Suicide in the name of Religion

[Resigned]

The no religious test mandate covers that...compulsion for an individual to remain silent in the name of so-called freedom from religion infringes upon that person's First Amendment rights. If congress enacted a law abridging freedom of religion or freedom of speech, even of a government official, it would be Unconstitutional. (This would certainly include prohibiting a person taking the oath of office from mentioning God, as this would constitute a religious test, which would violate the 3rd clause of Article 6 of the Constitution, which you quoted earlier, but I will quote again

Article 6 of the US Constitution, in its entirety:
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.​

You're not understanding it. The government is to remain silent on religious matters.

Think it through - the governments mandate to provide freedom from compulsory religious belief is itself compulsory? Does that really make any sense?

 

[Dream]

You're not understanding it. The government is to remain silent on religious matters.

Think it through - the governments mandate to provide freedom from compulsory religious belief is itself compulsory? Does that really make any sense?

While it is impossible to safeguard 'No religious compulsion' forever just by writing it down, having the idea of no religious compulsion written into the constitution makes a very big difference. It carries you most of the way. It is always going to change depending upon who enforces it, but a lot less than it would change otherwise.

 

[seattlegal]

You're not understanding it. The government is to remain silent on religious matters.

The Constitution clearly states:

First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

This clearly names Congress (not the nebulous term, "Government,") as being prohibited from making laws regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Think it through - the governments mandate to provide freedom from compulsory religious belief is itself compulsory? Does that really make any sense?

That is not what the Constitution says.

Think this through:

Article 6, 2nd clause

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.​

The Constitution, not stuff that you make up, is the supreme law of the land.

Article 6, continuing on to the 3rd clause:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.​

If you militantly enforce "freedom from religion," then what would there be to bind those taking the oath of office to uphold the Constitution? Any oath personally binding upon the individual would have to be according their own personal, individual beliefs. Therefore, no religious test, (including one promoting "freedom from religion") can be required, otherwise it could invalidate their personally (not governmentally) binding oath. (Be sure to click on the handy link for a definition of oath if you are still confused.)

 

[Resigned]

The Constitution clearly states:

First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

This clearly names Congress (not the nebulous term, "Government,") as being prohibited from making laws regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...


That is not what the Constitution says.

Think this through:

Article 6, 2nd clause

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.​

The Constitution, not stuff that you make up, is the supreme law of the land.

Article 6, continuing on to the 3rd clause:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.​

If you militantly enforce "freedom from religion," then what would there be to bind those taking the oath of office to uphold the Constitution? Any oath personally binding upon the individual would have to be according their own personal, individual beliefs. Therefore, no religious test, (including one promoting "freedom from religion") can be required, otherwise it could invalidate their personally (not governmentally) binding oath. (Be sure to click on the handy link for a definition of oath if you are still confused.)

I don’t know how else to explain it to you. You have some notion that something is being “militantly enforced” and you’re not identifying what that is. I think you believe that Congress not requiring a religious test is somehow discriminatory although I really can't make heads nor tales out of what it is your arguing.

Try this:

A.)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]There is no religious test for an elected representative. That is, a representative cannot be required to pass a test (let’s suppose that in order to pass the test, one would have to be a Lutheran). That is not allowed.
B.)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Members of the government (the Senate, for example), can be any religion they want. That’s exampled as you can do a search and discover for yourself that members of the Senate represent many different religions. There is no requirement (no test) that any member of the Senate be of a particular religious persuasion.

There is just no rational nexus to make the case that Congress not requiring someone to embrace a religious faith is discriminatory.

I don’t know what else I can do to make it clearer.

 

[seattlegal]

I don’t know how else to explain it to you. You have some notion that something is being “militantly enforced” and you’re not identifying what that is. I think you believe that Congress not requiring a religious test is somehow discriminatory although I really can't make heads nor tales out of what it is your arguing.

I've identified it repeatedly. Once again:
The militant enforcement of the slogan "freedom from religion" being used as a tool to silence any form of religious speech when taking the oath of office would constitute a "religious test."

Try this:
A.)There is no religious test for an elected representative. That is, a representative cannot be required to pass a test (let’s suppose that in order to pass the test, one would have to be a Lutheran). That is not allowed.

Very good.

B.)Members of the government (the Senate, for example), can be any religion they want. That’s exampled as you can do a search and discover for yourself that members of the Senate represent many different religions. There is no requirement (no test) that any member of the Senate be of a particular religious persuasion.

Very good.

There is just no rational nexus to make the case that Congress not requiring someone to embrace a religious faith is discriminatory.

That is not the same as enforcing "freedom from religion."

I don’t know what else I can do to make it clearer.

Dropping the "freedom from religion" slogan would be quite helpful. Not only is it nowhere to be found in the Constitution, it's often employed by militant secularists. (Not to be confused with militant agnostics, whose slogan would be:

Thanks to Path_of_one for posting this bumper sticker here

 

[Resigned]

I've identified it repeatedly. Once again:
The militant enforcement of the slogan "freedom from religion" being used as a tool to silence any form of religious speech when taking the oath of office would constitute a "religious test."

Thanks to Path_of_one for posting this bumper sticker here

I’m going to drop this. The “militant” something or other you’re going on about as a tool to silence religion is irrelevant to what the Constitution requires and doesn’t make any sense.

Also, the cutting and pasting (cross posting) of banner slogans is little more than spamming.

 

[seattlegal]

I’m going to drop this. The “militant” something or other you’re going on about as a tool to silence religion is irrelevant to what the Constitution requires and doesn’t make any sense.

Also, the cutting and pasting (cross posting) of banner slogans is little more than spamming.

Oh, you mean it's OK for you to spam the thread with slogans, but no one else can? I see...

 

[Resigned]

As we saw this past week in Iraq, the phenomenon of female splodeydopes, while not new, is an effective tool for settling a score.

A study published in 2006 finds that some women may believe they become saints for the “cleansing” act of mass murder / suicide. For some strange reason, perhaps something to do with the earth’s magnetic field, there is a peculiar confluence of splodeydopes and splodeydope enablers and abettors in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.

At any rate, The holy warriors™ in Iraq continue to demonstrate their dedication to providing stability and security to the people of Iraq. Although, when you’re not the right kind of Moslem…


Study: Female suicide bombers seek atonement

Study: Female suicide bombers seek atonement - Israel News, Ynetnews


Main motivation for women to carry out suicide attacks is to repent for past sins, new study reveals; women bombers are beneficial to terror groups - they receive greater media coverage, cause more deaths


Ahiya Raved

Women carry out suicide bombings with the aim of “cleansing” themselves and erasing their past, a study published Tuesday by Haifa University reveals.


Research conducted by Professor Mia Bloom of the University of Cincinnati, found that female terrorists throughout the world have chosen to do so in order to atone for sins or wrongdoings by one of their families members.



Bloom presented her findings at a Haifa convention in conjunction with the center for national security, where she said there is a connection between all incidents where a woman is involved in a suicide attack.



One was caught after committing adultery, while another's father has involved. By carrying out suicide attacks, their pasts are forgotten and the women become saints, she explained.

 

[Muslimwoman]

The description (a black sack), is accurate.

You put me in a very difficult position here, my usual response to such an intentional insult is to simply ignore the poster but that would allow your Islamophobia to stand unchecked ... hmmm.

That is quite a revealing admission, although it’s obvious you qualify it. We’ll get to that later, though.

Read some of my posts about the KSA and Taliban, I neither support nor excuse their dreadful behaviour or their oppression of women .. however I do follow my faith and dress accordingly.

What we do see are moslems’ one sided claims to entitlements and demands for special treatment. We see demands for the allowance of religious symbols in secular school systems.

