And what do you say to those that call all Israelis "combatants"? The definitions seem a little slippery in practice. And in this last especially, u'll see that islam even respects others differences although it doesn't agree with their claims... now, if some stupid fanatics try to picture it otherwise its their problem not the whole community, like u can't blaim catholics for the crusade and spanish inquisitions, nor jews for zionist acts, nor communists for stalins regime ... etc Then why did he say (as reported by al-Buhkari): "If a man leaves his religion [islam], then kill him"? Good - please hurry up, as religious minorities in islamic countries have been under the knife (so to speak) for almost a thousand years. But the fact of the matter is that the treatment of religious minorities in islamic systems has never been good, not even in the great enlightened "caliphate". What makes you think that attaching the title "caliphate" to a new islamic civilization would make it somehow more fair for religious minorities? Is there some magic change that comes over people? I'm having a really hard time believing that an altered title could change anyone's heart. And try convincing muslims in the ME that they're not following real islam or - more to the point - that sharia is somehow wrong. Good luck with that one. But that's it exactly - a religious law made to humiliate kufr (unbelievers). "Until they feel themselves subdued" is what Mohammed said (Q 9:29). How can the problem be a misinterpretation by islamic rulers? If the vile kufr don't convert, and they're miserable and "subdued", doesn't that then mean that such rulers have in fact followed the edict of Mohammed? 'Please' yourself. Mohammed beheaded the male members of the Quraysh tribe. Far from being "orientalist", this is crowed about by muslims themselves. I've never talked to any muslim who's disavowed it. And that bit about the poetess being a military general is nonsense. Should I believe you that the non-muslims - whom you accuse of horrifying misogyny - allowed a woman to become a military leader? And when she was stabbed - did her guards just forget to protect her? Wasn't she pregnant when stabbed? "Two goats will not butt their heads together about it" (Mohammed) does not sound like a realistic response to the murder of a general of armed men. It sounds like the commentary of a warlord on the murder of a helpless prole. I've no doubt that the tradition of which you speak was not invented by Mohammed - but he did say that "there shall not be two religions in the Arabian Peninsula", which speaks to his motivation. Some people did indeed emigrate to escape islamist persecution (and I know several such), but many others simply disappeared. The Coptic Christians in Egypt represent one such oppressed minority. The things they've had to undergo in Egypt are utterly horrifying. But none of those places had any real historical right there. The mosques destroyed in Spain were destroyed during the Reconquista: the counter-attack by indigenous Spaniards against islamic invaders. Bosnia, Kosovo and India - although we live in the modern era - represent examples of the same movement separated in time (and we can hardly deny that there were similar attacks on Christian sites there). I find it a little dubious that Christians initiated all these wars given that islamic advance crossed into Europe. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Christians had picked up some ideas from their invaders. I have read about Mohammed from those most inviolate of all sites: the Quran, and the hadiths. I don't like what I'm finding. Geoff
hey Geoff i am interested in tis. not that long back i saw a really interesting ducu bout Sufism. its main argument was rthat unlike fundamentalist Islam Sufism was more accepting of totes' beliefs--for example you saw them with santuries to te Virgin ary, etc now you are claiming here they are responsibile for 50million deaths...?! i would like to see some sources for this. did a little google before but found nothing in first links
Really. Then how does one explain those two buildings full of innocent people we used to have in New York? How about those innocent school children in Russia? How about the many innocent hostages beheaded by chanting Muslims screaming " Allah is great" while their actions seem to be inspired by some demon from hell? This brings up an interesting point. The phrase "Allah ak- bar". This is the one arabic phrase most of the world knows. Unfortunately, it has become synonomous with "Sieg Heil" as a phrase screamed by men about to commit unspeakable evil. "Allah is great" is screamed before a busload of children are killed, or a man in a wheelchair is thrown off a boat, or a helpless hostage is beheaded. If Allah is great, he will not long tolerate such evil being perpetrated in his name.
Yeah i will remember that disgusting thing to the day i die, a american pensioner in his wheel chair thrown off a cruise ship by muslim nutters, such sadistic hatred in humanbeings is beyond belief. But there justification is always israel, if israel is destroyed tommorow by a metorite, then they will find another justification, there fight is not with israel, there true fight is with other religons, with islam like highlander the movie there can be only one, & like the movie the others must be beheaded.
