it with your faux outrage, well, it just hammers the point home that you can paint yourself as a victim all day long.
But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see through your shit. If so many Muslims are getting killed by other Muslims, why aren't the "good" Muslims kicking ass and taking names? Why do they play the perpetual victim? I have absolutely no sympathy for a body of people who can't/won't defend themselves. Take your "victim" bullshit somewhere else, Robert. It ain't washing here.
Well articulate and prove what this agenda is. Why can't you do it? Cat got your tongue?
One more time, since you've proven you have reading comprehension difficulties.
Robert Salaam's agenda is quite simple. It's him. Secondarily, it's about his religion, which he found in the ashes of 9/11. He blogs, he writes, he speaks, he moves a lot of air with his lungs. But inevitably, it's all about HIM.
...snip....
A: I can't get red in the face. :-)
Sure you can! It's just a darker shade of red!
What's even funnier is that in the same post you stated both that your not a Republican and admitted that your giving partisan arguments, how does that work out?
I'll spell it out so that even you can understand it. I am a conservative. But I am not a Republican. I believe that the Republican party has long since forgotten conservatism. Tenets of the party do not hold with my own core beliefs, which center around fiscal accountability and adherence to the 10th Amendment. I believe the federal government has been out of control for decades now and your man in the Oval Orifice, as bizarre as it seems, is making it worse.
More ranting and raving snipped....
And your a liar. Several times in this thread you talked about my "agenda" and alluded to things about my character with zero evidence. I would quote you verbatim, but you do it so often, I don't need to, you will step on your willy again soon enough.
You have the audacity to call me a liar? When you can't even 'fess up about the lie that was the donate button on your own web site? You're a sad state of affairs, Bob. Sad indeed.
More garbage clipped...
I know, I'm supposed to now run because you spoke of the infamous card, because I called you out on your BS xenophobic arguments? I think not. Prove that I'm a racist or called you one first bud.
You alluded to it, thinly disguised, as I said in my last post. Re-read it again to make sure you understand it. You made mention that I wrote "you people" and you being what you are, you immediately thought I was referring to your race. Nope, not a chance, Bob. I was referring to "you Muslims". You can refer to that as being xenophobic if you like, matters not to me. But I'll tell you this - I didn't give a helluva lot of thought about Islam or Muslims at all --
Until 9/11 when the bastards came and killed 3,000 innocent people.
Take your fatwas and shove 'em. They mean nothing to me.
-
Maybe Robert thinks we had it coming.
My question would be: for which side is he working?
I haven't been that insulted in a while, but I guess that's just the nature of some people.
-
I haven't been that insulted in a while, but I guess that's just the nature of some people.
Gee didn't hear a denial in that anywhere.
Color me surprised.
-
A fallacy is an argument which provides poor reasoning in support of its conclusion. Fallacies differ from other bad arguments in that many people find them psychologically persuasive. That is, people will mistakenly take a fallacious argument to provide good reasons to believe its conclusion. An argument can be fallacious whether or not its conclusion is true.
Fallacies can be categorized in a number of ways. For example, formal fallacies rely on an incorrect logical step; an informal fallacy does not rely on incorrect logical deduction. Verbal fallacies use some property of language to mislead, for example, ambiguity or verbosity.
Fallacies are also often concerned with causality, which is not strictly addressed by logic. They may also involve implicit (or unstated) assumptions.
Fallacies often exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor. For example, an argument may appeal to patriotism or family or may exploit an intellectual weakness of the listener. Fallacious arguments may also take advantage of social relationships between people. For example, citing an important individual's support for a view to encourage listeners to agree with it.
Now the types of fallacies committed by Eupher and others:
* Fallacy of Accident: a generalization that disregards exceptions
o Example
Argument: Terrorism is evil. Muslims commit terror. Therefore, Muslims are evil.
Problem: Not all Muslims engage in terrorism.
o Also called destroying the exception, a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid
* Converse Fallacy of Accident: argues from a special case to a general rule
o Example
Argument: Everytime I see Muslims they are violent, so it must be true that all Muslims are violent.
Problem: What one has seen is a special case. One can not have seen all Muslims.
o Also called reverse accident, destroying the exception, a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter
* Irrelevant Conclusion: diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than address it directly.
o Example
Argument: Terrorists believes that Islam is violent therefore it must be violent.
Problem: Terrorists can be wrong. (In particular this is an appeal to authority).
Then there are the other obvious fallacies that are used almost exclusively such as:
argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
An ad hominem argument has the basic form:
Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false
for example:
Salaam states that Obama did not call America a Muslim Nation
Salaam is a Muslim and had a Paypal button on his site 2 years ago so that make him "shady"
Therefore, Obama did call America a Muslim Nation and Salaam is lying! :lmao:
Red herring
Similar to ignoratio elenchi, a red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument.
for example:
Salaam states that Obama did not call America a Muslim Nation
Eupher states that Obama bowed to the Saudi King, Robert had a Paypal button on his site two years ago, 3000 Americans died on 9/11, etc. etc. etc.
My personal Eupher favorite:
The bare assertion fallacy is a fallacy in formal logic where a premise in an argument is assumed to be true merely because it says that it is true.
One form of the fallacy may be summarized as follows:
* Fact 1: Eupher claims Salaam has an "agenda".
* Fact 2: Eupher claims that he is not lying.
* Conclusion: Therefore, Salaam having an "agenda" is true.
Topic: Obama calls US a Muslim nation
Point: Many here actually believe he stated that.
Counterpoint: I believe that not only did he not say that (actual transcript) even the insinuation of such is ridiculous in context.
Is anyone actually willing to provide any evidence to support that claim or is it just easier to call names, switch topics, etc.?
-
Gee didn't hear a denial in that anywhere.
Color me surprised.
BS! I don't have to deny anything, my record bears witness of me. Not to mention my DD214, SF86, etc. etc. etc.
You want to make outlandish claims and assertions about my service and/or loyalty to my country, be man enough to provide evidence to back up those claims, or man up and apologize.
-
I haven't been that insulted in a while, but I guess that's just the nature of some people.
From what I've seen here, your defense of and the image Islam is more important to you than any outrage towards the "few" that commit acts of terrorism.
-
So far I have only two people on ignore.
TNO, for obvious reasons and now salaam.
I am sure that he'll be offended that I don't care to listen to his rambling cut and paste defense of his chosen religion. I know that I don't care.
I have alot of experiance in the ME dealing with islamic culture, in SA, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan. Add to that the EU and US of A and I'd say I know and have met a huge amount of muslims. If I tried to figure out the % that didn't try to kill me vs the % that did I am sure I'd come up with a small number.
Of course, it only takes one getting lucky to make it a very bad day.
-
From what I've seen here, your defense of and the image Islam is more important to you than any outrage towards the "few" that commit acts of terrorism.
Well maybe you should look more, because last I checked, out of the hundreds of things I have written, 90% have been against those who commit acts of terrorism, here are few examples:
2009/06/02
What’s an American Muslim to do about terrorists who are converts?
As veteran my heart and prayers go out to these two soldiers and their families.....I can only imagine the pain that these families are going through and the agony one must feel after knowing that their loved ones were attacked not abroad from a foreign enemy but here at home in their very community where it's supposed to be safe. As a fellow American, as a Marine, and as a Muslim, I send these families my deepest condolences and share the very same desire they must have to see that justice be served as swift as possible against this murderer.
To be blunt, I wish we had immediate capital punishment in this Country. I know it's not PC to state that for a myriad of reasons, but to be perfectly honest, what other punishment is worthy of pond scum and afterbirth who feel that it's their duty to murder innocents based on an ideology of hate?
http://salaamsblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/whats-an-american-muslim-to-do-about-terrorists-who-are-converts/
2009/05/19
How should we deal with our enemies?
If the enemy is the West and we deplore their actions, what are our responses to their actions? If the enemy is Israel and we deplore their actions, what are our responses to their actions? Even if our enemy is either another Muslim or non-Muslim engaged in a debate about Islam and we deplore their words and actions, what are our responses in kind?
If we cannot honestly state and admit that our actions and responses are not better, superior, and helping display the peace and light found within Islam, than we are wrong and may show ourselves to not only be worse than our enemies real or perceived, but worthy of being abandoned by God in our causes.
2:190 Fight in God’s cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression for, verily, God does not love aggressors.