As we see with Sikhs, Christians, Jews, Coloured people, gay people to mention but a few but of course it seems it can only be wrong when Muslims do it.

Yet, we are barraged with charges of bigotry and racism™ when we reject such conditions as “honor” killings, misogynistic treatment of women and an all-consuming politico-religious ideology that Moslems believe must be imposed on all.

and can you please show me where honor killings are permissable in the Quran or Sunnah? When I have time I will find a thread from a year or so back where we discussed the "Islamification" of such issues as FGM and honor killing ... they are not Islamic, are not limited to Muslims but yes some Muslims are guilty of doing it.

Why is it that moslems believe that the conditions that propelled Western civilization to the top of the heap should be scrapped and the conditions that cause poverty, ignorance and ethnic and religious hatreds be put in place?

First of all you assume that you are on the top of the heap .. many nations around the globe would disagree quite strongly with that statement.

If you are talking about financial wealth then consider how Western countries made their wealth .. largely on the backs of colonialism and slaves .. and now you want to crow about human rights!!

We continue to tolerate brazen moslem claims to entitlement, one-sided criticism of our policies, moslem apathy and inaction regarding Islamic terror and totalitarianism around the world, and arrogant refusal to conform to democratic norms.

and you don't feel it is in any way arrogant to demand that all other nations conform to your vision of democratic norms?

Well actually, there’s a lot of debate about that. Whether or not being covered with only a slit for the eyes being a religious invocation is not universally accepted. Unless of course you live in one of those islamist paradises such as those ruled by the Taliban where it is a requirement.

The word you are looking for is fard (requirement) and none of the 4 schools state that covering the face is a religious requirement, it is a religious choice for most Muslim women but yes a demand of patriachal societies for some.

Although it is interesting to ponder how many women in such locales as the KSA would choose not to wear their protective gear if given the choice.

Actually, no one I know has ever suggested that women in an Islamic society are secretly dying to behave as you claim.

The answer is to look at somewhere like Egypt. The population is over 90% Muslim and there are no laws for how women should dress. Muslim women here range from niqab (fully covered except the eyes) to jeans/skirt and a tight tshirt with no hijab (hair cover) .. and yes they are still Muslim. They do not remain seperate, you can see friends in the street all mingling no matter how they dress .. oh and you can see niqabi's with Christians too.

In third world backwaters such as Pakistan’s tribal areas, North Africa, the Sudan and many parts of the Middle East, stonings, FGM, female infanticide, slavery and subjugation of women is the norm. Women are often treated as little more than human chattel in these locations.

You are absolutely correct and shame on the men for doing it. It does go on in Muslim and non-Muslim areas of the third world.

Interesting to note that in Western countries men can just tap their credit card details into a computer and "buy" a bride from the Far East.

We could get into the utterly chilling lack of ethics and morality that is evoked by the treatment of women in the Middle East

and yet I am one of them and you still insist on telling me how I am treated .. listening or asking questions rather than stating may assist the discussion.

What I believe is reality is that the sack is a symbol of gender apartheid and oppression imposed upon women within a male dominated and controlled society.

So who do you believe makes me wear my outer clothing?

Beyond the terror and segregation factors of the burqa, I firmly believe that forcing a woman into making herself look like an amorphous, black mound of cloth is misogynistic and degrading.

and we believe that using a bikini clad woman to sell power tools, cars or peanuts is degrading.

Also, I find myself able to look upon a beautiful woman with appreciation, and yes attraction, without worrying about Satan getting into my pants and forcing me to act like a Neanderthal.

Now we get to the real issue ... I DO NOT want a man to look at me with appreciation or attraction, any beauty I have I keep for my husband and it is my right to do so.

Can that not be done by moslem men?

Muslim men have a dress code too and are just as required as Muslim women to lower their gaze (ie not look upon with appreciation or attraction).

Well, hold on a minute, A short while ago, you were lecturing us regarding: “when in rome do as the romans do”.You demand an entitlement to dress as you wish while at the same time you demand an entitlement to flaunt the laws of the host nation. How about a little consistency in your argumentation?

My view still stands. In the KSA women are required by law to cover themselves and in the west women are free to dress as they please (as long as they don't expose their breasts or genitals) .... except it seems when it comes to a code of dress they decide they don't like. So if Rome is the KSA then cover up and if it's the west be free to dress as you like.

I’m actually perfectly fine with the banning of overt religious symbols in schools, for example.

and why should Muslim schools in these countries be banned from wearing hijab .. what do you believe is the purpose?

It seems you demand perfection on the part of the U.S. yet you excuse the excesses of the totalitarian theocracies that are so pervasive in the islamist Middle East.

First of all you have already stated that you are "the top of the heap", if we imagine for a moment that you are correct then there is a degree of responsibility that comes with that. Let us take for an example the issue of capital punishment .. I have said it before and I will say it again, I would rather have my head chopped off cleanly in the KSA than be fried for 10 minutes in an electric chair in the US. If you are going to try to hold people up to your standards then I believe it is your duty to get your own country in order first.

Secondly if you read some of my posts you will see that I am highly critical of regimes such as the KSA and Taliban. What I do object to is this common practice of assuming that all Muslims, even a majority of Muslims, agree with, support or even follow their views.

How do you reconcile the ascendancy of the West and liberal democracy, largely being shaped around the principles of equal rights, personal freedoms and personal responsibility vs. Islamic majority nations that are and based upon the principles of derision, learned hatreds for non-moslems and promotion of fear societies?

I don't recocile them but I do know that I am much more likely to be raped, robbed or murdered in the West than I am here. If keeping the population in a state of fear is needed to ensure that level of safety then I am all for it.

Speaking for myself only, I’ll accept the occasional eccentric abuse of law. I’ll let the justice system address those occasional inequities without the inequitable imposition of a religious fatwa issued by a mullah for life or the decree of a totalitarian Autocrat.

and yet you will not do the same for ME countries .. how strange. They also have courts that deal with thousands of cases every day, they never make the press in the US of course because they are not sensational.

You are aware, are you not, that a fatwa is simply an opinion and is not binding on anyone?!

What you are unwilling to address are the millions of cases adjudicated every year under the principles of equal justice in the west which do, overwhelmingly, render justice and equity.

et tu, Brute!!

You do not understand what I was writing. Regarding the slogan that that “there is no compulsion in religion”, that’s utterly false.

To all Muslims that "slogan" as you call it is the Word of Allah.

In the islamist world, there certainly is compulsion in religion. It’s demonstrated in laws that enforce religious affiliation (Islam is the State religion), and it’s manifested in the myriad inequities that are applied to non-moslems.

Ok I think we can agree that murder is illegal in your country, right? Your law states that murder is a punishable offence and people are prohibited from murdering. So can you explain to me why people are still being murdered in the US every day? There is a clear instruction not to murder, so is the US responsible for each murder that takes place within it's borders?

What you carefully and purposefully left out of your claim is that Islamic governments typically prohibit the free exercise of belief in a competing religious faith. You made every effort to avoid addressing that component of the overt restrictions that are placed on non-moslems in moslem lands™

erm did you just trade mark the term moslem lands

I have never tried to duck that issue and had you spoken to me before you would be perfectly aware of it, as I have spoken at length on this forum about the issue.

However, deciding that "come one, come all" is right for your country does not mean that the rest of the world is duty bound to agree with you. I believe you have been arguing quite vigorously for the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state .. how is that compatible with your expressed opinions here?

Bad idea. A few of the Koranic verses condoning slavery[FONT=&quot]:[/FONT]

According to records the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) and his close companions freed nearly 40,000 slaves between them and that was in the 7th century .. why would he do that if slavery was condoned? Simply he would not, so therefore a quick dip into a book you clearly fail to understand is not enough to give you an understanding of the subject or what Islam says about it.