I think Islam is funny. A lot of Mouslim Suckers died for a single piece of crap cartoon about a lunatic who existed more than 20o0 years ago. These Mouslim are like animals, they live like animals, they die like animals and hence they can be killed like animals. Oh I forgot, they treat animals better than women.
ask the israelis then why are all the settlers armed since creation of israeli state, and all the fanatical acctions covered by the government? unlike christians and jews, we don't hold all what we got from scholars as being true, even if he (al-bukhari) claims that Muhammad said it, I as a shiite for one, don't find al-bukhary credible... not to mention the above hadith was narrated by a one man source, so bukhari is to answer to his claim this.... where, how?..... i don't see them being slaughtered or persecuted... yes they r denied political powers in some country, but persecution ...please! i didn't say the caliphate was all that great but the abbasids did have a better record of treating minorities than the the rest of the known world at that time.... its not the title its the mentality that was ruling..... and i never said sharia is wrong, its the salafi interpretation this verse is in surat al-tawbah, which has a main theme (in cases of war), hence all its verses r to be interpreted on that bases.... and no according to quran, we r forbidden to forecly convert anyone see the (the cow) verse 256 quote your sources... well, when money and power rule, tradition fades off in common peoples minds that what led her to reach power... and by ur assumption of her guards failing to protect her, in this case u find hard to beleive all political and military assasinations that occured in history!!! quote ur sources.... the interpretation of this hadith has long been to mean the area of mecca and madinah, and some extend it to the whole of hijaz, not all arabia, this hadith was said after all the tribes in the mentioned region converted not before so reconquest gives them right of persecution? and the bosnians and albanians r not invaders they r original settlers like the serbs, it is even said by some serbs that they were originallr slavs who converted, hence the hatred.... And what of the pagan temples that existed in the middle east all demolished by the byzantines and christians, and the numerous arian churches that were destroyed in europe after the germanians and huns power faded! r these reconquests also?
you would? i'm sorry but the queen will die before i give my life, same goes for the president in my opinion there is no one worth dying for, killing for maybe, but not dying
I would not murder for anyone, but the royal family is my heritage, presidents come and go, but monarchies stay until they die, or step down, thats why i & many others feel that way about our uk monarchy, they are our history & our future. If i had a choice between politicians running the UK or our monarchy, i would pick the moarchy every time, politicians are just greedy lying bastards, like accountants & lawyers.
No, being a Pakistani I would know that 'paki' is an insulting word used to insult Pakistanis. In England and America, many Pakistanis will get into a fight with you if you call them that word. It's racist. I'm a Pakistani and I am telling you its not a shortened word for Pakistani. It's a racial slur against Pakistanis and was used since 1947 to make fun and mock Pakistanis, their nation, their leaders, and since has been hated by all Pakistanis. The phrase you said saying "it is easier to take water out of a rock than to get money from a 'paki' " is also a racist remark. Also the first invasion of India was by the Arabs and Persians, who conquered the territory of Balochistan and Sindh due to mass conversion of the populations by Muslim trading and their religious persecution from the rulers. After that, Afghanistanis embraced Islam and the rest of India was under the domination of Islam only after the Mongols conquered it and embraced Islam later. Traditionally, the religion of Indian Muslims was Sunni Muslim. Many Sufis fall into the category of Sunni Muslim. In Pakistan and also ancient India, Sufi became a modern word for those of Sunni Muslims who became monks and left the world to purify themselves in isolation. Some sufi groups aren't Sunni, but most of the groups are Sunni and believe almost the same things. Also classifying sufi as one sect is very foolish, since often sufi groups are in a whole spectrum of different beliefs, ranging from some who believe in paganism but claim to be Muslim to most who are strictly Sunni Muslim monks. The West has a horrible habit of putting other people in fake categories. Recently I have heard Islamist, which is ridiculous. I also heard fundamentalist Muslim, but I think every time what is wrong with following the fundamentals of Islam. There is no such think as moderate and extremist Muslims. There are only religious and non-religious Muslims. There is nothing wrong with being a religious Muslim. Infact, religious Muslims are usually much kinder, gentler and loving then those who don't practice their religion.
What do you want me to say? Most of the world should know by now that a few terrorists killing some people do not represent a billion people. I don't need to respond to such things. That question has been answered many times on this forum. Your president invaded Iraq on lies, killed more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians, used white phospherous against the civilians of Fallujah, and is involved in the prison abuse in various Iraqi jails of which Abu Ghareeb is just one. He claims God told him to do this. Using your logic, should I implicate Christianity or even Christians with this?