5:8 O YOU who have attained to faith! Be ever steadfast in your devotion to God, bearing witness to the truth in all equity; and never let hatred of anyone lead you into the sin of deviating from justice. Be just: this is closest to being God-conscious. And remain conscious of God: verily, God is aware of all that you do.
41:34 since good and evil cannot be equal, repel evil with something that is better. Then will he between whom and thee was hatred may then become as though he had always been close unto thee, a true friend!
http://salaamsblog.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/how-should-we-deal-with-our-enemies/
2009/03/10
Condemned by their own mouths...
Gitmo prisoners defend 'blessed' 9/11 attack
Now I know there are some Muslims out there who would try to make a case for these murderers, but I just want to put it out there, that in Islam, "because they did it" is never a case to act against the guidance of the Qur'an or the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw).
Muslims are commanded to not kill innocents, commit terrorism, etc. We are commanded to be the best example of truth and justice.
When it comes to "justified" fighting and war, we are commanded to incline towards peace if offered and to not let our hatred of an entire people incline us toward injustice. Suicide is also a major sin as well. I doubt there are Muslims out there who would seriously debate this and prove that Islam condones their actions. These men are murderers and are attempting to cover their actions with Islam, when in fact their actions put them outside the fold of Islam long ago.
They should be put to death immediately for their unrepentant crimes against humanity.
Their actions are not "blessed" but damned and may Allah (swt) reward them for their crimes and allow justice for the innocent to be swift.
http://salaamsblog.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/condemned-by-their-own-mouths/
2008/12/30
What About Hamas?
It’s not just the Israelis whom we Muslims should be focusing on. I have received email after email giving notice of planned protests, denunciations, etc. and quite frankly I have to admit I’m a little disappointed to put it mildly. Why is it that every time something happens in Gaza we Muslims can’t see the 800 pound Gorilla in the room?
Allah (swt) knows that I am not denying the brutal onslaught on the Palestinians committed by the Israeli government, but Allah (swt) also commands me to use my reason and to be patient before I react in pure unadulterated emotion as some of us are.
Many innocent civilians have been killed in the latest flare up. Over 300 dead and over 1000 wounded Palestinians at this point, and I think at most 5 Israelis have been killed or injured. So of course the disproportionate nature of victims prove that this is a heavy handed response, but the keyword that we fail to acknowledge as we condemn Israel is the word response.
What are the Israeli’s responding to? That is the question we Muslims never ask. We love to deal exclusively in the effects of a situation but rarely engage in the causes behind them.
We have to call Hamas to account here. They are not the victims. They refuse to deal in a manner in which is honorable, peaceful, and justified. They fired rockets in Israel, they broke the cease-fire, and the cowards purposefully ensure that they do so from civilian compounds so that when the Israelis respond the amount of civilians that are killed are maximized.
Let’s be realistic, if Israel had in mind that they wanted to kill Palestinians indiscriminately they would just do it. They obviously have the capability and the so-called Muslim world wouldn’t do anything about it. It’s all a game these countries play. No one actually cares about the Palestinians or Muslims around the world suffering until Israel does something big enough to give them a stage for political posturing.
If we really wanted to pontificate in a meaningful way we would reign in Hamas and call them to account for the role they played in the deaths of all the innocents on both sides. These thugs who claim to represent a noble cause are anything but. If they were really warriors or Mujahadeen as they play on TV they would face the Israeli Army in battle directly and not involve civilians. The same goes for all the other so-called clerics and groups that have issues with the West and Israel. No true Muslim would purposefully target civilians and other non-combatants, but that’s not how these thugs act is it?
http://salaamsblog.wordpress.com/2008/12/30/what-about-hamas/
I could go on and on and on with years worth of similar postings. Somehow or another I wager that many of you will still continue with your baseless claims that have no factual backing whatsoever.
If you don't have proof of your claims, please don't make them. I don't go around making up stuff about you guys do I?
-
If you don't have proof of your claims, please don't make them. I don't go around making up stuff about you guys do I?
I DO have proof of my claims. (Note my posts on the thread about the Arkansas shooting of two soldiers by a Muslim.) The problem is NOT a lack of proof. The problem is that you will not listen. For some reason, you are so heavily invested in this misconception of Islam as a "religion of peace," you will not face reality. Of course, you are in good company in that respect, and you will find plenty of sources to parrot the line that "Islam is a religion of peace." But that does not change the facts.
For example, you tried to give the impression that the fatwas encouraging violence against non-Muslims are somehow irrelevant. Nonsense. Does Salman Rushdie think he is safe? If not, why not?
For example, you ridiculed Robert Spencer's work on Islam, without addressing the real issues he confronts. Ridiculous.
I could go on, but you get the idea. Why don't you engage in honest debate, instead of multiplying irrelevancies?
-
I DO have proof of my claims. (Note my posts on the thread about the Arkansas shooting of two soldiers by a Muslim.) The problem is NOT a lack of proof. The problem is that you will not listen. For some reason, you are so heavily invested in this misconception of Islam as a "religion of peace," you will not face reality. Of course, you are in good company in that respect, and you will find plenty of sources to parrot the line that "Islam is a religion of peace." But that does not change the facts.
That's illogical. So I'm supposed to believe that the religion I practice, study, and live daily is violent because you and others think so? I know my religion is peaceful, I live it, teach it, and practice it. The facts are the sheer numbers just aren't on your side. The overwhelming majority of Muslims the world over are like me. Working, raising children, supporting families, and doing all this while praying, fasting, etc. according to our Islamic beliefs. No matter what you or others think that will not change the reality of my or others households. Until you can accurately prove that millions of us are not who we say we are, you will have to live with the fact that you guys and terrorists both believe Islam is a violent religion, meanwhile a Billion Muslims beg to differ. I will leave you and the terrorists to your agreements.
For example, you tried to give the impression that the fatwas encouraging violence against non-Muslims are somehow irrelevant. Nonsense. Does Salman Rushdie think he is safe? If not, why not?
They are depending on the source. For instance, the "fatwa" against Rushdie was made by the Ayatollah of Iran. Your smoking gun example is a poor one for the simplest reason: Shia's make up about 10% of the Muslim population worldwide, they are the only ones (and some of them at that) who follow the guidance of Ayahtollah's. Now if you can find a fatwa from a Sunni (85%+ of the Muslim world) institution like Al-Azhar for instance, then you would have something! That's why I quoted the sources, the sources are important, because they speak to the community of who they represent.
The North American Fiqh Council represents the majority of North American Muslims, if you want to know our official positions, that would be a good source. Every region of the world tends to have a fiqh council. What I don't get is why many of you go to obscure sites to find clear and easy to find information. If I wanted to find out a definitive position of Catholics I would go to the Pope/Vatican sources. If I wanted to do the same for Judaism I would seek out Rabbinical councils, for Protestants, I would seek the highest authorities in the various denominations. Which makes sense to most people. But somehow when it comes to Islam, you guys go to obscure sites, minority groups, non-Muslims, or the terrorists for information about how the majority of us who don't use those sources live and believe. The process is just illogical.
For example, you ridiculed Robert Spencer's work on Islam, without addressing the real issues he confronts. Ridiculous.
I ridiculed Robert Spencer and the majority of his cohorts like those on frontpage, jihadwatch, answering-islam, etc. because they are not scholars in Islamic studies. They merely do exactly what the novice does, with the exception that they know bigger words. Anyone can cherry pick from a book and give their own meaning, but the one thing you will never hear any of them respond to is that it's not so much what the book says, or what they interpret that it does or what they say it does, but what do the majority of people who believe in the book think about it and how do they interpret it.
I think these guys are arrogant in the sense that they are not even members of the religion they claim knowledge in, yet they are going to tell me (the believer) how I interpret my own book.
Besides, there are plenty of academia Muslim and non-Muslim both who are experts in Islamic Studies and scholars of Islam who do peer reviews, publish research, etc. who have called Spencer out several times for his lack of scholarship. You don't need me to state it but when a person deliberately misquotes the Qur'an to make a point, it's obvious they have more nefarious intentions.
For instance:
Dr. Robert D. Crane upon reviewing Spencer's books found that Spencer's explanations invert Islam's teachings; Crane notes that Spencer did this by either omitting context or using unreliable sources. For example, Crane shows that Spencer, interpreting a key Quranic passage (chapter 9, verses 1-6), on pages 160-162 of his 2006 book "The Truth About Muhammad," completely omits verse 4 from his reference which qualifies the verse that Spencer does share to allow warfare in defensive cases only. As stated in the Quran 9:4, "But excepted shall be with whom you [O believers] have made a covenant and who thereafter have in no wise failed to fulfill their obligations towards you, and neither have aided anyone against you. Verily, God loves those who are conscious of Him."(Quran 9:4). Crane concludes: "The message here is to respect the rights of those who have not embraced Islam, rather than to exterminate them."
