Posted on 06/05/2004 7:21:49 PM PDT by nuconvert
"for every non-muslim terrorism/mass-murder in the past 100 years, you can cite 100 muslim incidents."
that will be pretty hard to prove. i'm not in a mood to start comparing genocides, but with hitler, stalin and mao, i think non-muslims have a lock on mass murder in the past 100 years.
"Muslims invaded the world and spread as far away as west africa and indonesia and the philippines back before the days when Magellan first circumnavigated the world."
... The Spanish also invaded the world and spread as far away as West Africa and Guam -- plus two more continents. I'm not ready to call the Castilian nation "an evil curse on the world."
"Remember, Muslim-Morro's killed Magellan in the Philippines."
Did they kill him BECAUSE they were Muslim, or maybe did they see him as an "invader"? Hawai'ians killed Capt. Cook, but they're not "an evil curse on the world."
NuConvert, I visited your site and realize you are an Iranian Muslim.
I and a great many other posters on this site are incensed over 9-1-1 and the reactions we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan in response to our actions over there. We are also incensed over the fact that a significant majority of Muslims appear to hate western society and western culture and yet immigrate to the west and attempt to Islamicize it.
You have to understand that neither I nor most other posters here personally know any Muslims and know about them only what we read from the Quran, the Haddiths, the newspapers and from history books (sometimes).
Having said that, the points you present are valid ones. Everybody is an individual. Some Christians, mainly in the past, have read their scriptures and interpreted them as approving the slaughter of people who are not Christians or who do not wish to become Christian. That perspective has changed over time as more and more western Christians were able to read the New Testament themselves and realized that Christ taught people to forgive their enemies and not kill them.
Yet reading BOTH Islamic sites and personally knowing other Christians, I know that many Christians and Muslims firmly believe that God will only "save" people who happen to follow their own respective religious beliefs. In this respect many Christians and Muslims have something in common. Personally, I believe nobody but God knows what he is going to do, and anybody who tries to lead a really decent life, Muslim or Christian, or anyone else, has a chance for salvation.
Having said that, I acknowledge as correct your assertions that there ARE Muslims who do not interpret "Jihad" as a directive to march out and kill any non-Muslim they encounter. Like everybody else, Muslims are individuals and like Christians, they are capable of interpreting their own scriptures from different perspectives.
You obviously are not a fanatic who advocates or supports terrorism or force to convert non-Muslims. As an Iranian who is not an Arab, you are probably much more western in your perspective of society than the average Arabian Muslim is.
I am deeply sorry I may have offened you personally in any way by my statements. They were indeed generalizations and not directed at you specifically, nor specifically at any indivual Muslim.
Americans in general are really confused about many issues involving Islam and the manner in which overtures we have made in the past to assist Muslims do not appear to have been appreciated by those to whom such assistance was rendered.
We are also incensed by the way non-Muslims are treated in most countries in which Islam is the dominant religion.
Maybe Christians should make an effort to learn more about Islam and individual Muslims and the different ways they interpret their scriptures. But those decent Muslims out there who are NOT terrorists and do NOT approve of the actions of governments like those in Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, etc, MUST make a better effort to drown out the voices of, and oppose the actions of, those individuals who claim to be Muslims and have succeeded in presenting a hostile face of Islam to the western world.
255 - Like usual, muslims gloss over jihad, and try to obfuscate.
One of the pillars of islam is to pay zakah, the tax, which one of the major purposes it is used for is "7. In the way of Allah". Now this is spreading Islam with the sword, and the Zakah is used to buy weapons for spreading Islam "In the way of Allah".
One cannot be a good muslim without paying zakah, and zakah is used for buying weapons to spread islam.
255 - http://www.iisca.org/knowledge/jihad/meaning_of_jihad.htm
Zakah in sharee'ah is performed by giving 2.5% of the annual savings to charity as an obligation. Similarly, one cannot perform Jihad by giving lectures, feeding the family or serving the parents, rather Jihad can only be performed in the field of al-Qitaal (lit. fighting), as the sharee'ah dictates.
