Posted on 08/15/2006 5:01:26 AM PDT by cerberus
Edited on 08/15/2006 5:05:36 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Recently I read the shocking news of the bomb explosions in the Bombay railway station.
I am an American Muslim, originally from India, and have been a resident of Louisiana for over 30 years. I condemn this barbaric and gruesome action.
(Excerpt) Read more at nola.com ...
One out of a few billion isn't much to get excited about, IMHO.
Only Islam can clean it's own filthy house. No one else can do it.
***In every religion murdering another human being is the worst sin anyone could commit. ***
If this guy is a Muslim he must not be reading from the same book as most of his Mullahs.
I believe in giving credit where credit is due.
Besides, it only takes "one out of a few billion" to help uncover a terrorist plot.
How can people kill each other in the name of religion?
That would be non-sequitur. American Soldiers don't kill in the name of religion.
He isn't saying they do. Read it again.
Religion is just an excuse - an umbrella - for these nuts to act out their warped delusions.
I'm glad to hear from a Muslim who can see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya
TAQIYYA
Although Taqiyya is generally thought of as a Shi'a term, according to principles defined by the great Sunni theologian al-Ghazali, lying, including protection of oneself or others, is permissible under certain circumstances:
“Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish it through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible..., and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. ...One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie…” [3]
Exactly right. Too many apologists keep saying that it's "radical" Islam, "hijacked" Islam, yeah right. Read the book, I can't find any Golden Rule in it, all I have found is revenge, kill non-Muslims or reduce them to slavery or servanthood.
All depends on how you define 'murder.'
We euphemistically 'terminate pregnancies.'
They kill infidels.
BEGIN Moral equivalence argument.
END reasoned debate.
;-p
Well, that's one.
Only 1,199,000,000 to go.
I've read it again, and the writer's sentence structure groups American Soldiers, Iraqi civilians [and] ...terrorists... in the sentence preceeding his question 'why people kill in the name of religion?' How do you read the 'Whether its...'?
OK, now I see it. I'm glad I didn't take a tone in my responses. Thanks for clarifying.
The second sentence is a question regarding those that are doing the killing.
I don't see a problem with the juxtaposition of those two thoughts - they are separate threads.
"First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye."
"American Soldiers don't kill in the name of religion."
neither do train passengers or iraqi civilians for the most part (exceptions exist to all 3) BUT you might consider that the author is describing VICTIMS of terrorism.
There are only 1.2 billion Muslims world-wide... there are 2.1 billion Christians, 1.1 billion secular/agnostic/etc, and 0.9 billion Hindu.
(No other category cracks the 500 million mark. The other billion or so residents of the world are mostly Buddhist or traditional/tribal/primal.)
He is grouping American soldiers, Iraqi civilians and train passengers as being killed by terrorists, not of being terrorists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.