My immediate question would be why would someone leave out the middle of a verse in a series that they reference, unless they purposely don't want the reader to know about it?
Dinesh D'Souza, a conservative Catholic, who debated Spencer on the cause of terrorism, said that "Spencer is an effective polemicist" and that he downplays the passages of the Quran that urge peace and goodwill. He also noted that Spencer applies moral standard to Muslim empires that could not have been met by any of the European empires, such as the British, the French, or the Spanish. For example, Spain gave its Jews choices to either convert to Christianity, leave the country, or die. Contrasting that with history of Muslim empires, D'Souza noted: "For example, the Muslims ruled North India for two centuries before they were displaced by the British. The Muslim emperors could have killed the tens of millions of Hindus under their control or at least forced them to become Muslims? They did nothing of the sort."
now these are wikipedia references btw, and Spencer has responded to some of his critics in all fairness. But I think the questions are valid. Why leave things out for your readers unless your purposefully trying to skew their beliefs?
Here's an exhaustive rebuttal to Spencer:
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/fascist_islamophobia_a_case_study_in_totalitarian_demonization/0014837
I could go on, but you get the idea. Why don't you engage in honest debate, instead of multiplying irrelevancies?
Well in order to qualify someone's debate as dishonest, one should provide facts that back up the claim that anything I have stated is categorically false first.
I labor extensively to ensure I avoid logical fallacies as much as possible, I would love to see which ones you think I'm guilty of and why.
-
How about this. A larger percentage of Muslims have the desire to force their religion and beliefs than do do any other religions. Almost every terrorist act in the world involves the "Religion of Peace"TM. In nearly every country that is in turmoil involves Muslims.
-
That's illogical. So I'm supposed to believe that the religion I practice, study, and live daily is violent because you and others think so?
That is not what I said, and you know it. Once again, you are being dishonest.
You are supposed to believe that Islam is violent because: 1) it's authoritative texts encourage violence; 2) its founder practiced violence against both Jews and Christians, and he held himself up as an example to be followed by his disciples; and, 3) the subsequent history, both ancient and modern, demonstrates violence against Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and even other Muslims.
I am sure Salman Rusdie feels much better, now that you have pointed out that Shias make up only 10 per cent of the Muslim population of the world. Did the man merely flee from the Ayotallah of Iran, or does he have a legitimate fear, wherever he chooses to live?
I find it interesting that you attack me for not going to the primary sources for my information, then direct us to the North American Fiqh Council, then close the paragraph by saying "[t]he process is just illogical." If you cannot see the problem here, I am afraid we are done.
I have always admitted that most Muslims are not consistent with Mohammed's teaching, and so are able to live peaceful and productive lives. And I am glad that is so. But that does not change the reality of the religion. The fact that most American Catholics tolerate contraception does not mean Catholicism teaches the same thing.
-
A fallacy...[ad nauseum ].......clipped to save bandwidth.....
Golly gee, Robert! I can use Latin too!
My God, I guess you really must be an IT consultant/developer/whatever. Are you out of work right now? Got all day to put together posts that rival franksolich's for length? :rotf:
You just can't leave it alone, can you?
You're a one-trick pony, determined to show the world that you can cut and paste right out of the Latin Dictionary for Dummies.
Congratulations, sport!
Here's what it boils down to:
- Salaam comes onto web sites like this one, searching for anything that has to do with "Muslims".
- Salaam finds what he thinks is a "fallacy" or an "ad hominem attack" or xenophobia or any number of perceived outrages against his religion, and then launches into mega-reams of information all designed to do one thing -
Sell Islam. Oh, and the hot air that emanates from Sir Salaam himself, of course.
Only problem is, I don't see anybody here with their checkbook out.
Do you, Salaam?
-
Actually, Eupher, I invited the good Sgt here.
-
Actually, Eupher, I invited the good Sgt here.
Congratulations. I guess you're the one, then.
-
Actually, Eupher, I invited the good Sgt here.
Why?
-
Indeed, why? The words get more sophisticated but the melody remains the same.
-
He's been a member for a long time, so I'm assuming the invite was made then.
-
In fairness to Salaam, he is a former Marine who, by all accounts, served honorably. Kudos to him for that.
For those who might not be all that familiar with usmilnet, SgtSalaam, his screen name there, has inundated the site with reams of verbose comments and opinions which both expose his conversion from Christianity to Islam shortly after 9/11 (WTF?) and his impressive (and some would argue, fallacious) foray into that religion.
Clearly, Salaam finds a certain measure of happiness and fulfillment being a Muslim, if we can believe his voluminous writings.
He does indeed make strident attempts to "educate" the masses about his new-found religion and how wonderful he's found it to be. He takes great umbrage at those who distrust Islam (like me), who question its tenets and tendencies toward violence (like many who have witnessed crimes done in its name), and who scoff at his attempts to convince infidels that mainstream Islam has fallen all over itself condemning the radical elements (like me, et. al.).
For me, it's absolutely clear that Salaam (who pops in and out of various web forums such as this one) feels that it's his personal mission to rectify the wrongs that he sees perpetrated against his religion. So he spends massive amounts of time and effort fighting off those perceived wrongs and illustrating his own concepts about what Islam is.
Salaam even initiated a radio program for awhile, in which he interviewed others on the subject of Islam. Of course, his central purpose is to "educate the masses" and illustrate just how harmless and good Islam is.
He's not afraid of tough subjects, and I applaud him for that. He's tenacious, as we've seen, and he's wonderfully human. Flawed, as we all are. He's young and ambitious, and he wastes no time in extolling his own virtues and how he's been "transformed" by his new-found religion. Lots and lots of words. All. The. Time.
It's also clear that his concepts don't square with others'. And that's when the "discussions" start.
Above all, discourse is, of course, the reason that many of us hang out here. I come here to learn some things as well, and I'm not afraid to admit I've learned a few things from Salaam.
But learning is not accepting. And I do not, in any way, shape or form, accept Islam as the "religion of peace and harmony." Far from it. We Americans have seen more of us die at the hands of those who claim to be Muslims than any other entity (other than accidents, disease, etc.).
I will not be told that the sky is purple when I can clearly see that it's blue.
-
Eupher (saw) sums it up well.
-
Eupher, very well said my friend. I really like the part about learning not being the same as accepting. Goes right along with tolerance. Tolerence isn't acceptance either. It also doesn't mean laying down and allowing that which is harmful to flourish.
-
How about this. A larger percentage of Muslims have the desire to force their religion and beliefs than do do any other religions. Almost every terrorist act in the world involves the "Religion of Peace"TM. In nearly every country that is in turmoil involves Muslims.
I'm going to half-way agree on point 1. I believe most Muslims don't really care what others believe, but we don't like to be told what we believe either, especially when we know it's not true. However, a good majority do desire to see others become Muslim (I'm not one of them), but that is perfectly normal for any religion. Did Jesus (as) not give the parable of the woman who lost her earring, jewelry, (depends on translation)? Same thing.
On point 2 minus your "Religion...." veiled insult, I agree. The majority of terrorist claim to be Muslims.
On point 3 I'm going half way on that one, because there's a lot of crap going on in South America, Africa, South East Asia, etc. that has nothing to do with Muslims. However, in a total worldwide survey, "Muslim" countries rank high in the group.
That is not what I said, and you know it. Once again, you are being dishonest.
You are supposed to believe that Islam is violent because: 1) it's authoritative texts encourage violence; 2) its founder practiced violence against both Jews and Christians, and he held himself up as an example to be followed by his disciples; and, 3) the subsequent history, both ancient and modern, demonstrates violence against Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and even other Muslims.
1) That's a lie. There is nothing in the Qur'an or Sahih Hadith that ever in the context of "violence" encourage wanton fighting for no reason at all or terrorist activities. On the contrary, everytime the word "Jihad" is mentioned in the Qur'an it's followed by the word sabr which means patience. The Qur'an makes it pretty clear that the only time fighting is allowed is for self-defense against attack or oppression. It clearly states that regardless of the reason, if the one fighting you stops and extends the hand of peace you have to do so as well. On innocent lives, the Qur'an makes it clear that the taking of one life is like the taking of all humanity. This is the largest spread lie. Even Robert Spencer the hero to some of you, purposely skip over verses in his "exposes" that state that fighting is prescribed for you only in self defense, and to turn away from fighting if the enemy extends the hand of peace, because Allah loves not the starter of aggression.