Unfortunately, whenever Allah guides the Muslim youth to get up and fulfil the obligation and the Sunnah of Qitaal in the way of Allah, we find some people amongst the Muslims hindering the youth away from the legal Jihaad to linguistic Jihaad, which is what lead me to translate this piece of work, so that it may be beneficial to the Muslims in general and a final blow to the obstacles in the path of the youths seeking martyrdom in the way of Allah.
255 - http://www.geocities.com/sizbar/Islam.html
The fourth pillar is the "Zakah," which is an obligatory charity given to the poor people of the Muslim society by Muslims who can sustain themselves reasonably. This is a share that is calculated by the amount of gold one holds, and the amount of money one earns. This is obligatory, and should be payed by everyone who works and earns.
I would also like to clear this to some Muslims that Jihad and Shahadah do not mean the same. There is a difference, since I know of some brothers who think that the word Jihad and Shahadah mean the same. However, Jihad means, Holy war, whereas Shahadah means the declaration of the belief in One God.
Saudi Arabia withdrew the laws permitting slavery in 1964, (note - I didn't say Abolished Slavery):
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4686
quote:
As the recent campaign for reparations has shown, the West is still being taken to task for the fact that it used to permit slavery. But in fact the West, rather than being the origin of slavery in the world, is in fact the only civilization to have created from within itself a successful movement to abolish it. Other civilizations, like Islamic civilization, have not yet achieved this. To this day, the principal places in the world where one can buy a slave for ready cash are Moslem countries.
This should not come as a surprise, for slavery finds explicit positive support in Islam, rather than the mere acquiescence it does in Christianity. Christianity is not explicitly anti-slavery, as the long acceptance of slavery by the various churches shows, but it does not positively endorse it, either. More importantly, it was out of evangelical Christian circles that abolitionism emerged in American and Britain, and no church today countenances it. While both the Old and New Testaments recognize slavery, the Gospels do not treat the institution as divinely ordained. Christianity recognized slavery as a fact of life, as part of how the world works, as indeed it did in New Testament times.
The Koran, by contrast, not only assumes the existence of slavery as a permanent fact of human existence, but regulates its practice in considerable detail, thereby endowing it with divine sanction by revealing God's detailed will for how it should be conducted. Mohammed and his companions owned slaves. The Koran recognizes the basic inequality between master and slave and the rights of the former over the latter. To be fair, it also urges, without actually commanding, kindness to slaves, and considers a Moslem slave to be of a higher order than a free infidel. However, this does not entitle him to be set free.
The Koran explicitly guarantees Moslems the right to own slaves, either by purchasing them or as bounty of war. Mohammed had dozens, both male and female, and he regularly traded slaves when he became independently wealthy in Medina. Some of their names are recorded to posterity. As for the women:
"Whenever Mohammed took a woman as a captive, if he imposed the veil on her, Moslems would say he took her as a wife, but if he left her unveiled they would say, 'He owned her as a slave'; that is, she became a property of his right hand."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4686
Islam's Wretched Record on Slavery
By Serge Trifkovic
FrontPageMagazine.com | November 20, 2002
As the recent campaign for reparations has shown, the West is still being taken to task for the fact that it used to permit slavery. But in fact the West, rather than being the origin of slavery in the world, is in fact the only civilization to have created from within itself a successful movement to abolish it. Other civilizations, like Islamic civilization, have not yet achieved this. To this day, the principal places in the world where one can buy a slave for ready cash are Moslem countries.
This should not come as a surprise, for slavery finds explicit positive support in Islam, rather than the mere acquiescence it does in Christianity. Christianity is not explicitly anti-slavery, as the long acceptance of slavery by the various churches shows, but it does not positively endorse it, either. More importantly, it was out of evangelical Christian circles that abolitionism emerged in American and Britain, and no church today countenances it. While both the Old and New Testaments recognize slavery, the Gospels do not treat the institution as divinely ordained. Christianity recognized slavery as a fact of life, as part of how the world works, as indeed it did in New Testament times.