There is an entire chapter of Bukhari devoted to the manumission of slaves .. surely that was when Red Indians were hunting buffalo in America?!

Slaves were also given incredible rights in Islam, to be fed and clothed in the same manner as their master, not to be beaten and if a slave was given an arduous tak the master was to help him ... did we ever see that in the enlightened democratic US of A?

Slavery was legal in the K.S.A. and Yemen as late as 1962. Do a search using the terms “slavery” and “Mauritania” – see what you find.

Wasn't 1962 the year of the Mississippi race riots .. you're not making a very good case for your countries enlightened democracy here.

That said two wrongs never make a right but you know the saying about people in glass houses.

That seems fair. As punishment for someone for making a considered choice about their religious belief, islamist governments declare them insane.

I didn't say it was fair or that I agree with it, I was suggesting that it is a move in the right direction with courts trying to find a way out of the traditional punishment.

The fact that other totalitarian ideologies (Communism, Nazism, Stalinism), have failed

Yet Islam has been around for 1400 years and is not only going strong but growing daily.

 

[Netti-Netti]

As we saw this past week in Iraq, the phenomenon of female splodeydopes, while not new, is an effective tool for settling a score.

A study published in 2006 finds that some women may believe they become saints for the “cleansing” act of mass murder / suicide.

How many?

Study: Female suicide bombers seek atonement

Study: Female suicide bombers seek atonement - Israel News, Ynetnews "Main motivation for women to carry out suicide attacks is to repent for past sins, new study reveals"

Where's the study?

I commend you on your effort to find some actual data. But where's the study ?

 

[seattlegal]

How many?



Where's the study?

I commend you on your effort to find some actual data. But where's the study ?

I tried searching Prof. Mia M Bloom on Google Scholar, and got 10,800 results! (I'm not sure which study Resigned is referring to.) She has also written books on the subject, one being called Dying to Kill.
Got it down to 36 returns, here.

 

[Muslimwoman]

The only external of islam we have is moslems. I have every right to judge islam by the actions of moslems.

In that case yanks are all badly dressed, loud mouthed bigots that like to run around the world causing havoc, blowing sh*t up and torturing people in illegal prisons!!

Hmmm hardly seems fair does it?!

Was it not Theodore Roosevelt (an American President I do believe) who said:

I suppose I should be ashamed to say that I take the Western view of the Indian. I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth. The most vicious cowboy has more moral principle than the average Indian. Turn three hundred low families of New York into New Jersey, support them for fifty years in vicious idleness, and you will have some idea of what the Indians are. Reckless, revengeful, fiendishly cruel, they rob and murder, not the cowboys who can take care of themselves, but the defenseless, lone settlers on the plains.

from the book Race: The history of an idea in America by Thomas Gossett.

Islam is only 1300 years old, and behaves precisely like a 1300 year old religion has been known to behave. Christianity and Judaism were violent religious entities when they were 1300 years old too. Still too throttled by childish superstitions and “us vs. them” mentalities.

Agreed.

Islam is at that “Be As Us Or Die”, phase.

I disagree with you. Islam is at a morphing stage, particularly as it is growning so quickly outside the Arab world and what is vital now is how the remainder of the world treats it .. if it continues to back Islam into a corner (like the issues of Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Islamic dress for women, etc) then it is going to halt the process. Just look at Iraq, womens rights have been drastically curtailed since the invasion and interference of the West, yet prior to the war Iraq had the most rights and freedoms for women within the ME. When you back conservative thinking into a corner it simply becomes harder and retracts further.

The world needs to stop stating what Islam believes and starting trying to educate itself. As I said before, Bush had to ask AFTER the invasion of Iraq what Sunni and Shia were ... any small child in the ME could have told you what would happen between the sects if you took out Saddam's regime.

The current "Islamic" violence is caused by that natural process of change, the ultra-right are fighting to stop change and yes they are afraid of it. However the "free worlds" constant batering, propaganda, false representation and attacks on Islam and the ME are not helping in any way shape or form, quite the opposite they are giving the hard liners exactly the ammunition they need to justify their insane actions.

I’ve noticed that you have carefully avoided that fact that Arab newspapers frequently have run cartoons of, for example, Jews as vampires drinking the blood of children, or almost freakishly anti-Jewish cartoons that portray anyone of the faith as a murderer or criminal of the worst kind.

I can hardly avoid something that has not been brought up in this conversation. You forgot to mention the Jihadist Mickey Mouse ... I have condemned that on this forum before so won't bother again.

There is absolutely no doubt about the level of hatred toward the Jewish nation here and whilst there are some Muslim/Jewish organisations working toward interfaith dialogue (not nearly enough though) the issue of Israel is a thorn in everyone's side and continuously reminds people why they have to 'hate Jews'. Until that issue is resolved it will be impossible to deal with the inbred hatred for Jews here and unfortunately that is a political issue rather than a religious one.

Let’s not pretend that the vacant young arab/moslem minds are not indoctrinated with the anti-American and anti-Western propaganda that is a part of the Friday clerical diatribes convincing you that your every pratfall and every ill that befalls the Arab/Moslem world is the fault of the Great Satan™.

You were almost sounding quite reasonable until now.

Of course. It’s always someone else’s fault.

When they choose to import terrorists and insist they have a right to free speech then YES it is their fault. Nobody in the ME or Muslim world asked them to go to the UK.

The guardian.co.uk has published a really good article about the various goings-on in the U.K. and its increasingly contentious relations with Moslem clerics, Imams and other hate preachers.

The Guardian has also published plenty of good articles about the Muslim projects in the UK that work to oust extremism, integrate Muslim immigrants into British society and work with authorities to help them better understand the Muslim mind. They also reported the sotry of the Muslim family that turned their son and his friends in to the police because they were planning to fly to Pakistan to train as Jihadists. Also Shalom/Salam radio, the station run by Muslims and Jews to try to educate the young that Jews and Muslims have so much in common.

Seems you only like to read one side of the coin.

This latest fiasco centers around a documentary produced by Channel 4 entitled “Undercover Mosque”. The program depicts the really vile promotion of hatred for infidels that is orchestrated by Islamic preachers. The inner workings of the Green Lane Mosque are showcased for the dangers that they present to the U.K.

These are the very mosques I was talking about, funded by the Wahabbi's.

This is just one more examination of what should be a dose of bracing sobriety for anyone not yet acquainted with the Religion of Peace's struggle with freedom and modernity.

Female suicide-bomber kills 40 pilgrims in Iraq

From the news story .. "in the most fatal militant attack on Shiite pilgrims" .. you are aware that Shiites are Muslims aren't you and that this 'racial' hatred is centuries old and was kept in check by Saddams regime prior to the invasion on Iraq by the West?

And this one article is your answer to the "daily" attacks of Muslims against the non-Muslim world?

They are only piously following islamic precepts from the koran and the hadith. The same as the ghoulish holy warriors™ sawing off the heads of kuffar caught on moslem lands. Read the book.

Excuse me while I stop laughing. I do read the book ... daily ... which is why I know it says no such thing. Perhaps you should read it and I don't mean selective verses on propagandist websites.

Because it’s true.

What a jolly grown up answer ... or non answer to be fair. If I am going to take the time to answer your questions then at least have the decency to do the same or bow out of the discussion.

My question was: How can you accept that it is everything to do with enforcing culture and opinions and calling it Islam and then say Islam is to blame for this?

Odd don’t you think that these startling brutal acts that we’re told “have nothing to do with islam” occur with virtual exclusivity in Islamic nations.

Try googling the word NEWS, it's amazing what you can find out.

You need not come to me making excuses for Islam’s adherents, Wahabbi or otherwise.