2) It's "founders" fought against Pagans (not Christians) who burned Muslims at the stake, made assassination attempts, and beat Muslims in the street, raised armies and slaughtered thousands of Muslims. Now if your beef is with fighting back against people like that, well there's nothing to discuss. Now the only "fight" with the "Jews" occurred in Medina with "a" Jewish clan who swore a treaty with the Muslims and betrayed the treaty to help the Pagan Armies. And that was a one time incident. Now as far as the Qur'an commanding Muslims to fight Jews and Christians, that is not true, they are "The People of the Book" and counted as believers. In fact, the Qur'an is the only religious text of the 3 (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) that specifically states that non-Muslims and Jews and Christians in particular will go to heaven whether or not they become Muslims at all. The Qur'an goes a step further with Christians calling among them some of the most righteous and pious. As it relates to the actions of Muslim rulers after the passing of Muhammad (saw), that's a long rollercoaster ride through history among them you had some pious and fair rulers and some ruthless, the same can be said of any culture, empire, nation, etc. Theologically speaking though, the Qur'an clearly states in Surah Bakarah that there is to be no compulsion in religion and in Surah Kaffirun that to me be my beliefs and to you yours. Lastly, in the last sermon of Muhammad (saw) he clearly stated that Muslims are to be equitable in all things as well as dealing with non-Muslims, and that there is no superiority between the black or white, Arab or non-Arab. All Sahih Bukhari, Muslim, and others.
3) Well, I think that's a glass half full argument as each one of the aforementioned religious groups have also done the exact same things to each other and Muslims. Hell in India the Hindus are actively attacking both Muslims and Christians, and the Buddhists in Thailand are slaughtering Muslims, today. So if we want to be fair, let's not look at history in a way that makes one's history whitewashed and another's picked apart in a pot and kettle type fashion. The real question is not what people have done over time and under what banner, but whether or not theologically speaking their actions match that of their official doctrines and writings. In the case of all of the above, there is little evidence to say yes overall. In the case of Islam, I can cite specific letters from Caliphs that direct the generals to not commit many of the acts that many of you claim are in fact Islamic. I would say the acts are human as it's not uncommon in history for humans to do awful things to one another and use religion, ideology, politics, etc. as an excuse for the inexcusable.
I am sure Salman Rusdie feels much better, now that you have pointed out that Shias make up only 10 per cent of the Muslim population of the world. Did the man merely flee from the Ayotallah of Iran, or does he have a legitimate fear, wherever he chooses to live?
Mr. Rushdie's fear is real. No one is denying that. I never said there aren't lunatics who want to kill people just because they don't believe or agree with their interpretation and/or beliefs about Islam. What I disagree with is people using those lunatics as a model for what I believe and interpret as my religion. Two different things. The Rushdie incident was cited as an example of how Muslims believe and behave as well as citing the Ayahtollah of Shia Iran as an example of a leader of all Muslims in proclaiming religious edicts. That's not categorically true, because his following in not large enough in the overall Muslim population to make that statement, because of his location and sect, which the overwhelming majority of Muslims just aren't a part of. To add fuel to the fire, even then, various areas in the Muslim world adhere to various interpretations or Tafsir, so to be closer to the truth as to what Muslims believe about Islam, especially Sunni's you would first have to find out what Fiqh they follow i.e. Malaki, Hanifi, etc. etc. whether they are Sufi, Ishmaeli, Ahmaddiyyah, etc. etc. these answers can skew the argument a number of ways for instance a Sunni of the Malaki tradition may see things Islamically different than a Hanifi, then you have sects like the Wahabs of Saudi Arabia who many don't agree with outside of Saudi. In other words, the broad sweeping generalizations that many of you make about Muslims and how they interpret the Qur'an is akin to stating that all Christians believe in Baptism, without noting the fact that what they believe about Baptism can change from sect to sect, such as sprinkling vs full immersion for instance. May seem simple to some, but to others, volumes have been written on said topics.
I find it interesting that you attack me for not going to the primary sources for my information, then direct us to the North American Fiqh Council, then close the paragraph by saying "[t]he process is just illogical." If you cannot see the problem here, I am afraid we are done.
You have it wrong. What I was referring to as illogical is telling American Muslims what they believe based on the declaration of an Iranian cleric. We have our own fiqh council. If you want to know how American Muslims view Islam then that's most likely where we get out guidance. Outside of that, the next best thing is to go to the broader fiqh councils and Sunni institutions like Al-Azhar for instance. Case in point, when France made their religious iconography ruling, Muslims in France didn't turn to scholars in America, Egypt, etc. for guidance on how they should react, they went to the Fiqh council in France and Europe, who unanimously agreed that it's perfectly fine to obey the French law and remove headscarves. While some in other countries disagreed, it didn't matter because they don't influence French Muslims, the French Council does. When the woman in Florida wanted to wear a Niqab at the DMV for her photo and went to court, the Prosecutor went and sought out the religious scholars in Florida and do to their testimony the woman lost the case. Because the accurately pointed out that the Niqab (face covering) is not an Islamic requirement at all.
I have always admitted that most Muslims are not consistent with Mohammed's teaching, and so are able to live peaceful and productive lives. And I am glad that is so. But that does not change the reality of the religion. The fact that most American Catholics tolerate contraception does not mean Catholicism teaches the same thing.
Well I'm Sunni (one who follows the Sunnah) and I live my life in accordance with those teachings as well as every Sunni I know or have met. I just happen to believe through experience, practice, faith, and worship, that you are sadly mistaken and to be perfectly honest, unless any of my religious leaders, scholars, councils, etc. say otherwise, what non-Muslims and terrorists state won't change that one bit. You know what you believe and I know what I believe, I wouldn't expect you to accept what I tell you that you "actually" believe anymore than you should expect me to accept what you tell me about what I "actually" believe. You have religious leaders as do I, I defer to their guidance and Gods Grace and Mercy.
Here's what it boils down to:
- Salaam comes onto web sites like this one, searching for anything that has to do with "Muslims".
- Salaam finds what he thinks is a "fallacy" or an "ad hominem attack" or xenophobia or any number of perceived outrages against his religion, and then launches into mega-reams of information all designed to do one thing -
Sell Islam. Oh, and the hot air that emanates from Sir Salaam himself, of course.
Only problem is, I don't see anybody here with their checkbook out.
Do you, Salaam?
The only problem in your diatribe is that it's lacking meaningful logic.
In order for me to point out fallacies or one in particular ad hominem one has to first direct something at me. What's the odd's that there are even posts dedicated just to me.
The truth is much easier as it's been pointed out. I was invited as I was to every other board because I'm mostly Conservative in my political views (at least that's what I think) others have told me in the past that it's because I have a diverse opinion (I think), but either way, if one was to catalog all my postings ever on Islam/Muslims it has always been in response to something negative that someone else has said, or to condemn/give my opinion to something a Muslim has done in the news.
The crazy and insane part I will never understand about you is that you actually pretend to be shocked and disgusted that I would have the "nerve" to respond to attacks and commentary against my religion.
It's as if you guys expect me to just sit here and take it. Well guess what, you may not like it, but this is my religion that I practice everyday of my life for the last almost 9 years now. It's the religion of my wife, friends, children etc. when I come to a msgboard for entertainment or to shoot the breeze about politics and/or current events, and then read some of the things you guys write about my religion, naturally I'm going to respond.
If the shoe was on the other foot you would do the same exact thing. If you saw day in and day out negativity spewed by others about the things you believe in and the things you value, you would respond.
So excuse me if I'm not buying the fake outrage and condemnation spewed by some of you at the thought that I dare confront those who insult the things I value.
And that's not limited to religion. I have been on left-leaning boards where "blame America" and making jokes about the military where the theme of the day and have just as vigorously debated those topics as well. I have been on atheist leaning boards who have nothing but bad to say about Christians and have vigorously debated those topics as well.
Excuse the hell out of me for having a positive opinion as it relates to my beliefs.
And no need to give crap to Thor either, he openly disagrees with me just like some of you do, I have even posted his comments on my blog, even though I disagree with some of those remarks the difference is, you can disagree with respect without being disagreeable. And most who know of me, met me in person, chat on the phone, or listened to my show, will admit that I respect different opinions and admit when I'm wrong. I'm very fair, some of you just insult and name call, and anyone who doesn't agree with you, you have to label.
