Islamic extremists are in a conflict against 'The Crusaders' and 'the Infidels'.
To them Islam as at war with western civilization. That's what many FM fail to understand.
The difference in fundamentalists and Muslims who have critical thought.
The west isn't at war with Islam though. That's a pretense (on the part of terrorists). The original intent of Al Qaeda was to oppose foreign presence in Islamic countries.
Good you are acknowledging Muslims who use critical thought as they are the vast majority,
Definitely many crusaders committed acts intended to spread terror.
No one has ever really tried to defend the actions during the sacking of Constantinople or the Seige of Jerusalem.
Nor is it any relevance to islamic terrorism, or that the religion itself in the Quran encourages beheading to spread terror.
Thank you, so therefore you acknowledge that Christian terrorism and extremism also has it's place in history. So you could argue that Christian terrorism has been going on "forever" as well. In fact longer than "forever" since Christianity came before Islam.
So what Islam wasn't doing for the first 500 years, Christians were doing it. Again, it just comes back full circle that history has proven many groups to be culpable for many evils committed AND having various kinds of justification for doing so, both written and verbally. So clerics, over zealous popes, despotic world leaders and terrorists of all denominations are in the same category. Since the end result and aim is always death.
This ain't a pissing contest, as to which group has killed the most, it's about seeing the bigger picture and understanding how there are different motivations and causes out there that have been the catalyst for committing evil. Actions speak louder than words so to speak and for every cleric advocating death to non believers there are evil hate mongers also advocating death to others, albeit by different methods and different motivations, but the end result is still the same.
Thank you, so therefore you acknowledge that Christian terrorism and extremism also has it's place in history. So you could argue that Christian terrorism has been going on "forever" as well. In fact longer than "forever" since Christianity came before Islam.
So what Islam wasn't doing for the first 500 years, Christians were doing it. Again, it just comes back full circle that history has proven many groups to be culpable for many evils committed AND having various kinds of justification for doing so, both written and verbally. So clerics, over zealous popes, despotic world leaders and terrorists of all denominations are in the same category. Since the end result and aim is always death.
Sure, though i dont know what you mean by first 500 years.
Islam has had jihad since its inception evidently since it is codified in the Quran as warfare to establish Islamic dominance.
Christianity has alot of blood, but they also have actually modernized, they were one of the first groups to start opposing and lobbying against slavery as well as going through 2 reformations and generally co-existing very well now with secularism.
This ain't a pissing contest, as to which group has killed the most, it's about seeing the bigger picture and understanding how there are different motivations and causes out there that have been the catalyst for committing evil. Actions speak louder than words so to speak and for every cleric advocating death to non believers there are evil hate mongers also advocating death to others, albeit by different methods and different motivations, but the end result is still the same.
Understanding the motivations of religious extremists is indeed important, for Islam it has always been the religious doctrine they cite as their primary motivation and rules of conduct.
Im hearing that 80%+ responders to Al Jazeera endorse the islamic state.
It always worries me when the response from the Muslim communities are so different depending if they are talking to a Western or native Arab audience.
That's a true.
In a poll some 82% of Arab Muslim supported Islamic State.
It was around about 26,000 people who supported them
Yet there are many groups that consider other groups a target. China/Myanmar.
The objection is not to whether they see us as targets, but when terrorism is presented as a religious practice, rather than a primarily political one. Da'esh arose out of Al Qaeda that is a political movement that has religious window dressing. The 'they' are political groups, not groups that are supported by most Muslims, but denounced by them, and not supported by modern thinking about the Qu'ran either.
Enough members of Islam do see us as targets. I object to anyone seeing me as a target. There are even fellow targets who see this as in some way justified.
The Nazis weren't supported by most Germans, and then through fear and manipulation they were, and then later through total failure one would have been hard pushed to find anyone who had ever been a Nazi. Most religions are political groups. Islam is the aggressive one.
Enough members of Islam do see us as targets. I object to anyone seeing me as a target. There are even fellow targets who see this as in some way justified.
The Nazis weren't supported by most Germans, and then through fear and manipulation they were, and then later through total failure one would have been hard pushed to find anyone who had ever been a Nazi. Most religions are political groups. Islam is the aggressive one.
I guess Godwin's law had to be invoke at some point in the thread.
Some compare Muslim terrorists to Nazis, while others compare peaceful Muslims to Jews who were caricatured.
It's no problem for me if you think some Muslims target you., because this could be true. The problem I have is when people assume their neighbor will target him, just because the neighbor is Muslim. Or that Islam as a religion instructs terrorism in order to comply witj it's precepts . Because that is either ignorance or paranoia. And many of the links you see are connected to right wing paranoia.