You asked me where I thought this radical element comes from and when I answer you this is the best you can come up with ... sounds more like you hate all Muslims and will happily bury your head in the sand if anyone offers information that may mean you have to educate yourself to the subject you are discussing or question whether your bigotry is warranted against an entire group of people for the acts of a small minority within that group.


As for the "unhinged hyperreligious ranting" .. I shall take just one of your examples:

Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah. Whoever says this will save his property and his life from me." —Sahih Bukhari 84.59

Firstly you need to know that this hadith is in Bukhari's book of Belief and not in the book of jihad. That immediately tells us that it is not an instruction to randomly kill people in the name of religion.

Secondly to understand this in context you have to read the tafsir, which clearly states that it is talking about fighters and not civilians (ie opposing armies). The property it is talking about is war booty. The Prophet was commanded to fight those who fight him but if they declare shahada then stop fighting them, as that is the statement of belief and it is not permitted to fight other Muslims. If they do not make the statement of belief then continue to fight them until you win the war.

Education is the key to knowledge.

 

[Resigned]

You put me in a very difficult position here, my usual response to such an intentional insult is to simply ignore the poster but that would allow your Islamophobia to stand unchecked ... hmmm.

Using silly slogans such as Islamophobia™ is not going to help you, I’m afraid. These are subjective opinions and observations that are not unwarranted.

Read some of my posts about the KSA and Taliban, I neither support nor excuse their dreadful behaviour or their oppression of women .. however I do follow my faith and dress accordingly.

Your claim to following your faith is but one interpretation of your faith. If the Taliban and the KSA are following a more literal interpretation of the faith, maybe it’s you who is wrong.

As we see with Sikhs, Christians, Jews, Coloured people, gay people to mention but a few but of course it seems it can only be wrong when Muslims do it.

Well no. I don’t see any of the above mentioned groups (even them-there “coloured folk”), as making demands of school systems for special accommodation for their religious beliefs.

and can you please show me where honor killings are permissable in the Quran or Sunnah? When I have time I will find a thread from a year or so back where we discussed the "Islamification" of such issues as FGM and honor killing ... they are not Islamic, are not limited to Muslims but yes some Muslims are guilty of doing it.

You’re preaching to the choir. I can’t be held responsible for interpretation of tales and fables written in a book that I don’t use to shape my worldview. As we see with regularity, interpretation of these ancient relics is entirely subjective and open to the whims of the interpreter.

I will note, however, that the practices you describe: FGM and honor killingare closely associated with one politico-religious ideology. Just a coincidence?

First of all you assume that you are on the top of the heap .. many nations around the globe would disagree quite strongly with that statement.

If you are talking about financial wealth then consider how Western countries made their wealth .. largely on the backs of colonialism and slaves .. and now you want to crow about human rights!!

Slogans are not going to help you here, either. The advancements were sparked by the

History has shown that Islam was passed by as the Renaissance, the European enlightenment, and finally the scientific-technological revolution, all predicated on free thought and open debate, allowed the West to surge ahead and forge new avenues of social, political and economic advances.

The embracing of the scientific method, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment is what shaped Western culture and allowed the advances we see today.


Wallowing in self pity will not cure what ails the islamist Middle East.

and you don't feel it is in any way arrogant to demand that all other nations conform to your vision of democratic norms?

It’s not arrogant at all although I concede I could have used “human-focused” to replace “democratic”. Although clearly, the West must address brazen moslem claims to entitlement, one-sided criticism of our policies, moslem apathy and inaction regarding Islamic terror and totalitarianism around the world.

The reasons are self evident. In the islamist world, drop one person one vote into these societies - allow free access to the process for political parties, and with virtual certainty, you'll get bearded savages like al-sadre in Iraq, for example, bullying the votes and gaining power. Before you know it, they'll sweep away the progress that otherwise might have taken hold. Why? Because for generations, with only brief periods of anything different, they've been ruled by despots, have no aversion to unconstitutional changes of government, and believe to the core of their being in their Islamist creed which means submission. Not only will they gladly submit to a theocratic state, but they'll positively rush out and make it happen.

The word you are looking for is fard (requirement) and none of the 4 schools state that covering the face is a religious requirement, it is a religious choice for most Muslim women but yes a demand of patriachal societies for some.

Actually, the word I was looking for was compulsion. And let’s be honest, I know of now reliable data that would support your claim that a religious choice is the motivation for the head to toe covering.

The answer is to look at somewhere like Egypt. The population is over 90% Muslim and there are no laws for how women should dress. Muslim women here range from niqab (fully covered except the eyes) to jeans/skirt and a tight tshirt with no hijab (hair cover) .. and yes they are still Muslim. They do not remain seperate, you can see friends in the street all mingling no matter how they dress .. oh and you can see niqabi's with Christians too.

I guess those Christian Copts in Egypt have it all wrong. They’re not persecuted; they just need to understand the implications of living in an islamist majority state.

On the other hand, we can look at such lovely environs as the KSA, Pakistan, etc., where those heathens of competing religions need to get their backsides out of town.

You are absolutely correct and shame on the men for doing it. It does go on in Muslim and non-Muslim areas of the third world.

Interesting to note that in Western countries men can just tap their credit card details into a computer and "buy" a bride from the Far East.

Actually, no. The mail-order bride thing is much more complicated than that. I know someone who has spent 11 months trying to obtain U.S. citizenship for his Brazilian wife.

Unfortunately, I do concede that we in the West are at a disadvantage to moslem men who can take four wives. Although that privilege is not granted to women. What a shame. In any event, we Westerners are green with envy over that lovely Hudood Ordinance thing. It’s a get-out-of-seventh-century-jail free card in the form of an entitlement to murder a female family member to preserve the family “honor”. Lovely!

and yet I am one of them and you still insist on telling me how I am treated .. listening or asking questions rather than stating may assist the discussion.

Yes, you are one person who seems to have a self appointed entitlement to speak on behalf of moslem women.

So who do you believe makes me wear my outer clothing?

I have no way of knowing. Although it’s obvious and evident that in much of the islamist world, the choice of outer clothing is not a choice at all.

and we believe that using a bikini clad woman to sell power tools, cars or peanuts is degrading.

Then don’t do it. A woman using their physical attributes to sell a product is their choice. Although in a real sense, it’s no different than an athlete using his physical attributes to sell his services. They both have a limited time within which to exploit those attributes. They both are trading a marketable asset for a paycheck. They both can earn respectable incomes (for as long as their physical attributes are valuable), so they trade a good for a service.

I see your point, though. The woman can only be respected if she is in her room, in her hijab. “Uncovered meat”, anyone?

Now we get to the real issue ... I DO NOT want a man to look at me with appreciation or attraction, any beauty I have I keep for my husband and it is my right to do so.

That’s fine. That should also apply to all Middle Eastern women. Would that apply to your husbands three other wives?

Muslim men have a dress code too and are just as required as Muslim women to lower their gaze (ie not look upon with appreciation or attraction).

That’s true. In such places as Iran, you can get yourself on the wrong side of the law for sporting a “Western style” haircut. Maybe the politico-religious ideology controlling every aspect of ones’ life take on a… how shall we say… totalitarian proportions by enforcing such frivolous things.

I couldn’t live in an ant colony. But that’s just me.

My view still stands. In the KSA women are required by law to cover themselves and in the west women are free to dress as they please (as long as they don't expose their breasts or genitals) .... except it seems when it comes to a code of dress they decide they don't like. So if Rome is the KSA then cover up and if it's the west be free to dress as you like.

and why should Muslim schools in these countries be banned from wearing hijab .. what do you believe is the purpose?

I’m not aware that private moslem schools are restricted as to hijab. Public schools are a different matter. Public (State supported), schools are by definition secular institutions and certainly should be free from any endorsement of religious symbols.