P.S.
As I was posting the above, Eupher made the "In all fairness" comment. So rather than go back and edit all these words, suffice to say Euph, no harm no foul, I think we are on the same page for the most part regarding the "history".
To clear up one main theme of yours and others, I do not feel it's my mission to educate non-Muslims. I really don't care what you believe in the end. I want to destroy those who harm, kill, and murder in the name of my religion. To that effect I see as my "mission" to use whatever abilities I have to thwart terrorist propaganda by presenting Islam as I know it and to take them to task on their divergent views. Like I told both Walid Shoebat and Brad Thor on a radio program long ago, our missions are similar and we should work together, however if working together means I have to accept you lumping my beliefs in with those of terrorists, I will debate that point.
And another thing, I type so much because I'm a talker and I'm bored. When I'm busy which often happens in spurts, you won't see me post for weeks, but sometimes like recently I don't have much on the schedule so this is what I do to pass time, don't we all.
I happen to be drawn to Conservative sites, because I think that for what it's worth you guys tend to have a better grip on the "situation" as it applies to the world. I may disagree on some notable points (like this one), but overall, it's better by volumes than what you would get from the liberal sites, which I can't stomach. As noted above and others can verify, I'm way more Conservative than liberal and would say that I'm more moderate than anything.
I enjoy fair debate, point and counterpoint, and in the end, it's all in good fun. Even though I wager some of you would hate my guts from postings on a msgboard, as I have proven time and time again, I would treat you guys like family if we ever met, that's just the way I was raised. Fight hard and play hard.
Oh and I'm not on a self-promotion binge Euph, like you said "no checks", on this site or others and I pay out of my pocket and with my time all the things I do, the real question is why?
It's really simple if asked. I can't sit idlely by. When I first converted I was initially content, just being me, reading, studying, praying, etc. But as I kept seeing terrorist acts and my leaders acting what I consider to be "soft" in their responses, I immediately got into lead, follow, or get out the way mode. Based on the way I was raised and always having an ability for speaking, teaching, etc. mainly of the ministerial tradition, I decided to use whatever talents and faculties I have to do something which is better than nothing. So if write something calling for Hama's head on a platter that's something to me. If I help organize local Muslims to help the homeless or speak out against domestic violence, that's something. And in between both my private and public work, raising a large family, my only "entertainment" if you will is msgboards, reading, and the Xbox 360. It's either that or go back to my life of sin many moons ago when I backslid so much I thought my grandparents were going to kill me. :)
Maybe it's just me.
-
Quite a large ammount of explaining, defending and circlejerking for the "Religion of Peace".
Why is that? Why is it necessary?
-
Just caught this in all the chaff that's been tossed up in this thread.
BS! I don't have to deny anything, my record bears witness of me. Not to mention my DD214, SF86, etc. etc. etc.
Your record as far as I'm concerned is in the crap you spew in here. And as far as I'm concerned...with the way you're trying to shove Islam down our throat...you pissed on your DD214 a long time ago when you decided is was just grand to take up a religion that today is supporting and promoting the killing of mraines in Iraq and Afghanistan.
You want to make outlandish claims and assertions about my service and/or loyalty to my country, be man enough to provide evidence to back up those claims,
As I said above you whizzed on your "service" with your conversion and as far as your "loyalty to your country"...that's in doubt to me as well considering you're now part of a cult that demands loyalty to a religion over your country.
For someone who claims not to be part of the "radical" part of Islam you sure do spend a lot of time focusing on Dawa (proselytizing) about how much better Islam is than any Western Religion.
or man up and apologize.
You've got a better chance of Chesty Puller rising from his grave.
-
Quite a large ammount of explaining, defending and circlejerking for the "Religion of Peace".
Why is that? Why is it necessary?
*ahem*
Groups that focus on Dawa (proselytizing) rather than politics to spread their radical Islamic ideology, also known as Salafists and Wahhabists, may not necessarily be violent (therefore not terrorists) but present their own security risks. Their goal is to Islamicize Muslim minorities in Western countries to relieve them of their “oppression†and “brainwashing†at the hands of non-Muslims. To fight this cultural jihad these radical Islamists target areas of society that are most vulnerable to ideological manipulation. They recruit followers in prisons, through the internet with propaganda, and in mosques, the center for Muslim political and religious activity. These groups reject any “heretical†cultural and secular influences on Muslim society such as the equality of men and women in public life, private autonomy, and freedom of speech, which to them constitutes a threat to pure Islam.
They are intolerant of criticism, and Muslims who decide to leave Islam are branded as apostates who should be executed, while the right of non-Muslims to convert to Islam at the same time is celebrated and promoted. Non-Muslims, especially Jews, are painted as scapegoats for Muslim and Islamist failures as well as for contaminating Islam. Non-Muslims are frequently discriminated against and treated as second class citizens. In the Islamist view everything would be based on Sharia law, with regulations on clothing, personal hygiene, eating habits, appearance, and the relationships between men and women. They also encourage the creation of autonomous isolated Sharia-run legal areas, whose goal is to undermine Western society from within.
http://www.radicalislam.org/campaign/radical-islam/why
-
Sounds about right.
-
Quite a large ammount of explaining, defending and circlejerking for the "Religion of Peace".
Why is that? Why is it necessary?
...because all us eeeeevil infidels are always attacking those poor, peaceful Muslims. Yeah, that must be it. :whatever:
-
Just remember, Christianity had it's "dark" days. Fortunately, we grew out of it.
I would appreciate that y'all keep the 1st Amendment in mind. While I, too, question Salaam's motives for conversion to Islam, he has the RIGHT to believe as he does. I would appreciate that y'all argue your points against Islam and NOT couch your replies to Salaam with prejudice and personal attacks. There have been/ are plenty of Muslims that have served/ are serving honorably in the US Military.
Salaam knows that I don't care for Islam, but I respect him, his service and his beliefs.
-
Your record as far as I'm concerned is in the crap you spew in here. And as far as I'm concerned...with the way you're trying to shove Islam down our throat...you pissed on your DD214 a long time ago when you decided is was just grand to take up a religion that today is supporting and promoting the killing of mraines in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Well for what it's worth, I earned my Sgt stripes and other after I converted to Islam and served honorably for several more years until being discharged with dogtags that said "Muslim" and continued Govt service even until today. Your opinion means little as it relates to the facts. I guess you know better than those who promoted me, did my background checks, etc. Guess it's really no use debating with one so infinitely superior to those who allow me to serve.
As I said above you whizzed on your "service" with your conversion and as far as your "loyalty to your country"...that's in doubt to me as well considering you're now part of a cult that demands loyalty to a religion over your country.
If you say so, but for the record in PI we would always say God, Country, Corps in that order and that's when my dogtags said "Christian", I wasn't aware that Christians today put their Country first before Jesus (as) that's a new development....
For someone who claims not to be part of the "radical" part of Islam you sure do spend a lot of time focusing on Dawa (proselytizing) about how much better Islam is than any Western Religion.
You've got a better chance of Chesty Puller rising from his grave.
Wow, talk about tinfoil hats! :thatsright: :mental: Now I'm being accused of Dawa, here is another word to make you feel like you know something and have something else to allege "Tabligh" which is about the same as Dawa.
BTW, oh great knowledgeable one, in order for me to be engaged in such I would have to be telling you why your religion is wrong and asking you to join mine. I have never done such in 9 years. Why are we back to making false claims?
What's even worse is now your comparing me to Salaf's and Wahhabbis (pretty much the same thing if you actually knew what you were talking about), that little blurb and accusation pretty much proves that your just reaching, looking for as much mud as you can sling at me.
Even one who just knew the very basics about their beliefs, would know that their is no way I could be associated with them. My views alone let alone the way I live put me outside their ideology. The mere fact that I speak to you guys put me outside their group! Hell, the mere fact that I work for the govt, awww nevermind, it's way too obvious you don't know what your talking about on that front.
...because all us eeeeevil infidels are always attacking those poor, peaceful Muslims. Yeah, that must be it. :whatever:
Call it a morbid curiosity, but why must people continue to put words in my mouth and allege things about me that's not true?
I mean seriously, aren't most of you way older than me?
-
...
Call it a morbid curiosity, but why must people continue to put words in my mouth and allege things about me that's not true?
...
Address the point directly and it won't be necessary.
-
Just remember, Christianity had it's "dark" days. Fortunately, we grew out of it.