The Koran, by contrast, not only assumes the existence of slavery as a permanent fact of human existence, but regulates its practice in considerable detail, thereby endowing it with divine sanction by revealing God's detailed will for how it should be conducted. Mohammed and his companions owned slaves. The Koran recognizes the basic inequality between master and slave and the rights of the former over the latter. To be fair, it also urges, without actually commanding, kindness to slaves, and considers a Moslem slave to be of a higher order than a free infidel. However, this does not entitle him to be set free.
The Koran explicitly guarantees Moslems the right to own slaves, either by purchasing them or as bounty of war. Mohammed had dozens, both male and female, and he regularly traded slaves when he became independently wealthy in Medina. Some of their names are recorded to posterity. As for the women:
"Whenever Mohammed took a woman as a captive, if he imposed the veil on her, Moslems would say he took her as a wife, but if he left her unveiled they would say, 'He owned her as a slave'; that is, she became a property of his right hand."
In line with the racist views of Mohammed himself about his own people, the Arabs as "the nobles of all races" were exempt from enslavement. More later on the present-day consequences of this in Africa.
The four caliphs or religious rulers who came after Mohammed discouraged the enslavement of free Moslems, and it was eventually prohibited. But the assumption of freedom as the normal condition of men did not extend to non-Moslems. Disobedient or rebellious dhimmis (subject peoples, i.e. Christians, Hindus, Jews, Africans) were often reduced to slavery and prisoners captured in jihad were also enslaved if they could not be exchanged or ransomed. In Africa, Arab rulers regularly raided black tribes to the south and captured slaves claiming their raids to be jihad; in India, many Hindus were enslaved on the same pretext.
A Moslem slave-owner was entitled by law to the sexual enjoyment of his slave women. Many African slaves were eunuchs. Castration was against Islamic law, but this was massively evaded. For African captives nothing short of "castration level with the abdomen" would do; no mere removal of the cojones, as with Slavic and Greek captives. Only such radically castrated eunuchs were deemed fit to be guardians of the harem.
During its so-called golden age, the slave trade inside the Islamic empire and along its edges was vast. It began to flourish at the time of the Moslem expansion into Africa, in the middle of the seventh century, and it still survives today in Mauritania and Sudan. The Spanish and Portuguese originally purchased black African slaves for their American colonies from Arab dealers. Nubians and Ethiopians, with their slender features and thin noses, were preferred to the equatorial Bantus, who were perceived as crude beings for whom hard toil and lowly menial tasks were appropriate.
There are notable differences between the slave trade in the Islamic world and the trans-Atlantic variety. The former has been going on for 13 centuries and it is an integral feature of the Islamic civilization, while the influx of slaves into the New World lasted less than a third that long and was effectively ended by the middle of the 19th century.
Just over ten million Africans were taken to the Americas during that period, while the number of captives taken to the heartlands of Islam - while impossible to establish with precision - is many times greater. Nevertheless, there are tens of millions of descendants of slaves in the Americas, and practically none in the Moslem world outside Africa. For all its horrors, the Atlantic slave trade took place within a capitalistic context in which slaves were expensive pieces of property not to be destroyed. In the Moslem world slaves were considerably cheaper, far more widely available, and regarded as a dispensable commodity. They were effectively worked to death, and thus left no descendants.
Contrary to the myth that Islam is a religion free from racial prejudice, slavery in the Moslem world has been, and remains, brutally racist in character. To find truly endemic, open, raw anti-Black racism and slavery today one needs to go to the two Islamic Republics in Africa: Mauritania and Sudan. Black people have been enslaved on such a scale that the term black has become synonymous with slave. The mixed-race, predominantly Negroid but self-avowedly "Arabic" denizens of the transitional sub-Saharan zone have been indoctrinated into treating their pure-black southern neighbors with racist disdain. [NOTEBOB - this I have personally observed, the discrimination in Egypt, against 'dark' Egyptians from the south, or 'upper' Nile ] (To this day it can be dangerous to one's life to ask a dark-looking but Arabic-speaking Sudanese or Mauritanian Moslem if he is "black.")