First of all you have already stated that you are "the top of the heap", if we imagine for a moment that you are correct then there is a degree of responsibility that comes with that. Let us take for an example the issue of capital punishment .. I have said it before and I will say it again, I would rather have my head chopped off cleanly in the KSA than be fried for 10 minutes in an electric chair in the US. If you are going to try to hold people up to your standards then I believe it is your duty to get your own country in order first.

Secondly if you read some of my posts you will see that I am highly critical of regimes such as the KSA and Taliban. What I do object to is this common practice of assuming that all Muslims, even a majority of Muslims, agree with, support or even follow their views.

Your preferred method of execution has no connection with the U.S. “getting our own country in order first”. That doesn’t make any sense.

 

[Resigned]

I don't recocile them but I do know that I am much more likely to be raped, robbed or murdered in the West than I am here. If keeping the population in a state of fear is needed to ensure that level of safety then I am all for it.

How do you know that you are much more likely to be raped, robbed or murdered in the West than elsewhere?

and yet you will not do the same for ME countries .. how strange. They also have courts that deal with thousands of cases every day, they never make the press in the US of course because they are not sensational.

You are aware, are you not, that a fatwa is simply an opinion and is not binding on anyone?!

Let’s be honest. Religious fatwas’ can be the impetus for peaceful inner strugglers to go hunting humans in observance of the fatwa. Did you ever hear of Salman Rushdie as one example?

et tu, Brute!!

A sidestep, but OK.

To all Muslims that "slogan" as you call it is the Word of Allah.

Here’s some startling news for the ummah: that slogan was penned by the religions inventor who claimed a source for it.

Ok I think we can agree that murder is illegal in your country, right? Your law states that murder is a punishable offence and people are prohibited from murdering. So can you explain to me why people are still being murdered in the US every day? There is a clear instruction not to murder, so is the US responsible for each murder that takes place within it's borders?

You’re hoping to side-step the question. In the KSA, for example, it’s reported that 100% of the population is Islamic. Are you really going to assert that every member of that society is Islamic by choice?

erm did you just trade mark the term moslem lands

Yes, and I grant you a license to use it. You can declare Spain as islams 8,433rd most holy site and relive those lustful days of conquering foreign lands by murder and rapine.

I have never tried to duck that issue and had you spoken to me before you would be perfectly aware of it, as I have spoken at length on this forum about the issue.

However, deciding that "come one, come all" is right for your country does not mean that the rest of the world is duty bound to agree with you. I believe you have been arguing quite vigorously for the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state .. how is that compatible with your expressed opinions here?

The question posed previously remains fully unanswered. There is overt discrimination toward competing religions in moslem lands™. There are numerous sources to document that so there really isn’t a conflicting argument. There are numerous sources to depict historical examples as well.

According to records the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) and his close companions freed nearly 40,000 slaves between them and that was in the 7th century .. why would he do that if slavery was condoned? Simply he would not, so therefore a quick dip into a book you clearly fail to understand is not enough to give you an understanding of the subject or what Islam says about it.

There is an entire chapter of Bukhari devoted to the manumission of slaves .. surely that was when Red Indians were hunting buffalo in America?!

Slaves were also given incredible rights in Islam, to be fed and clothed in the same manner as their master, not to be beaten and if a slave was given an arduous tak the master was to help him ... did we ever see that in the enlightened democratic US of A?

Well, according to the record, Mohammad led how many wars of aggression? I think three is the number.

Mohammad fought in how many wars of aggression? I think seventy two (maybe seventy three) is the number.


I hadn’t realized that slavery was such a panacea. I suppose that’s why it survived so long in places such as the KSA.

Slavery is dehumanizing and attempting to claim that slavery is acceptable if the slaves are “Islamic slaves” is ridiculous. Slavery has had equal time in most all cultures. However, the largest portion of the world has now acknowledged it for what it truly is--despicable. It's still tacitly and literally accepted in the Arab world, though. We see that in places such as the Sudan.

Wasn't 1962 the year of the Mississippi race riots .. you're not making a very good case for your countries enlightened democracy here.

That said two wrongs never make a right but you know the saying about people in glass houses.

Here’s an object lesson toward that. 1962 sounds correct. Almost fifty years ago. I’ll say that as a nation, the U.S. can be proud of the progress it’s made in the correction of attitudes and prejudices regarding race. Did you ever hear of a guy named Obama?

Sadly, we don’t enforce religion: we’re haven’t quite caught up to the 7th century yet, not that we’re trying.

I didn't say it was fair or that I agree with it, I was suggesting that it is a move in the right direction with courts trying to find a way out of the traditional punishment.

In Iran, they’re considering casting people off of cliffs for certain offenses.

How lovely. Wake up and smell the unchanged seventh century political landscape. It's smellin' pretty ripe.

Yet Islam has been around for 1400 years and is not only going strong but growing daily.

So are many religions. The difference is that those other growing religions are not replete with adherents who cause vehicles to explode within crowds of people.

I think it’s important to understand motivations. As such, I tend to be suspicious of people who think that the gods are guiding them and that they have an entitlement to kill and maim in furtherance of the gods will. I tend to get defensive when those same peaceful inner strugglers are openly hostile to anyone who is not a peaceful inner struggler. People are entitled to their religious beliefs, but when a belligerent group has the ability to cause death and destruction on a massive scale (and in fact has announced that goal), I’d just feel a lot safer if I knew they are operating on the basis of rational principles and the customary rules of logic. Once people with money and power begin to think they are being inspired to do gods work through mayhem, then we are at risk from mad men dictating policy. This is particularly onerous when you consider the virulent hatreds espoused by the islamist jihad all-stars.


For example, have you forgotten that the Iranian Shiite mullocracy is counting down their prayer beads centrifuges to the endtimes? Let’s remember that in the shiite eschatology mythos, the messiah who will come to herald in the endtime, after restoring peace and justice (Islamic peace and justice!). There’s this little dalliance of death and destruction associated with the endtimes but hey, it’s all camels’ milk and date palms after that. That claimed messiah is referred to as the mahdi. The raving loon who is currently the prefab president of Iran talks about the mahdi a lot. He may even believe he’s the mahdi. He does, however, think that he's on a mission from God.

That mission tends to clash with the mission that the competing islamist endtime’ers are racing toward.


The Middle East is filled with nations that went from warring bedouin tribes to insanely wealthy ruling regimes in what-- 20 years (mid 1940's to OPEC in 1968 I believe)? The rest of the world gradually grew up out of its saber rattling over the course of centuries, and even we in the west aren't fully in control of our emotions versus our technological might. That there hasn't been a nuclear war since WW2 is astonishing, almost miraculous. But moslems are only now going through their theocratic crusade period, and the problem is it's not just with horses and swords. Add a jihadic mindset, a martyrdom desire and genetically altered biological weapons, and all humanity is at risk!

The crusades of islams past maybe could have killed a few million people over the course of a few centuries, but the crusade of al-Qada could take out billions and leave nothing but a tattered shoe flapping in the silent wind as the human race's epitaph.

This mustn't be allowed. I have no intention of dying because someone else's "god says" I should.

 

[Netti-Netti]

How do you know that you are much more likely to be murdered in the West than elsewhere?

There are international crime statistics web sites for you to visit. Alternatively, you could always wait for someone to point out to you that some of the information you're looking for was already posted in this thread several days ago.

Ms. Sally (aka Muslimwoman) lives in Egypt, which as a murder rate of 0.4 per 100,000. The US has a murder rate of 5.6 murders per 100,000.

These data were cited for you last week:
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/suicide-in-the-name-of-10725-12.html#post182349

Strange the way you overlook facts and just keep right on with characterization.

The only thing more puzzling to me than willful ignorance is the strangely self-indulgent insistence on parading it around in public.