I would appreciate that y'all keep the 1st Amendment in mind. While I, too, question Salaam's motives for conversion to Islam, he has the RIGHT to believe as he does. I would appreciate that y'all argue your points against Islam and NOT couch your replies to Salaam with prejudice and personal attacks. There have been/ are plenty of Muslims that have served/ are serving honorably in the US Military.
Salaam knows that I don't care for Islam, but I respect him, his service and his beliefs.
Never said he didn't. But at the same time I dont't want/need/appreciate him coming here and trying to shove Islam down my throat.
-
Consider how Christians are treated in a primarly (or solely) Islamic country vs. how Muslims are treated in a Christian country.
Bit of a difference.
-
Consider how Christians are treated in a primarly (or solely) Islamic country vs. how Muslims are treated in a Christian country.
Bit of a difference.
They are treated like second class citizens. Just ask the Chaldean Catholics in Iraq.
-
Consider how Christians are treated in a primarly (or solely) Islamic country vs. how Muslims are treated in a Christian country.
Bit of a difference.
They are treated like second class citizens. Just ask the Chaldean Catholics in Iraq.
I won't argue that fact. I'm pretty much against Islam. In fact, I believe that Christians, Jews, and Non-believers are called "kuffirs" in Arabic, meaning we/they equate to "cattle".
-
They are treated like second class citizens. Just ask the Chaldean Catholics in Iraq.
That's if their lucky and not persecuted/killed outright.
-
*ahem*
http://www.radicalislam.org/campaign/radical-islam/why
Now, dammit, I wanted HIM to answer that! :hammer:
-
Address the point directly and it won't be necessary.
What point? Talk about some circular BS.
I came in this thread initially and stated that I don't agree that Obama called this country a Muslim Nation. I gave my argument, presented facts to back up my claim. And instead of you guys doing the same in return, all I got was questions about my service, integrity, and stabs at my religion!
Never said he didn't. But at the same time I dont't want/need/appreciate him coming here and trying to shove Islam down my throat.
But that's not what happened lets state the facts for a change. I did not come in this or other threads talking about the virtues of Islam. Nor trying to get any of you to convert. I gave my opinion about Obama's statement and when comments were made against my religion which wasn't relevant to the topic btw, I responded in turn. If you don't want to hear about Islam, why not ask your fellow posters no to mention it, because I definitely didn't bring it up first, so don't play the I came in here shoving Islam game, that's not an accurate representation of the facts.
Consider how Christians are treated in a primarly (or solely) Islamic country vs. how Muslims are treated in a Christian country.
Bit of a difference.
Your absolutely right. It sucks, it isn't right, and I hope that changes, but how is that relevant to the topic other than to sling a little more mud?
They are treated like second class citizens. Just ask the Chaldean Catholics in Iraq.
Again correct, I for one advocate the lifting of all bans and ill treatment so much as arguing that non-Muslims (particularly Christians and Jews) be allowed to openly visit in Saudi Arabia (not a popular opinion btw). But it's still not relevant to the topic.
In fact, I believe that Christians, Jews, and Non-believers are called "kuffirs" in Arabic, meaning we/they equate to "cattle".
Not so. Just because extremists and terrorists say so, doesn't change what the Arabic in the Qur'an actually states. Kuffar means "one who denies" as in the truth or simply a non-believer. As used in the Qur'an it's applied solely to Pagans, Polytheists, and Atheists. Jews and Christians are called ahl al-kitab or "people of the book" meaning they have received revelation from God and are among the believers, which is why the Qur'an states:
Ø¥Ùنَّ الَّذÙينَ آمَنÙواْ وَالَّذÙينَ هَادÙواْ وَالنَّصَارَى وَالصَّابÙئÙينَ مَنْ آمَنَ بÙاللَّه٠وَالْيَوْم٠الآخÙر٠وَعَمÙÙ„ÙŽ صَالÙØاً ÙÙŽÙ„ÙŽÙ‡Ùمْ أَجْرÙÙ‡Ùمْ عÙندَ رَبّÙÙ‡Ùمْ وَلاَ خَوْÙÙŒ عَلَيْهÙمْ وَلاَ Ù‡Ùمْ ÙŠÙŽØْزَنÙونَ (2:62)
VERILY, those who have attained to faith in this revelation (i.e. Muslims emphasis mine), as well as those who follow the Jewish faith, and the Christians, and the Sabians -all who believe in God and the Last Day and do righteous deeds-shall have their reward with their Sustainer; and no fear need they have, and neither shall they grieve.
-
What point? Talk about some circular BS.
I came in this thread initially and stated that I don't agree that Obama called this country a Muslim Nation. I gave my argument, presented facts to back up my claim. And instead of you guys doing the same in return, all I got was questions about my service, integrity, and stabs at my religion!
But that's not what happened lets state the facts for a change. I did not come in this or other threads talking about the virtues of Islam. Nor trying to get any of you to convert. I gave my opinion about Obama's statement and when comments were made against my religion which wasn't relevant to the topic btw, I responded in turn. If you don't want to hear about Islam, why not ask your fellow posters no to mention it, because I definitely didn't bring it up first, so don't play the I came in here shoving Islam game, that's not an accurate representation of the facts.
Your absolutely right. It sucks, it isn't right, and I hope that changes, but how is that relevant to the topic other than to sling a little more mud?
Again correct, I for one advocate the lifting of all bans and ill treatment so much as arguing that non-Muslims (particularly Christians and Jews) be allowed to openly visit in Saudi Arabia (not a popular opinion btw). But it's still not relevant to the topic.
Not so. Just because extremists and terrorists say so, doesn't change what the Arabic in the Qur'an actually states. Kuffar means "one who denies" as in the truth or simply a non-believer. As used in the Qur'an it's applied solely to Pagans, Polytheists, and Atheists. Jews and Christians are called ahl al-kitab or "people of the book" meaning they have received revelation from God and are among the believers, which is why the Qur'an states:
Ø¥Ùنَّ الَّذÙينَ آمَنÙواْ وَالَّذÙينَ هَادÙواْ وَالنَّصَارَى وَالصَّابÙئÙينَ مَنْ آمَنَ بÙاللَّه٠وَالْيَوْم٠الآخÙر٠وَعَمÙÙ„ÙŽ صَالÙØاً ÙÙŽÙ„ÙŽÙ‡Ùمْ أَجْرÙÙ‡Ùمْ عÙندَ رَبّÙÙ‡Ùمْ وَلاَ خَوْÙÙŒ عَلَيْهÙمْ وَلاَ Ù‡Ùمْ ÙŠÙŽØْزَنÙونَ (2:62)
VERILY, those who have attained to faith in this revelation (i.e. Muslims emphasis mine), as well as those who follow the Jewish faith, and the Christians, and the Sabians -all who believe in God and the Last Day and do righteous deeds-shall have their reward with their Sustainer; and no fear need they have, and neither shall they grieve.
"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)
"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme." (Surah 8:36-)
-
and
Qur'an 8:30-- Remember how the unbelievers plotted against you (Muhammad). They plotted, and Allah too had arranged a plot; but Allah is the best schemer.
Qur'an 47:4 "So, when you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity (free them) or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam."
among many other quotes. Makes it difficult to trust in the Muslim's words, doesn't it?
-
Wow. That Muhammad sounds like a nice guy, doesn't he?
Funny, I don't remember the New Testament saying ANYTHING like that tripe.
-
"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)
"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme." (Surah 8:36-)
I was wondering how long before we played this game! :) :rotf: I can do it too!
When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you. Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes†(Deuteronomy 20:10-17)
Do not think that I have come to send peace on earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law (Matthew 10:34-35)
We can do this all day! :-)
Now for the truth....Let's see what happens when we look up the same verses from an actual Qur'an that has translation notes and context....
5:51 O YOU who have attained to faith! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for your allies: they are but allies of one another [72] and whoever of you allies himself with them becomes, verily, one of them; behold, God does not guide such evildoers. [73]
Note 72 (Quran Ref: 5:51 )
According to most of the commentators (e.g., Tabari), this means that each of these two communities extends genuine friendship only to its own adherents-i.e., the Jews to the Jews, and ,the Christians to the Christians-and cannot, therefore, be expected to be really friendly towards the followers of the Qur'an. See also 8:73, and the corresponding note.