I guess Godwin's law had to be invoke at some point in the thread.
Some compare Muslim terrorists to Nazis, while others compare peaceful Muslims to Jews who were caricatured.
It's no problem for me if you think some Muslims target you., because this could be true. The problem I have is when people assume their neighbor will target him, just because the neighbor is Muslim. Or that Islam as a religion instructs terrorism in order to comply witj it's precepts . Because that is either ignorance or paranoia. And many of the links you see are connected to right wing paranoia.
How many times has that been the case for it to be a problem for you?
John, the context in the above is when there's a mass war against a Muslim population. If they happen to 'win', then they can impose the rule of religion if they wish.
Just like we wish to impose democracy on those we invade.
BIB. Utter bilge, of course. Verily, your propaganda is pitiful.
The "context" of Q9;29 is Q9;28, Q9;30, Q9;9;31 and Q9;32. Absolutely nothing to do with "mass war" or war of any kind waged by Christians or Jews against Muslims.
It's extortion, pure and simple. A holy protection racket. A divinely sanctioned shakedown to compensate the Quraish for loss of trade due to Mohammed's insatiable expansionism and subsequent prohibitions..
Nope, The Quran states he can void existing treaties, Allah can't void a treaty already voided by someone else.
Do you have the relevant Chapter and Verse?
You try to argue the Quraish hated the muslims, but in fact Muhammad was the first to preach against them in Islamic history.
The Pagan Quraish did hate the Muslims. I think that that's pretty obvious considering their anti-Islamic stance against them. And as mentioned, nothing wrong in preaching against something you don't agree with.
BIB. Utter bilge, of course. Verily, your propaganda is pitiful.
The "context" of Q9;29 is Q9;28, Q9;30, Q9;9;31 and Q9;32. Absolutely nothing to do with "mass war" or war of any kind waged by Christians or Jews against Muslims.
It's extortion, pure and simple. A holy protection racket. A divinely sanctioned shakedown to compensate the Quraish for loss of trade due to Mohammed's insatiable expansionism and subsequent prohibitions..
Lol! If an 'Islamic Scholar' like you says so. Again, why do many anti-Muslim posters on here think they're somehow experts on the Faith?
How many times has that been the case for it to be a problem for you?
It's been a problem a number of times on these threads about Islam. If you have posters who try to convince you that violent verses in the Qur'an are given preference, or imply that Muslims in the west have the same attitudes as those in Islamic countries, or they misread polls, or don't even know what Muslims attitudes are, but assume, then that creates a lot of suspicion about what Muslims around them think, and it can make non Muslims paranoid.
The Pagan Quraish did hate the Muslims. I think that that's pretty obvious considering their anti-Islamic stance against them. And as mentioned, nothing wrong in preaching against something you don't agree with.
That might happen if you start telling their gods are false, their religion is corrupt and then proclaim to a prophet sent by Allah(the Muslim Moon God)
Illegal invasions of other countries and peoples.
The type of opinion used by Omar Bakri to radicalise two Muslims and then kill a British soldier by beheading him.
Muslims seems forget who was defending them during the Bosnian genocide.
So when a Muslim country is invaded it's an attack on Islam. Interesting mentality.
Was it acceptable for Saddam to use chemical weapons on the Kurds?
Only according to the minority. The majority don't agree with the extremists.
The minority such as Boko Harem and Al-Shabab who are persecuting people daily.
Killing Christians if they can't recite the shadada. A minority who has carved up Iraq and a minority which continues terrorise people who had nothing to do with 'war on terror'.
No, JK; what you fail to understand is that a minority opinion is just that; a minority one.
You fail to understand that thee agressive form of Islam is growing across Europe with Wahhabi funded mosques.
I'm sure you've heard the 3 types of lies, John...
The questions were quite simple, do they support Islamic State victories and have they thought of joining.
Lol! If an 'Islamic Scholar' like you says so. Again, why do many anti-Muslim posters on here think they're somehow experts on the Faith?
Lol! If an 'Islamic Scholar' like you says so. Again, why do many anti-Muslim posters on here think they're somehow experts on the Faith?
It's pretty laughable really.
How quaint that you imagine my knowing the context of a Quranic verse equates to claims of Islamic scholarship on my part. Not only that, but it also serves to demonstrate my " anti-Muslim " sentiments, apparently.
It would appear your powers of deduction and logic are on a par with your inept apologism.