 

[Resigned]

In that case yanks are all badly dressed, loud mouthed bigots that like to run around the world causing havoc, blowing sh*t up and torturing people in illegal prisons!!

Hmmm hardly seems fair does it?!

Was it not Theodore Roosevelt (an American President I do believe) who said:

I suppose I should be ashamed to say that I take the Western view of the Indian. I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth. The most vicious cowboy has more moral principle than the average Indian. Turn three hundred low families of New York into New Jersey, support them for fifty years in vicious idleness, and you will have some idea of what the Indians are. Reckless, revengeful, fiendishly cruel, they rob and murder, not the cowboys who can take care of themselves, but the defenseless, lone settlers on the plains.

from the book Race: The history of an idea in America by Thomas Gossett.

It hardly seems fair because it doesn’t make sense. I don’t see yanks plowing cars into crowds of other yanks to the intonation of Jesus is Great. I hardly think we’re badly dressed, anyway.

Further, in case you missed it, these references to the American Indian are just a little dated. Are you hoping to justify the racist genocide being committed currently by Arabs in the Sudan with references to the America west of 150 years ago? It may make you fell better about yourself but the comparisons are a little childish.

I disagree with you. Islam is at a morphing stage, particularly as it is growning so quickly outside the Arab world and what is vital now is how the remainder of the world treats it .. if it continues to back Islam into a corner (like the issues of Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Islamic dress for women, etc) then it is going to halt the process. Just look at Iraq, womens rights have been drastically curtailed since the invasion and interference of the West, yet prior to the war Iraq had the most rights and freedoms for women within the ME. When you back conservative thinking into a corner it simply becomes harder and retracts further.

The world needs to stop stating what Islam believes and starting trying to educate itself. As I said before, Bush had to ask AFTER the invasion of Iraq what Sunni and Shia were ... any small child in the ME could have told you what would happen between the sects if you took out Saddam's regime.

The current "Islamic" violence is caused by that natural process of change, the ultra-right are fighting to stop change and yes they are afraid of it. However the "free worlds" constant batering, propaganda, false representation and attacks on Islam and the ME are not helping in any way shape or form, quite the opposite they are giving the hard liners exactly the ammunition they need to justify their insane actions.

Yet, the ultra-right invokes as many scriptural justifications for their perspectives as the “moderates” invoke for theirs. Clearly, you embrace "higher" ethics, so my expectations are derived from yourexpressing what your religious belief has afforded you. You are free to express yourself in any way you want, but I am also free to point out the betrayal of the very tenets many religious people press under the belief doing so will make them better people. In a word, it's hypocrisy.

Morals and ethics are claimed by islamists to be the result of the inerrancy of Islam (an utterly untrue assertion with reams of evidence against it), which is then touted as the wondrous panacea that solves all the world's ills and makes all those who believe people deserving of eternal paradise. It seems that there is an undercurrent of fear and arrogance used to justify appalling behavior.

I can hardly avoid something that has not been brought up in this conversation. You forgot to mention the Jihadist Mickey Mouse ... I have condemned that on this forum before so won't bother again.


There is absolutely no doubt about the level of hatred toward the Jewish nation here and whilst there are some Muslim/Jewish organisations working toward interfaith dialogue (not nearly enough though) the issue of Israel is a thorn in everyone's side and continuously reminds people why they have to 'hate Jews'. Until that issue is resolved it will be impossible to deal with the inbred hatred for Jews here and unfortunately that is a political issue rather than a religious one.

I suppose if people need to be reminded why they have to 'hate Jews', moslems are best to do that. Your comments really do tend to reinforce stereotypes about moslems and their (as you so eloquently described it), “inbred hatred for Jews.”

I’m far less convinced about this being a political issue rather than a religious one. This is about islam’s perceived entitlement to moslem lands™ and a scripturally sanctioned revulsion for Jews.

Contempt for Jews (and Christians) is one of the themes of the islamist faith, as is the virtue of Jihad; the Jihad that is expressly by the sword. Of course this predisposes many in the islamist world to violence. The Koran is clear on the issue no matter how much apologists hope to dissemble it. islamist morality is fundamentally different from the Judeo-Christian model in that it centers on the moslemm being the only moral human with all others portrayed as vile, debase and arrayed against them. The benefits of kindness, forgiveness and charity do not translate to the non-believer outside of the required conversion to Islam. A moslem simply does not pray for unbelievers beyond the hope for conversion, yet a Christian sees no conflict in a prayer for an enemy, even before battle. After an Al Qaeda bombing that killed moslems in Jordan a few years ago, there were large protests, the demonstrators crying, "We are Muslims! We are not Jews or Crusaders! Why attack us?" Of course, if you are a Jew, a Christian or any other non-Muslim it is perfectly permissible and even admirable to attack you. It is permissible to lie to you, steal from you, rape you, enslave you and even kill you. You are "Kaffir," an unbeliever, an infidel and beneath contempt. It is through this lens that the islamist faithful view the world. Islam will always attempt to control the society in which it resides; it sees itself as superior in every way, as entitled, by God, to supremacy.

You were almost sounding quite reasonable until now.

Oh please. Moslems’ obsession with conspiracy theories is as entertaining as it is pitiable. Moslems’ self created victimhood under the guise of those crafty Jews is part of Arab/Moslem cultural norms.

When they choose to import terrorists and insist they have a right to free speech then YES it is their fault. Nobody in the ME or Muslim world asked them to go to the UK.

That’s interesting because if Western nations seek to silence these purveyors of hate or prepare to depot them, we’re marked as racist™ or even islamophobic™.

The Guardian has also published plenty of good articles about the Muslim projects in the UK that work to oust extremism, integrate Muslim immigrants into British society and work with authorities to help them better understand the Muslim mind. They also reported the sotry of the Muslim family that turned their son and his friends in to the police because they were planning to fly to Pakistan to train as Jihadists. Also Shalom/Salam radio, the station run by Muslims and Jews to try to educate the young that Jews and Muslims have so much in common.

Seems you only like to read one side of the coin.

Actually, no. It’s important to remember that the acts of terrorism seem to far outweigh the “good articles”. This is especially true when we read reports of truly horrific plots being hatched by peaceful inner strugglers which fortunately never came to fruition.

These are the very mosques I was talking about, funded by the Wahabbi's.

It’s s shame that your feigned righteous indignation at these Wahabbi institutions is simply ignored by moslems who are tainted by them.

From the news story .. "in the most fatal militant attack on Shiite pilgrims" .. you are aware that Shiites are Muslims aren't you and that this 'racial' hatred is centuries old and was kept in check by Saddams regime prior to the invasion on Iraq by the West?

And this one article is your answer to the "daily" attacks of Muslims against the non-Muslim world?

Let’s remember the methods that Hussein used to control the internecine hatreds. Those methods were discovered when mass graves were unearthed and bodies of dead moslems began popping up like fields of summer dandelions.

Excuse me while I stop laughing. I do read the book ... daily ... which is why I know it says no such thing. Perhaps you should read it and I don't mean selective verses on propagandist websites.

Perhaps you could be the final arbiter of what various verses in the Koran “really” means.

Holy texts and their interpreters never issue an irrevocable, definitive judgment. It may well be that at a point uncertain in the future, the perspective of that time might well shift the scholarly consensus to “well, after further consideration, never mind what we said before…, but from our present temporal vantage point with the unchallengeable impact of immediacy (and history's worst all have also had their contemporaneous strident apologists aplenty, to be sure!) the verdict has been reached: Call 'em hateful, call 'em violent, but don't call 'em unpredictable.

What a jolly grown up answer ... or non answer to be fair. If I am going to take the time to answer your questions then at least have the decency to do the same or bow out of the discussion.