Note 73 (Quran Ref: 5:51 )
Lit., "the evildoing folk": i.e., those who deliberately sin in this respect. As regards the meaning of the "alliance" referred to here, see 3:28, and more particularly 4:139 and the corresponding note, which explains the reference to a believer's loss of his moral identity if he imitates the way of life of, or-in Qur'anic terminology-"allies himself" with, non-Muslims. However, as has been made abundantly clear in 60:7-9 (and implied in verse 57 of this surah), this prohibition of a "moral alliance" with non-Muslims does not constitute an injunction against normal, friendly relations with such of them as are well-disposed towards Muslims. It should be borne in mind that the term wali has several shades of meaning: "ally", "friend", "helper", "protector", etc. The choice of the particular term - and sometimes a -combination of two terms-is always dependent on the context.
Now if one was to actually go and read the verses mentioned in the notes, they would see the context, and see like I said previously concerning the topic about Muslims, Jews, and Christians, that this verse and similar is not a theological injunction that forbids Muslims from being friends, partners, etc. with Jews and Christians, but is a historical injunction based on a particular situation when treaties were broken. Furthermore as I would challenge any actual person knowledgeable of Islam and wanted to take the opinion that this was in fact a theological injunction, I would ask them why is it also said in the Qu'ran that Christians are nearest in friendship to Muslims, declare the Jews were chosen by God, and make it permissible to eat Kosher and marry Christians and Jews because they too are believers?
Other deliberately cherry picked and taken out of context verses posted....
8:30 AND [remember, O Prophet,] how those who were bent on denying the truth were scheming against thee, in order to restrain thee [from preaching], or to slay thee, or to drive thee away: thus have they [always] schemed: [30] but God brought their scheming to nought-for God is above all schemers.
Note 30 (Quran Ref: 8:30 )
While the first sentence of this verse is a reference to the persecution to which the Prophet and his followers had been exposed in Mecca before their exodus to Medina, this concluding passage points to the ever-recurring fact of man's religious history that those who deny the truth of divine revelation are always intent on rendering its preachers powerless or destroying them, either physically or, figuratively, through ridicule.
47:4 NOW WHEN you meet [in war] those who are bent on denying the truth, [4] smite their necks until you overcome them fully, and then tighten their bonds; [5] but thereafter [set them free,] either by an act of grace or against ransom, so that the burden of war may be lifted: [6] thus [shall it be]. And [know that] had God so willed, He could indeed punish them [Himself]; but [He wills you to struggle] so as to test you [all] by means of one another. [7] And as for those who are slain in God’s cause, never will He let their deeds go to waste.
Note 4 (Quran Ref: 47:4 )
Sc., "and on barring [others] from the path of God" - thus connecting with verse 1 and laying down the fundamental condition which alone justifies physical warfare: namely, a defense of the Faith and of freedom (cf. in this connection see note 167 on 2:190). In other words, when "those who are bent on denying the truth" try to deprive the Muslims of their social and political liberty and thus to make it impossible for them to live in accordance with the principles of their faith, a just war (jihad) becomes allowable and, more than that, a duty. The whole of the above verse relates to war actually in progress (cf. note 168 on the first part of 2:191); and there is no doubt that it was revealed after 22:39-40, the earliest Quranic reference to physical warfare.
Note 5 (Quran Ref: 47:4 )
Lit., "tighten the bond". According to almost all the commentators, this expression denotes the taking of prisoners of war. In addition, it may also refer to any sanctions or safeguards which would make it unlikely that the aggression could be resumed in the foreseeable future.
Note 6 (Quran Ref: 47:4 )
Lit., "so that (hatta) the war may lay down its burdens". The term "ransom" comprises also, in this context, a mutual exchange of prisoners of war (Zamakhshari , quoting an opinion of Imam Ash-Shafi’i)
Note 7 (Quran Ref: 47:4 )
I.e., so as to enable the believers to prove by actual deeds the depth of their faith and their readiness for self-sacrifice, and to enable the aggressors to realize how wrong they have been, and thus to bring them closer to the truth.
Makes it difficult to trust in the Muslim's words, doesn't it?
Or maybe the one's with trust issues should be those who deliberately cherry pick out of a religious text they are not familiar with?
Peter3_1 in all honesty, your well versed in the Bible. Those verses I posted from the Bible from Matthew and Deuteronomy were examples of what you guys are doing with the Qur'an. You know just like I do that I posted them out of context and without a proper exegesis that doesn't take into account the original language, context, history, or ecclesiastical tradition of the religion(s). Knowing for a fact that Christians do not interpret the verse in Matthew as I posted and Jews and Christians the one from Deuteronomy,
Why do you think it's logical to believe that's the case with Muslims and Islam? Why a different standard?
-
Here's why I don't like Islam...
Who has committed heinous acts of mass murder or terrorism (during my lifetime) ?
Muslims.
http://islam-watch.org/MA_Khan/IncessantTerrorism.htm
that doesn't include 1972, 1979, 1983, 1993, 2001 and on to current. (Those are just major examples)
-
Salaam has struck again! :rotf:
The adage "taking comments/text/scripture out of context" is a problem not just for politicians, but also for those who are arguing the writings in the Quran and scripture in the Holy Bible.
Based on your famous logic, Salaam, as stated here:
I posted them [Bible scripture and Quran text) out of context and without a proper exegesis that doesn't take into account the original language, context, history, or ecclesiastical tradition of the religion(s). Knowing for a fact that Christians do not interpret the verse in Matthew as I posted and Jews and Christians the one from Deuteronomy,
Why do you think it's logical to believe that's the case with Muslims and Islam? Why a different standard?
Why wouldn't I think that the Spin Doctors who "explained" your Quran text are just as ate up in their conclusions as you're trying to make Peter look ridiculous?
Why are Peter's PLAIN TEXT QUOTES unworthy of interpretation just as they stand? Why is the Quran cloaked in double-speak and innuendo? Why is it necessary to have a freakin' LEXICON at your elbow when you try to read that stuff?
Hell, Mohammed wrote the book 500 years after Christ walked the earth. You'd think he would've learned not to write like the Apostle John! or even like the prophet Isaiah! :lmao:
-
Salaam has struck again! :rotf:
The adage "taking comments/text/scripture out of context" is a problem not just for politicians, but also for those who are arguing the writings in the Quran and scripture in the Holy Bible.
Based on your famous logic, Salaam, as stated here:
Why wouldn't I think that the Spin Doctors who "explained" your Quran text are just as ate up in their conclusions as you're trying to make Peter look ridiculous?
Why are Peter's PLAIN TEXT QUOTES unworthy of interpretation just as they stand? Why is the Quran cloaked in double-speak and innuendo? Why is it necessary to have a freakin' LEXICON at your elbow when you try to read that stuff?
Hell, Mohammed wrote the book 500 years after Christ walked the earth. You'd think he would've learned not to write like the Apostle John! or even like the prophet Isaiah! :lmao:
technically, mohammed did not write down any of his stuff.
-
I was wondering how long before we played this game! :) :rotf: I can do it too!
When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you. Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes†(Deuteronomy 20:10-17)
Do not think that I have come to send peace on earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law (Matthew 10:34-35)
The Deuteronomy passage is the Lord's instructions to Israel as they were about to conquer the promised land. As such, it pertains to a single moment in history. In the actual event, the people of Canaan initiated hostilities. They were not innocent victims of it. More importantly, no Christian, as far as I know, has ever suggested that the Deuteronomy passage prescribes behavior after that moment in history.
The Matthew passage speaks of a figurative sword, namely, the gospel itself. The point of the passage is that the gospel creates divisions among people. (Thus, Salaam has now, sadly, divided himself from the one true God.) The Matthew passage is not saying that the gospel incites violence, merely that it divides some people from other people.
Salaam has proven he can distort the Bible. Great. But that does not prove that the Quran has been misinterpreted.
Now contrast both of the Bible passages with the Quran and the Hadith. (Salaam keeps forgetting the Hadith. Why is that?) Muslims, beginning with Mohammad himself, who insisted he was setting an example to be followed, have used literal swords against their enemies, throughout history.
One more thing needs to be said about the Islamic passages that purport to be about using violence in purely "defensive" situations. For fundamentalist Muslims, virtually any situation can call for the "defense" of Islam. Muslims are a universally aggrieved people. Are Americans in Saudi Arabia? They are polluting the land of the sacred cities of Mecca and Medina by their presence; therefore, death to the infidel. The Muslim killer of Private Long in Arkansas said he was defending Muslim men and women. Salman Rushdie criticized the Quran, so he must die. Christians and Jews are alleged to be apostates from Islam, so they are worthy of death or abject subjugation, unless they convert. And on and on it goes. The whole world will be awash in blood, until the whole world bows the knee to a false god.