That might happen if you start telling their gods are false, their religion is corrupt and then proclaim to a prophet sent by Allah(the Muslim Moon God)
It's funny when the anti-Muslims roll out that one. They should really read the following:
"And from among His Signs are the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. Do not bow down (prostrate) to the sun nor to the moon, but only bow down (prostrate) to "Allah" Who created them, if you (really) worship Him." [Noble Quran 41:37]
The type of opinion used by Omar Bakri to radicalise two Muslims and then kill a British soldier by beheading him.
So all those people protesting against the Iraq war, both Muslims and non-Muslims, were in league with Omar Bakri??
So when a Muslim country is invaded it's an attack on Islam. Interesting mentality.
Usually it's an attack for it's resources.
Was it acceptable for Saddam to use chemical weapons on the Kurds?
Can you tell us who supplied Saddam with those weapons in the first place?
The minority such as Boko Harem and Al-Shabab who are persecuting people daily.
Hindu terrorists do the same to Christians and other minorities in India but you don't seem to be too bothered about that.
Or Christian terrorists in CAR (Central African Republic) doing the same.
You fail to understand that thee agressive form of Islam is growing across Europe with Wahhabi funded mosques.
What a load of nonsense. Where's your evidence? And no, hearsay is not proof.
The questions were quite simple, do they support Islamic State victories and have they thought of joining.
Some may do but as mentioned, it's an extreme minority. If it was a majority, we'd be seeing mass groups of people going there. Since they're not....
It's not 'anti-Muslim' to be critical of Islam.
It's anti-Muslim if you take Verses out of context and use them all over the place. Quite simple really.
Some may do but as mentioned, it's an extreme minority. If it was a majority, we'd be seeing mass groups of people going there. Since they're not....
It's anti-Muslim if you take Verses out of context and use them all over the place. Quite simple really.
IS started just a few years ago , their numbers have risen at a staggering rate , thousands from all over the world have gone to join , 2,000 from britain alone , what other terror group has attracted such huge numbers ?
IS started just a few years ago , their numbers have risen at a staggering rate , thousands from all over the world have gone to join , 2,000 from britain alone , what other terror group has attracted such huge numbers ?
.
It is very frightening how many people are joining IS,
It's funny when the anti-Muslims roll out that one. They should really read the following:
"And from among His Signs are the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. Do not bow down (prostrate) to the sun nor to the moon, but only bow down (prostrate) to "Allah" Who created them, if you (really) worship Him." [Noble Quran 41:37]
His father was Abdullah which is Arabic for 'slave of Allah', so the Allah existed before Islam.
So all those people protesting against the Iraq war, both Muslims and non-Muslims, were in league with Omar Bakri??
Usually it's an attack for it's resources.
The justification for Lee Rigby and terrorism in the West was the 'war on terror'. Imar Bakri used opinions like it to radicalise Muslims.
As stated when the Ummah is attacked it's attack on the worlds Muslims.
Can you tell us who supplied Saddam with those weapons in the first place?
America.
Hindu terrorists do the same to Christians and other minorities in India but you don't seem to be too bothered about that.
Or Christian terrorists in CAR (Central African Republic) doing the same.
Either do you. It's up to their countries leaders to deal terrorism.
What a load of nonsense. Where's your evidence? And no, hearsay is not proof.
"So which Islamic schools of thought run Britain’s mosques today? The influence of Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi movement is often cited. But the Wahhabis — or Salafis as they prefer to be called — control just 6 per cent of mosques.
The largest single group — the one which arguably gives Islam in Britain much of its character — is the Deobandi. It controls around 45 per cent of Britain’s mosques and nearly all the UK-based training of Islamic scholars. What most Deobandi scholars have in common is a conservative interpretation of Islamic law: television and music for the purposes of entertainment, for example, are frowned upon if not banned. Women are advised not to emerge from their homes any more than is necessary."
51% of mosques are teaching a strict version of Islam. They are growing as Saudi funds mosque building across Europe.
It's anti-Muslim if you take Verses out of context and use them all over the place. Quite simple really
No it's not. Out of context is debatable depending if the Quran is living document or not.
If 'some verses aren't applicable' then it is a living document so nothing is out of context.
"So which Islamic schools of thought run Britain’s mosques today? The influence of Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi movement is often cited. But the Wahhabis — or Salafis as they prefer to be called — control just 6 per cent of mosques.
The largest single group — the one which arguably gives Islam in Britain much of its character — is the Deobandi. It controls around 45 per cent of Britain’s mosques and nearly all the UK-based training of Islamic scholars. What most Deobandi scholars have in common is a conservative interpretation of Islamic law: television and music for the purposes of entertainment, for example, are frowned upon if not banned. Women are advised not to emerge from their homes any more than is necessary."