You can turn off the melodrama. Thanks.

Try googling the word NEWS, it's amazing what you can find out.

I do read the news. I read the news a few days ago regarding a female splodeydope mowing down 40 Iraqis.

You asked me where I thought this radical element comes from and when I answer you this is the best you can come up with ... sounds more like you hate all Muslims and will happily bury your head in the sand if anyone offers information that may mean you have to educate yourself to the subject you are discussing or question whether your bigotry is warranted against an entire group of people for the acts of a small minority within that group.


As for the "unhinged hyperreligious ranting" .. I shall take just one of your examples:

Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah. Whoever says this will save his property and his life from me." —Sahih Bukhari 84.59

Firstly you need to know that this hadith is in Bukhari's book of Belief and not in the book of jihad. That immediately tells us that it is not an instruction to randomly kill people in the name of religion.

Secondly to understand this in context you have to read the tafsir, which clearly states that it is talking about fighters and not civilians (ie opposing armies). The property it is talking about is war booty. The Prophet was commanded to fight those who fight him but if they declare shahada then stop fighting them, as that is the statement of belief and it is not permitted to fight other Muslims. If they do not make the statement of belief then continue to fight them until you win the war.

Education is the key to knowledge.

It’s fine to denigrate me with the “you hate all muslims”, charge but that doesn’t explain anything and it doesn’t reflect the truth. I’ll remind you that it’s not me, using a politico-religious ideology that is wreaking havoc with suicide bombings.

Why do you feel a need to interpret verses to me? These are always subjective and open to interpretation by whomever wants to interpret them.



But let’s be honest, the next time Moslems publish another one of those now famous Islamic snuff films depicting the head being sawed off of some hapless bound and gagged victim (all to those dulcet tones of the droning allahu akbar, or the next time a holy warrior™ drives a bomb laden car into a crowd of children and splatters the street with bits of flesh and bone shards you can always find solace in the fact that, hey, other religions do this too.

No they don’t.

 

[c0de]

Further, in case you missed it, these references to the American Indian are just a little dated. Are you hoping to justify the racist genocide being committed currently by Arabs in the Sudan with references to the America west of 150 years ago? It may make you fell better about yourself but the comparisons are a little childish.

Okay, I'll give you a recent massacre: 655,000 in Iraq

I suppose if people need to be reminded why they have to 'hate Jews', moslems are best to do that.

Last time I checked, we weren't the ones who were responsible for the holocaust.

The Koran is clear on the issue no matter how much apologists hope to dissemble it.

And you are an authority on the Quran now?

slamist morality is fundamentally different from the Judeo-Christian model in that it centers on the moslemm being the only moral human with all others portrayed as vile, debase and arrayed against them.

If that were true, then why does the Quran allow Jews and Christians to enter
Paradise. Can the same be said of the Jewish and Christian scriptures?

Oh please. Moslems’ obsession with conspiracy theories is as entertaining as it is pitiable. Moslems’ self created victimhood under the guise of those crafty Jews is part of Arab/Moslem cultural norms.

...655,000 dead in Iraq... its not a theory.

It’s s shame that your feigned righteous indignation at these Wahabbi institutions is simply ignored by moslems who are tainted by them.

Excuse me, but who is supporting the Saudis?

Let’s remember the methods that Hussein used to control the internecine hatreds. Those methods were discovered when mass graves were unearthed and bodies of dead moslems began popping up like fields of summer dandelions.

And who was supplying Saddam with those weapons he
used to fill those mass graves?

Perhaps you could be the final arbiter of what various verses in the Koran “really” means.

So you are a better interpreter of the Quran then us Muslims?

I’ll remind you that it’s not me, using a politico-religious ideology that is wreaking havoc with suicide bombings.

No, your side prefers laser guided ones.

You can turn off the melodrama. Thanks.

Ditto

 

[TheKhan]

Ever since the Taliban blew up that 3000 year old buddha statue carving, and thinking that Islam is only getting started, I`ve been convinced that Muslims will not stop blowing up things until there is a Mosque on every holy ground in every holy place in the world. Like how once Christians wanted with Churches.

Am I wrong in thinking that thats what Taliban wants?


TK

p.s. I find good Muslims to be quite pleasant btw.

.. I don’t see yanks plowing cars into crowds of other yanks to the intonation of Jesus is Great. ..

That happens btw, the reasons unknown. In LA the worse that I saw was a guy who who went on a rampage in a tank.

In that case yanks are all badly dressed, loud mouthed bigots that like to run around the world causing havoc, blowing sh*t up and torturing people in illegal prisons!!

Muslimwoman, I`m sure those Muslim women who do suicide runs do not know the word "bigots". And I am inclined to think that you have more in common in upbringing with Osama than most Taliban fighters, meaning you are internationalized. Then I must ask why the black cape? as a general question towards all westernized Muslims? I don`t really want to get into a major argument but I think the black cape is only trouble, as its those kinds of traditions the Taliban wants to preserve(kill) correct?

I really want to carry a razor sharp sword all the time, and don`t want to unnaturally die without a sword, but if I did that I`d get arrested in most places around the world. Then I`d like to ask Muslims why some of them chop peoples heads and hands off for petty crime, and expect to be accepted worldwide. To name a few, I don`t know about Egypt but I have a feeling that in most Middle Eastern countries adultery can be ligitimate reasons to be executed. Isn`t it those kinds of things that brings or will bring tension between people? And if I may ask I`d like to know what prompted you to go that orthodox, while you know what the modern world is about.

Oh, btw, when I see orthodox Jews dressed up in their outfits at the airport it annoys the hell out of me. They can have horse carriages take them where ever they want to go.

 

[farhan]

Ever since the Taliban blew up that 3000 year old buddha statue carving, and thinking that Islam is only getting started, I`ve been convinced that Muslims will not stop blowing up things until there is a Mosque on every holy ground in every holy place in the world. Like how once Christians wanted with Churches.

Am I wrong in thinking that thats what Taliban wants?

Blowing up Buddhas has nothing to do with Islam. Bamyan was conquered in the days of Umar, & he left them intact. Same was the case with Sphinx. These taliban guys cant claim to be more Muslim than Umar.

Dont exactly know what Taliban want. Afghanis generally want freedom from Americans. They become Taliban to do that. Lateron they do all the stuff they learnt from the *civilised* colonialists.

 

[Muslimwoman]

Your claim to following your faith is but one interpretation of your faith. If the Taliban and the KSA are following a more literal interpretation of the faith, maybe it’s you who is wrong.

I would agree if I just woke up one morning and said I'll make up my own version of Islam but I like to study and I read scholars opinions going back 1400 years and very few of them follow the interpretation of the KSA and Taliban. I also look at Muslims outside those two countries and see that they too do not follow their interpretation.

Well no. I don’t see any of the above mentioned groups (even them-there “coloured folk”), as making demands of school systems for special accommodation for their religious beliefs.

but you wouldn't would you and we were not talking just about school systems and religion but about demands made upon the state by minority groups .. allow me to give just a few examples from the UK.

1. Police uniforms changed to accommodate Sikh's wearing their turbans (a religious symbol).

2. The law for wearing crash helmets on motorcycles amended so that Sikh's didn't have to remove their turbans.

3. Integration of Jewish 'courts/councils' (I don't know the right term) into UK laww to deal with personal issues required by their faith (ie matrimonal affairs, inheritance, etc)

4. The virtual removal of the word black from the english language in schools

5. A change in law to ensure homosexuals are not excluded

I could go on.

By the way your snide little "them there coloured folks" remark is laughable considering I am married to a man of colour.

You’re preaching to the choir. I can’t be held responsible for interpretation of tales and fables written in a book that I don’t use to shape my worldview. As we see with regularity, interpretation of these ancient relics is entirely subjective and open to the whims of the interpreter.