-
I was wondering how long before we played this game! :) :rotf: I can do it too!
Lessee here, who quoted the Koran first. ::)
-
well:
2. And those who believe and do good works and believe in that which is revealed unto Muhammad - and it is the truth from their Lord - He riddeth them of their ill-deeds and improveth their state.
3. That is because those who disbelieve follow falsehood and because those who believe follow the truth from their Lord. Thus Allah coineth their similitudes for mankind.
4. Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.
in context Pickthall interpretation, less harsh than others.
It is from SURAH 47, you may read it complete here:
http://www.geocities.com/askress2009/quran/pickthall/surah47.html
It is only one page, and easy, if awkward, reading.
BTW, I already know the response from the good Sgt.., will tell you in private do we don't influence him, if you want.
-
well:
2. And those who believe and do good works and believe in that which is revealed unto Muhammad - and it is the truth from their Lord - He riddeth them of their ill-deeds and improveth their state.
3. That is because those who disbelieve follow falsehood and because those who believe follow the truth from their Lord. Thus Allah coineth their similitudes for mankind.
4. Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.
in context Pickthall interpretation, less harsh than others.
It is from SURAH 47, you may read it complete here:
http://www.geocities.com/askress2009/quran/pickthall/surah47.html
It is only one page, and easy, if awkward, reading.
BTW, I already know the response from the good Sgt.., will tell you in private do we don't influence him, if you want.
You fail to realize the Koran, and the Torah, for that matter, is read in the original language as poetry. It dosn't translate well.
-
Hell, the Christian Bible was written mainly in Aramaic. It, also, doesn't translate well. Then, it was translated to Greek, then Latin, then Old English, then to the King's English, then to American. I may have overlooked a translation or two. I guess that's why Muslims speak Arabic, so there won't be anything lost in translation, which, actually makes some sort of sense.
-
I won't argue that fact. I'm pretty much against Islam. In fact, I believe that Christians, Jews, and Non-believers are called "kuffirs" in Arabic, meaning we/they equate to "cattle".
That's pretty horrible. I'm always fascinated to hear about Christians or Jews in those countries though because I know it must be tough. I'm not sure if many of them actually want to leave, but it would be nice if more of them could leave and go to countries like ours or Israel.
-
I'm not sure if many of them actually want to leave, but it would be nice if more of them could leave and go to countries like ours or Israel.
Please tell me you said that as a joke? Tell me...how many happy Jews do you think there are in Iran today? Or Iraq? That are so content with there treatment in those countries that they WANT to stay?
-
Please tell me you said that as a joke? Tell me...how many happy Jews do you think there are in Iran today? Or Iraq? That are so content with there treatment in those countries that they WANT to stay?
Although I'm certain that they are not "happy", you should be aware that Iraq has had (until Saddam) a significant Jewish minority that dates back to the Babylonian captivity, just before the construction of the "second Temple" in Jerusalem........After Saddam came to power, the Mossad organized a massive underground effort to expatriate them to Israel, which was largely successful. Should Iraq develop into a religiously tolerant democracy, many would return, I suspect, as their roots remain........
Iran of course, is a different story.......
doc
-
Yes, Dutch, that's the response I have reard over and over and over......and I reject the argument. Think it out to its' logical end, if you will. The extention is, of course, nothing written in another language ot time can be understood unless you live it.
Thll me, "The Three Musketeers" , is that understandable to you? The first writing was in 17th Century French.
-
Yes, Dutch, that's the response I have read over and over and over......and I reject the argument. Think it out to its' logical end, if you will. The extension is, of course, nothing written in another language ot time can be understood unless you live it.
Thll me, "The Three Musketeers" , is that understandable to you? The first writing was in 17th Century French.
Apples and hand-grenades.
Is Beowulf readable and understandable? Is Shakespeare?
You analogy is flawed, BTW. Alexander Dumas wrote in French, but not in a poetic style. In fact, for the time it was a risk he took, and it payed off. Of course, the French revolution and the opening on new ideas assisted with his books taking off as they did.
Read the sagas of Island and tell me the translation of Islandic to English language works. It does not. The meter is all out of joint. It is hard to read and translates poorly.
Poetry was used as a mnemonic devise in cultures that had low literacy levels. Celts, Ancient Norway, Iceland, the Ancient Hebrews, Arabs of the first century etc etc etc... The storytellers were the TV of the time, and told stories to entertain.
In the early years of the jewish faith, the priests sang the Torah to the people. I am not sure but I would assume the same for islam.
The books are poetry.
They don't translate well into English.
Now- on to TV Doc. You know that Abraham, father of the Jews, was from Ur. Ur is in southern Iraq. I visited the city with my Iraqi troops in mid 2005. The Iraqi Colonel that went with me was very proud of the site. He and I had many long discussions about religion while I was there. He was very devout and Sunni.
While the home of Abraham is in Iraq, the home of Israel is Jerusalem. People won't be leaving there to move back to Ur. Something about the promised land, you know.
There were a few jewish people left in Iraq. Many had moved over the years, and more did after Saddam embraced is inner-muslim. There are very very few in Iran, for obvious reasons.
-
This Nation is not Muslim..Its Christian...although after the first Gulf War and after Americas Military dropped to last place.. America has become more Musilm.
-
Dutch, your explanation is untenable. You are paroting what you have been told. I respectfully disagree, unless you offer an interpretation that is of the quality idf, say, the 23rd Psalm:
The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures:
he leadeth me beside the still waters. Rev. 7.17
3 He restoreth my soul:
he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.
4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil: for thou art with me;
thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies:
thou anointest my head with oil;
my cup runneth over.
6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life:
and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.
Failing that, your argument is , sorry to say , as far as I am concerned, piffle.
-
Dutch, your explanation is untenable. You are paroting what you have been told. I respectfully disagree, unless you offer an interpretation that is of the quality idf, say, the 23rd Psalm:
(http://www.christusrex.org/www1/pater/apostolides/greek-ancient.jpg)
can you read Greek? That's what the new testament was written in.
The New Testament was not written in poetic format, BTW.
The context of the prayer in Matthew is as part of a discourse deploring people who pray simply for the purpose of being seen to pray. Matthew describes Jesus as instructing people to pray after the manner of this prayer. Taking into account the prayer's structure, flow of subject matter and emphases, one interpretation of the Lord's Prayer is as a guideline on how to pray rather than something to be learned and repeated by rote. There are other interpretations suggesting that the prayer was intended as a specific prayer to be used. The New Testament reports Jesus and the disciples praying on several occasions; but as it never describes them actually using this prayer, it is uncertain how important it was originally viewed as being.
There are similarities between the Lord's Prayer and both Biblical and post-Biblical material in Jewish prayer especially Kiddushin 81a (Babylonian).[23] "Hallowed be thy name" is reflected in the Kaddish. "Lead us not into sin" is echoed in the "morning blessings" of Jewish prayer. A blessing said by some Jewish communities after the evening Shema includes a phrase quite similar to the opening of the Lord's Prayer.
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAEIrp4MFBE[/youtube]
sung in Aramaic
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xATHvC8DRKk[/youtube]
Spoken in Greek.
A passage from the Koran as spoken in a Mosque:
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYNgGyUV0Ko[/youtube]
As I said. The Koran and the Torah were meant to be sung and are poetic in form.
Don't take my word for it. Look it up
-
Actually, there is an easy way for people to determine which passages in the Bible are poetry.
If you pick up a modern version of the Bible, like the New International Version, poetry will be indented, like so:
Psalm 23
A psalm of David.
1 The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want.
2 He makes me lie down in green pastures,
he leads me beside quiet waters,
3 he restores my soul.
He guides me in paths of righteousness
for his name's sake.
4 Even though I walk
through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil,
for you are with me;
your rod and your staff,
they comfort me.
5 You prepare a table before me
in the presence of my enemies.
You anoint my head with oil;
my cup overflows.
6 Surely goodness and love will follow me
all the days of my life,
and I will dwell in the house of the LORD
forever.
Prose passages will not be indented. For example:
1 There was a certain man from Ramathaim, a Zuphite from the hill country of Ephraim, whose name was Elkanah son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephraimite. 2 He had two wives; one was called Hannah and the other Peninnah. Peninnah had children, but Hannah had none.
There is some scholarly disagreement about which Bible passages are poetry and which are not, but not much.