51% of mosques are teaching a strict version of Islam. They are growing as Saudi funds mosque building across Europe.
No it's not. Out of context is debatable depending if the Quran is living document or not.
If 'some verses aren't applicable' then it is a living document so nothing is out of context.
If it's a living document then it can be interpreted anew by each generation, as opposed to a static document.
It's been a problem a number of times on these threads about Islam. If you have posters who try to convince you that violent verses in the Qur'an are given preference, or imply that Muslims in the west have the same attitudes as those in Islamic countries, or they misread polls, or don't even know what Muslims attitudes are, but assume, then that creates a lot of suspicion about what Muslims around them think, and it can make non Muslims paranoid.
Comments
The west isn't at war with Islam though. That's a pretense (on the part of terrorists). The original intent of Al Qaeda was to oppose foreign presence in Islamic countries.
Good you are acknowledging Muslims who use critical thought as they are the vast majority,
Thank you, so therefore you acknowledge that Christian terrorism and extremism also has it's place in history. So you could argue that Christian terrorism has been going on "forever" as well. In fact longer than "forever" since Christianity came before Islam.
So what Islam wasn't doing for the first 500 years, Christians were doing it. Again, it just comes back full circle that history has proven many groups to be culpable for many evils committed AND having various kinds of justification for doing so, both written and verbally. So clerics, over zealous popes, despotic world leaders and terrorists of all denominations are in the same category. Since the end result and aim is always death.
This ain't a pissing contest, as to which group has killed the most, it's about seeing the bigger picture and understanding how there are different motivations and causes out there that have been the catalyst for committing evil. Actions speak louder than words so to speak and for every cleric advocating death to non believers there are evil hate mongers also advocating death to others, albeit by different methods and different motivations, but the end result is still the same.
Islam has had jihad since its inception evidently since it is codified in the Quran as warfare to establish Islamic dominance.
Christianity has alot of blood, but they also have actually modernized, they were one of the first groups to start opposing and lobbying against slavery as well as going through 2 reformations and generally co-existing very well now with secularism.
Understanding the motivations of religious extremists is indeed important, for Islam it has always been the religious doctrine they cite as their primary motivation and rules of conduct.
Lol your trying so hard there.
That's a true.
In a poll some 82% of Arab Muslim supported Islamic State.
It was around about 26,000 people who supported them
http://www.aljazeera.net/votes/pages?voteid=5270
As usual, you probably won't find on the American AJ website ;-)
No doubt a very scientific poll.
Hope you aren't omitting a chunk of information again.
Enough members of Islam do see us as targets. I object to anyone seeing me as a target. There are even fellow targets who see this as in some way justified.
The Nazis weren't supported by most Germans, and then through fear and manipulation they were, and then later through total failure one would have been hard pushed to find anyone who had ever been a Nazi. Most religions are political groups. Islam is the aggressive one.
Why are you an Islamic apologist?
I guess Godwin's law had to be invoke at some point in the thread.
Some compare Muslim terrorists to Nazis, while others compare peaceful Muslims to Jews who were caricatured.
It's no problem for me if you think some Muslims target you., because this could be true. The problem I have is when people assume their neighbor will target him, just because the neighbor is Muslim. Or that Islam as a religion instructs terrorism in order to comply witj it's precepts . Because that is either ignorance or paranoia. And many of the links you see are connected to right wing paranoia.
How many times has that been the case for it to be a problem for you?
BIB. Utter bilge, of course. Verily, your propaganda is pitiful.
The "context" of Q9;29 is Q9;28, Q9;30, Q9;9;31 and Q9;32. Absolutely nothing to do with "mass war" or war of any kind waged by Christians or Jews against Muslims.
It's extortion, pure and simple. A holy protection racket. A divinely sanctioned shakedown to compensate the Quraish for loss of trade due to Mohammed's insatiable expansionism and subsequent prohibitions..
Do you have the relevant Chapter and Verse?
The Pagan Quraish did hate the Muslims. I think that that's pretty obvious considering their anti-Islamic stance against them. And as mentioned, nothing wrong in preaching against something you don't agree with.
Only to the extremists and not Islam (unless of course you take the whole thing out of context).
You can keep on copying and pasting what you did earlier but all that was for a different time and place.
Illegal invasions of other countries and peoples.
Only according to the minority. The majority don't agree with the extremists.
No, JK; what you fail to understand is that a minority opinion is just that; a minority one.
I'm sure you've heard the 3 types of lies, John...