The Moslem world has yet to produce a serious indigenous movement to abolish slavery that was not the consequence of Western prompting.
The Arabian Peninsula in 1962 became the world's penultimate region to officially abolish slavery, yet years later Saudi Arabia alone was estimated to contain a quarter of a million slaves. Thousands of miles away from Africa, in Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province, girls as young as five are auctioned off to highest bidders. Afghan girls between the ages of 5 and 17 sell for $80 to $100. The price depends on the colors of their eyes and skin; if they are virgins, the price is higher. The girls are generally sold into prostitution or, if they are lucky, they may join harems in the Middle East.
If they are lucky.
262 - "We are also incensed over the fact that a significant majority of Muslims appear to hate western society and western culture and yet immigrate to the west and attempt to Islamicize it. "
EXACTLY, ZULU.
In 255, nuconvert quotes/states "Allah commands that Muslims lead peaceful lives and not transgress against anyone. If they are persecuted and oppressed, the Qur'an recommends that they migrate to a more peaceful and tolerant land: "Lo! Those who believe, and those who emigrate (to escape persecution) and strive (Jahadu) in the way of Allah, these have hope of Allah's mercy..." (Quran, 2:218). If relocation is not possible, then Allah also requires Muslims to defend themselves against oppression by "fighting against those who fight against us." 2 The Qur'an states: "To those against whom war is made, permission is given [to defend themselves], because they are wronged - and verily, Allah is Most Powerful to give them victory." (22:39) The defensive nature of physical jihad (or "jihad with the hand") is frequently lost among many, Muslims, Christians, secularists and others."
Meaning, that Muslims move to a "more peaceful and tolerant land", then when the inhabitants get perturbed and try to protect themselves against the invaders, the muslims fight back to conquer the new land, and displace the religion and power of the original owners/inhabitants.
Yeah, many governments in the Arab world wink at slavery. In other news, the sky is blue and the Pope is Catholic.
You won't find many people willing to debate you on those three.
"As the recent campaign for reparations has shown, the West is still being taken to task for the fact that it used to permit slavery. But in fact the West, rather than being the origin of slavery in the world, is in fact the only civilization to have created from within itself a successful movement to abolish it."
Slavery is wrong. The reparations debate is over who, if anyone can be held responsible -- i.e., what is the statute of limitations on terrorism.
"Christianity is not explicitly anti-slavery, as the long acceptance of slavery by the various churches shows, but it does not positively endorse it, either."
John C. Calhous thought otherwise 140 years ago. Legions of pro-Slavery (and Christian) theologians defended slavery in the US with Biblical interpretations.
"More importantly, it was out of evangelical Christian circles that abolitionism emerged in American and Britain, and no church today countenances it."
Prominent historian U.B. Phillips said 80 years ago that slavery was "a school" and ultimately very good for African-Americans. I've seen this argument on Africa discussions in the past in one form or another and it's a revoltingly neutral take on slavery. If no church contenances it, that doesn't mean that no churchgoer does.
"but regulates its practice in considerable detail, thereby endowing it with divine sanction by revealing God's detailed will for how it should be conducted."
...and the difference between regulation and recognition without condemnation is what?
Calhous=Calhoun
No, I'm not Iranian or muslim. Nor am I Arab. However, I'll take the liberty of accepting your apology on behalf of others. Thank you.
I despise terrorists as much as the next person, no matter what they try to [put forth as their religion, politics, or philosophy. I don't understand why so many foreign radicals and terrorist supporters are permitted to stay in this country.
"...those decent Muslims out there who are NOT terrorists and do NOT approve of the actions of governments like those in Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, etc, MUST make a better effort to drown out the voices of, and oppose the actions of, those individuals who claim to be Muslims and have succeeded in presenting a hostile face of Islam to the western world."
I would like to see this also. But I do recognize the dangers involved in publicly denouncing the radical groups.
Here's a couple of Iraqi blogs you might find interesting.....