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/001301.html U.S. President George Bush has unwittingly used an offensive racial slur against the Pakistani people that the community has been trying to squash for at least 30 years. Mr. Bush used the term Pakis in remarks to reporters yesterday, when discussing the possibility of nuclear rivals India and Pakistan going to war. The word has the same impact in the Pakistani community as the term nigger has for American blacks, said Aziz Khaki, vice-chair of the Muslim Canadian Federation. "It's a very derogatory term," he said yesterday. "People use the term when they do not like you. It is used against people of colour." However, the term may reverberate with more force outside Pakistan than inside the country. Athar Razvi, a Toronto-area writer who often visits his native Pakistan, said the word lacks impact there. "Actually, this [word] is a creation of the British media. The British are known for giving names to peoples and nationalities. It started in Britain, the word Paki, and it was here [in Canada] about 25 years ago, and it was taken as a kind of bad name to call a person from the subcontinent. . . . But I don't think the very word Paki, in Pakistan, will be taken as seriously or in as bad a connotation as people may think. If he had said something bad about Islam, that would be something different." Speaking about the confrontation between India and Pakistan, Mr. Bush said he did not believe their tension has yet been defused. "But I do believe there is a way to do so, and we are working hard to convince both the Indians and the Pakis there's a way to deal with their problems without going to war," Mr. Bush said. ************* Even world leaders use the word paki, are they all racist too, it is shortform, it has no racial meaning in the states, sure in the uk skinheads may use it, but elsewhere it is shortform. So please if your going to bash someone over the head with your racial crap, get your facts right. Britain =brits pakistan=pakis Is that simple enough for you, just like this cartoon crap, you guys are just looking for a fight fullstop, if you guys spent less time nit picking & more time working like westerners, you would not have time to demonstrate. Its all about workkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! work for a paki in the uk is having to get dressed to go to unemployment office & sign his name for his weekly unemployment cheque. These are facts not racial slurs Uk unemployment statistics http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1389 Among women, Pakistanis had the highest unemployment rates (17 per cent) . In 2002/03, men from Bangladeshi , at 18 per cent Pakistanis (14 per cent)
if you want to bash christianity be my guest if you want to bash bush be my guest but i do know this, anybody that says allah is great right before they behead someone is disgusting, an idiot, imbecile, a true waste of human tissue and that goes for anyone that says their god is great before doing such things. if you really look at this objectivly you will find that religion in all its forms is the most disgusting, vile, inhumane thing a person can beleive in how many innocent lives have been sacrificed to someones god?
There is no equivalence here. Any civilians killed by the US was a predictable athough unintentional side effect of the war. The difference is that the terrorists OBJECTIVE is to kill women and children. The US goes to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties. Hell, the whole invasion was an attempt to avoid casualties as we could have simply nuked the middle east into submission with ZERO US casualties. Furthermore, the fact that Bush is Christian has nothing to do with his policy to defend US interests. The nutjobs who commit atrocities in the name of Islam are entirely motivated by their perverted religious idiology. The good, decent Muslims must root them out and stop making excuses for them before it is too late.
Any religion that justifies or condones killing, irregardless of the reasons, is dangerous and should be abolished. If Islam is a 'way of life,' then killing must be part of that way. Injustice will most likely always exist, since it can be rationalized relative to the individuals set of morals, hence there will always be killing. There can be no peace with Islam.
I agree & also it is not racist to call islam or show cartoons of allah, religons are there to be slated, to be blamed, it is racist to ridicule someone over the colour of there skin, that is something the moral crusaders here do not understand, cults are religons too, yet there fair game for all, as is the church of scientology. I have every right to slate islam or any other religon that is responsible directly or indirectly for 10,000 or more deaths a year, over one thousand alone in thailand this year, one country, my home that is a disgusting figure, if more people stood up to islam this carnage could be stopped, but our politicians just throw petrol over the situation by humouring muslims. Every religon deals with being slated, the catholics with there paedophile priests, etc, but muslims we dare not say a word or risk having a bounty put over our heads shhhhhhhhhh dont say a word.......
Good article on this topic. Some quotes: The point of the article is that Islam must reform itself. The true moderates must take control and root out the psychos. Islam must undergo its reformation before the war on terror turns into a true "clash of civilizations".