Lol! If an 'Islamic Scholar' like you says so. Again, why do many anti-Muslim posters on here think they're somehow experts on the Faith?
It's pretty laughable really.
It's been a problem a number of times on these threads about Islam. If you have posters who try to convince you that violent verses in the Qur'an are given preference, or imply that Muslims in the west have the same attitudes as those in Islamic countries, or they misread polls, or don't even know what Muslims attitudes are, but assume, then that creates a lot of suspicion about what Muslims around them think, and it can make non Muslims paranoid.
That might happen if you start telling their gods are false, their religion is corrupt and then proclaim to a prophet sent by Allah(the Muslim Moon God)
The type of opinion used by Omar Bakri to radicalise two Muslims and then kill a British soldier by beheading him.
Muslims seems forget who was defending them during the Bosnian genocide.
So when a Muslim country is invaded it's an attack on Islam. Interesting mentality.
Was it acceptable for Saddam to use chemical weapons on the Kurds?
The minority such as Boko Harem and Al-Shabab who are persecuting people daily.
Killing Christians if they can't recite the shadada. A minority who has carved up Iraq and a minority which continues terrorise people who had nothing to do with 'war on terror'.
You fail to understand that thee agressive form of Islam is growing across Europe with Wahhabi funded mosques.
The questions were quite simple, do they support Islamic State victories and have they thought of joining.
It's not 'anti-Muslim' to be critical of Islam.
How quaint that you imagine my knowing the context of a Quranic verse equates to claims of Islamic scholarship on my part. Not only that, but it also serves to demonstrate my " anti-Muslim " sentiments, apparently.
It would appear your powers of deduction and logic are on a par with your inept apologism.
It's funny when the anti-Muslims roll out that one. They should really read the following:
"And from among His Signs are the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. Do not bow down (prostrate) to the sun nor to the moon, but only bow down (prostrate) to "Allah" Who created them, if you (really) worship Him." [Noble Quran 41:37]
So all those people protesting against the Iraq war, both Muslims and non-Muslims, were in league with Omar Bakri??
Usually it's an attack for it's resources.
Can you tell us who supplied Saddam with those weapons in the first place?
Hindu terrorists do the same to Christians and other minorities in India but you don't seem to be too bothered about that.
Or Christian terrorists in CAR (Central African Republic) doing the same.
What a load of nonsense. Where's your evidence? And no, hearsay is not proof.
Some may do but as mentioned, it's an extreme minority. If it was a majority, we'd be seeing mass groups of people going there. Since they're not....
It's anti-Muslim if you take Verses out of context and use them all over the place. Quite simple really.
Well their knowledge is probably not complete (and I haven't seen ay of them claim it was), but at least they have some, unlike others.
If I read a book on medicine, do I automatically become a doctor?
IS started just a few years ago , their numbers have risen at a staggering rate , thousands from all over the world have gone to join , 2,000 from britain alone , what other terror group has attracted such huge numbers ?
.
It is very frightening how many people are joining IS,
His father was Abdullah which is Arabic for 'slave of Allah', so the Allah existed before Islam.
The justification for Lee Rigby and terrorism in the West was the 'war on terror'. Imar Bakri used opinions like it to radicalise Muslims.
As stated when the Ummah is attacked it's attack on the worlds Muslims.
America.
Either do you. It's up to their countries leaders to deal terrorism.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9230671/who-runs-our-mosques/
"So which Islamic schools of thought run Britain’s mosques today? The influence of Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi movement is often cited. But the Wahhabis — or Salafis as they prefer to be called — control just 6 per cent of mosques.
The largest single group — the one which arguably gives Islam in Britain much of its character — is the Deobandi. It controls around 45 per cent of Britain’s mosques and nearly all the UK-based training of Islamic scholars. What most Deobandi scholars have in common is a conservative interpretation of Islamic law: television and music for the purposes of entertainment, for example, are frowned upon if not banned. Women are advised not to emerge from their homes any more than is necessary."
51% of mosques are teaching a strict version of Islam. They are growing as Saudi funds mosque building across Europe.
No it's not. Out of context is debatable depending if the Quran is living document or not.
If 'some verses aren't applicable' then it is a living document so nothing is out of context.
If it's a living document then it can be interpreted anew by each generation, as opposed to a static document.
No mention of muslim neighbours there.
Of course it's not but anything to try and shut you up, the 'islamaphobe' didn't work so try it with this one.
Why is it, some people hate any criticism of Muslims or Islam>:(
Some muslims criticise us so we have the right to criticize them back.
I didn't think I needed to break it down for you further.