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
(In particular, read the one from 5/19/04....it's a conversation with a cab driver. (I've decided native cab drivers are a good barometer for the true feelings of the local populace)
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/
" Like everybody else, Muslims are individuals and like Christians, they are capable of interpreting their own scriptures from different perspectives."
Exactly.
261 - ""Remember, Muslim-Morro's killed Magellan in the Philippines."
"Did they kill him BECAUSE they were Muslim, or maybe did they see him as an "invader"? Hawai'ians killed Capt. Cook, but they're not "an evil curse on the world."
They killed him because they were Muslims, and he wasn't. The muslim religion started as a religion of war and slavery, always has been, since its very inception.
The good muslims I know are good in spite of their religion, not because of it. The religion is an evil curse on the world, and particularly on the muslim peoples.
And since Islam encourages LYING to non-Muslims this means what?
"a significant majority of Muslims appear to hate western society and western culture and yet immigrate to the west and attempt to Islamicize it. "
A significant majority? Really? You agree with that, Bob?
271 - first link, an interesting post, and one portion explains a lot - POWER -
"I think the answer lies in one fact. There’s an unwritten law in most of the countries with considerable She’at presence that has always considered the clerics to be immune to the law. This doesn’t apply to all clerics, but only the very senior ones. With time, this law has expanded to protect most popular clerics. Now, Muqtada is certainly not a senior cleric, but his family name and the sacrifices they gave, gave him some holy shape in the eyes of some of the She’at. If this guy was arrested, this law would not be literally broken, but the event will have the same effect. Meaning every cleric will know that he is not above the law. This will be an innovation that will shake all clerics with political ambitions. Hence all this crap about "red lines" winch is no more than a big lie that should fool no one. People will certainly be saddened and some would be outraged if the holy shrines were affected, but their care about their lives and jobs certainly is more. Most She'at Iraqis are sentimental when it comes to religion, but not to that degree. The operation should go on with great care however, and will put all those hypocrites in their right places. No more adventures and no more Mahdi armies. This revolt can actually act as an immunization against more serious ones in the future that is if it was dealt with in the proper way. The patience of the coalition has paid its fruits and Muqtada should be *arrested* but certainly not killed and now, in my opinion, is the right time."
274 - ""a significant majority of Muslims appear to hate western society and western culture and yet immigrate to the west and attempt to Islamicize it. "
A significant majority? Really? You agree with that, Bob?"
Well, perhaps it could be better stated: "a significant percentage". A significant majority are silent, and allow the significant minority to preach hate.
Arabic newspapers, TV, radio, mosques, are full of hate speach, anti-western. It is a "significant majority" of the stories, after the obligatory initial story about the local dictator which heads up any newspaper or newsprogram.
How about a vocal minority?
"They killed him because they were Muslims, and he wasn't."
Did the Spanish kill Hatuey because they were Christian and he wasn't? Yes.
"The muslim religion started as a religion of war and slavery, always has been, since its very inception."
I'm not going to argue with this. Not because I think it's right, but because I don't really think you listen arguments against statements like these. The historical record shows that Islam began as a If you would like to continue discussing the Atlantic Slave Trade or West African history, I'll be happy to do so.
"The good muslims I know are good in spite of their religion, not because of it."
Just curious, do you discuss religion with your Muslim friends much?
Here's a blog you might like. It does contain some bad language, just to warn you.
Might bring back some memories. He's a character.
Here's his entry on the Nick Berg beheading.
Mahmood's Den
http://www.mahmood.tv/
Nick Berg
Thu, 13 May 2004 15:50:46
I'm not shocked at all about the manner of Nick Berg's death. The sub-humans who carried out this crime bring shame on all of humanity, let alone Islam. And the whole of humanity should strike back. These extremists no matter what they call themselves should be dealt with.
If we as Muslims stay quiet about this situation, then we too shall join the ranks of sub-humanity and will be completely culpable.
My heartfelt condolences to Nick's family and friends. Although this could never be consolation to his family, if there is a definition of martyr, then surely Nick is one.
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.