I will note, however, that the practices you describe: FGM and honor killingare closely associated with one politico-religious ideology. Just a coincidence?

Incredible, I explain that these issues are cultural and not in the Quran or Sunnah and you go right back to stating they are written in a book.

Oh dear so much writing and so little knowledge. Time for some education:

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]One source 1 estimates that 90% or more of the girls in Djibouti, Ethiopia and Eritrea, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Sudan (North) have been mutilated. The same source indicates that over 50% of the girls in Benin, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d'Ivoire, Egypt, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Kenya, Liberia, Mali, Nigeria and Togo have been operated on.

[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]It is widely practiced in countries where the predominant religion is Christianity: Examples are Ethiopia and Kenya.[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]In multi-faith countries, it is often forced on girls whose families follow all faiths: Animism religions, Christianity, and Islam. For example, it is frequently practiced among both Muslims, Christians and Animists in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sierra Leone, and Sudan. 1[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica][FONT=Arial, helvetica][SIZE=-1] [/SIZE][/FONT]FGM was once practiced by Ethiopian Jews (a.k.a. Beta Isreal; formerly known by the derogatory term "Falashas"). 2, 3, 4.5 This practiced was apparently discontinued some time ago. A pediatrician who works in the Beta Israel community claims that they no do not practice FGM in Israel. Also, their daughters who were born in Ethiopia were not mutilated. 6[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]FGM has spread to countries in or near Africa (e.g. Egypt) which are Muslim. But FGM is rare or nonexistent in many other Muslim countries. Examples are Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey. Also, It is not done in the Maghreb countries of Northwest Africa.[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]FGM is only occasionally found in Indonesia and other predominately Muslim countries in Asia.[/FONT]
FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION FEMALE (CIRCUMCISION) IN AFRICA, MIDDLE EAST AND FAR EAST

NO it is not "closely associated with one politico-religious ideology", it is an African continent practice and the reason it has spread to Indonesian Muslim countries is because of migration of a cultural practice.

On to honor killings:

This is from an amensty international report into honor killings in Pakistan:

Dr Tahira Shahid Khan of Shirkatgah, a woman's resource centre worker, explains: "Women are considered the property of the males in their family irrespective of their class, ethnic or religious group. The owner of the property has the right to decide its fate. The concept of ownership has turned women into a commodity which can be exchanged, bought and sold..."

Pakistan: Honour killings of women and girls | Amnesty International

The fact that these abhorent murders take place is CULTURAL, as is the practice of FGM.

all predicated on free thought and open debate, allowed the West to surge ahead and forge new avenues of social, political and economic advances.

Thank you that is the funniest thing I have heard in a long time, honestly I laughed out loud.

Europe became wealthy by conquest and force, long before your country existed as the good old US of A, so don't try the old "we did it with free thought and debate" routine, we did it with brute force and colonialism.

The embracing of the scientific method, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment is what shaped Western culture and allowed the advances we see today.

and women got to own property when? Women got to vote when? Homosexuals stopped getting locked in prison when? Slavery stopped when? Yep I can see how that all works.

I suppose it's a bit like someone that gave up smoking last week, they are the most pious bores concerning smoking.

It’s not arrogant at all although I concede I could have used “human-focused” to replace “democratic”. Although clearly, the West must address brazen moslem claims to entitlement, one-sided criticism of our policies, moslem apathy and inaction regarding Islamic terror and totalitarianism around the world.

Yes we can see how the west addresses Muslims in Iraq thanks and yet your government had to recently admit that al-Q wasn't there prior to the Iraq invasion .. way to go America, thanks for spreading it around a bit!!

The reasons are self evident. In the islamist world, drop one person one vote into these societies - allow free access to the process for political parties, and with virtual certainty, you'll get bearded savages like al-sadre in Iraq, for example, bullying the votes and gaining power. Before you know it, they'll sweep away the progress that otherwise might have taken hold.

Yes Turkey is a perfect example don't you think

Actually, the word I was looking for was compulsion. And let’s be honest, I know of now reliable data that would support your claim that a religious choice is the motivation for the head to toe covering.

I bet I can find heaps more information about women forced to dress as they do than you can but at some point you are going to have to get over your idea that because a minority are, that it means all are.

I guess those Christian Copts in Egypt have it all wrong. They’re not persecuted; they just need to understand the implications of living in an islamist majority state.

Ah so those girls I told you about that sit on trains, hand in hand, one in niqab and one with a crucifix around her neck are just doing it for the publicity or by force are they? The local church puts up Happy Ramadan banners out of sheer fear?

What you read on the net does not always reflect day to day life in a country you know.

Yes there have been problems here but we also saw large protests by Christians and Muslims together when the UK held the Egytpian leader of the Coptic church at the airport.

(Here's a tip, next time you want to make that argument use people of the Bahai faith it's a much better example)

Actually, no. The mail-order bride thing is much more complicated than that. I know someone who has spent 11 months trying to obtain U.S. citizenship for his Brazilian wife.

No actually the visa system is more complicated. The fact that men can buy a bride for cash is a simple fact.

Unfortunately, I do concede that we in the West are at a disadvantage to moslem men who can take four wives. Although that privilege is not granted to women. What a shame.

No you can't but you can have a wife and how many affairs?

Yes, you are one person who seems to have a self appointed entitlement to speak on behalf of moslem women.

No I am a Muslim woman that speaks for herself and studies Muslim womens issues, lives with other Muslim women and in a Muslim country .. I think that gives me more right to state what Muslims womens issues are than you have.

Then don’t do it. A woman using their physical attributes to sell a product is their choice.

I see your point, though. The woman can only be respected if she is in her room, in her hijab. “Uncovered meat”, anyone?

Absolutely right it is their choice and all part of the sex sells culture but why are you then so apparently offended that you have to constantly resort to personal snipes when we CHOOSE not to join in?

The whole point is I do choose not to do it, then get called a black sack, a lump in a bag or told I am in my room in hijab. It's called bigotry. You want to argue the case for Western women to choose how they dress but go on and on and on and on and on about Muslim women dressing as they do because they are oppressed and you just won't take "oh no we're not" for an answer.

That’s fine. That should also apply to all Middle Eastern women. Would that apply to your husbands three other wives?

Yes his 3 other wives are of exactly the same opinion but of course they would be because we are all oppressed and told our opinions by him ... the constant digs are just getting a bit tedious now don't you think.

That’s true. In such places as Iran, you can get yourself on the wrong side of the law for sporting a “Western style” haircut. Maybe the politico-religious ideology controlling every aspect of ones’ life take on a… how shall we say… totalitarian proportions by enforcing such frivolous things.

OK these pictures were taken in Tehran ... can you show me this state enforced dress code you keep talking about .. I have deliberately chosen these pictures as they show women in all manner of dress, including policewomen, at a womens rights demonstration:

Google Image Result for http://www.payvand.com/news/06/jun/Iranian-women-rally-Tehran3.jpg

wow what a long URL

or perhaps these Iranian women at a soccer match:

http://www.hamsaweb.org/crime/images/18/iranian women.jpg

I’m not aware that private moslem schools are restricted as to hijab. Public schools are a different matter. Public (State supported), schools are by definition secular institutions and certainly should be free from any endorsement of religious symbols.

Private schools were included. We also saw a big stink in the UK press after the schools hijab ban because a girl was told to remove her crucifix "because we are a Christian country".

Your preferred method of execution has no connection with the U.S. “getting our own country in order first”. That doesn’t make any sense.

It makes perfect sense. If people are going to complain about the death penalty as barbaric and so 7th century in Saudi it's sort of imperative that they don't use an even more brutal form of death penalty .. don'tcha think??