War against terror

[iNeo 0]

WANTED: Swedish speaking forum members to do some translation work.

as-Salamu Aliykom

I've read about this disgusting painting on two different forums. May Allah swt punish these -?- hard for throwing dirt at Allah swt word, amen.

It woke storm around Swedish Muslims and there were many different associations and people who wrote about this painting and it was storm.

People were really upset and angry.

But now I wonder about this? Why has no mails been sent here and why don't Sweden's Muslims care about this? And cry out loud about a painting that is bad enough, but this? Where are your e-mails to Bofors?

"Swedish weapon. American soldiers help a wounded comrade in Az Bayer in southern Iraq. The weapon in the circle is Swedish: an AT grenade launcher from Bofors, model AT4."

Swedish weapon export approved by the Swedish government.

The Swedish state is supporting the War against Islam, Wallahi Sweden is part of Islam's Enemy and supporting the war against Islam.

Wallahi I pray to Allah swt to make everyone involved in the War against Islam subject to a great punishment, amen.

And that Sweden will feel Mujahdiin punishment that USA and Spain, other countries have done for their involvement in Iraq. May Allah swt punish this hypocrite of a government, amen.

DOES ANYONE CARE?

HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN ALL THE IMAGES OF DEAD CHILDREN AND WOMEN ELDERLY IN IRAQ?

NOTE: I read the following in Noor

Wa salam aliykom

[theavonlady 2]

First of all that wasnt the incident i was narrating.

Read up here to clear your mis-conceptions thats all i can say its useless to quote it all here and explain the same twice.

http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_51_100/stoning_for_adultery.htm

http://www.irfi.org/article....ear.htm

Pong:

Details of Fatwah - Stoning: Does It Have Any Basis in Shari`ah?

EDIT: Similarly, Stoning married adulterers is the Sunnah, not the Qur'an.

Ineo, thanks.

[USSRsniper 0]

lol i saw alot of talking about baning religion in schools..

Religion is not the source on terrorism  

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]"Swedish weapon. American soldiers help a wounded comrade in Az Bayer in southern Iraq. The weapon in the circle is Swedish: an AT grenade launcher from Bofors, model AT4."

Swedish weapon export approved by the Swedish government.

The Swedish state is supporting the War against Islam, Wallahi Sweden is part of Islam's Enemy and supporting the war against Islam.

Wallahi I pray to Allah swt to make everyone involved in the War against Islam subject to a great punishment, amen.

And that Sweden will feel Mujahdiin punishment that USA and Spain, other countries have done for their involvement in Iraq. May Allah swt punish this hypocrite of a government, amen.

Seriously, they need to pick up a history book about bofors. I'm sure some allied planes during WWII were shot down because of the german 40mm bofors aa gun that was a licensed copy from bofors. The allies used a licensed copy of the gun too to shoot down lots of german, japanese, and etc. airplanes. You didn't see B-17s or HE-111s bombing the hell out of Sweden because of this. Anyway, I'm sure arab nations still/used that aa gun or a product of bofors.

Sweden...a country of war profiteers and evil porn producers...

[denoir 0]

Religion is not the source on terrorism  

It is - and at least it is an excuse. That doesn't mean that religious people are terrorists per se, but it religion has always and will always be a strong catalyst for radicals. Why?

1) Because it's divisive. "Us vs them" is a necessity for any conflict building.

2) It's irrational. You can claim anything and get away with it, simce it's all based on faith - belief without any form of substantiating evidence. It's based on vague emotions rather than rational thinking.

iNeo's translation is a perfect example of it.

Anyway, religion is far from being the only source of such thinking and such excuses for violence. Most forms of "us vs them" will do just fine. Religion however can push you over the edge, as you in your beliefs have a responsibility to act and any morally dubious actions will be forgiven. It gives you a completely different rule book.

[Bordoy 0]

Religion, like Denoir said, isan exscuse for war. Look how many wars in history have religion at the source of it.

From the Romans to the current War on Terror.

But if religion was banned from everywhere, then people would just find another excuse to start fighting.

[Acecombat 0]

Religion is not the source on terrorism  

It is - and at least it is an excuse. That doesn't mean that religious people are terrorists per se, but it religion has always and will always be a strong catalyst for radicals. Why?

1) Because it's divisive. "Us vs them" is a necessity for any conflict building.

2) It's irrational. You can claim anything and get away with it, simce it's all based on faith - belief without any form of substantiating evidence. It's based on vague emotions rather than rational thinking.

iNeo's translation is a perfect example of it.

Anyway, religion is far from being the only source of such thinking and such excuses for violence. Most forms of  "us vs them" will do just fine. Religion however can push you over the edge, as you in your beliefs have a responsibility to act and any morally dubious actions will be forgiven. It gives you a completely different rule book.

Getting back on your second point , but religion promotes rational thinking , thats what leads us to believe in GOD. The very basis of my belief is based on it. Whats so irrational about there being a GOD? Whats rational to you doesnt means its the same to everyone , its all relative. So who decides what?

There are limits in religion its a CODE you cannot break it or stretch it anyway you like thats absurd and if anyone does it you dont say :You can claim anything and get away with it, simce it's all based on faith : , because it isnt based on FAITH its human judgment. Whatever happened to YOUR rationality ?

As for religion making you take actions , yes it does but within its boundaries plus you cannot get away with MORALLY dubious acts , thats against what every divine religion has taught and their messengers DID. No where in the Quran do i find something which says that you can be an oxymoron and we'll let you off at the final day.

Example: No muslim country can in anyway use or promote nuclear weapons because it goes against our code of the quran and muhammeds teaching. Muslims arent allowed to kill indiscriminatly or women/children unless they fight themselves you leave them and the surrounding envoirnment is to be left alone. No harm to trees/wildlife etc etc. now a nuke doesnt bother with any of the above unless its fired at a specific point where theres no natural life except for your enemy's troops but in todays world its nearly an impossible feat so its to be ruled out.

[theavonlady 2]

Example: No muslim country can in anyway use or promote nuclear weapons because it goes against our code of the quran and muhammeds teaching.

Here we go again!

Former Iranian President Rafsanjani on Using a Nuclear Bomb Against Israel

Quote[/b] ]Rafsanjani said that Muslims must surround colonialism and force them [the colonialists] to see whether Israel is beneficial to them or not. If one day, he said, the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israel's possession [meaning nuclear weapons] - on that day this method of global arrogance would come to a dead end. This, he said, is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam.

EDIT: Furthermore:

Quote[/b] ]"If ye punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith ye were afflicted." (An-Nahl: 126)

Reciprocity is permitted by the Quran. So saying nukes are not permitted "in any way" is incorrect.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Im confused, hasnt he heard (and hasnt Acecombat heard?)

Isnt Pakistan a muslim country? I seem to remember a little hoohah a while back about possible nuclear war between India and Pakistan.

Britain is officially a Christian country and im sure nukes arent very Christian devices either (love your neighbour, love your enemy?) but it doesnt seem to have stopped us from possessing them. People are very good at using the 'but we are/this is different' argument.

[denoir 0]

Getting back on your second point , but religion promotes rational thinking , thats what leads us to believe in GOD. The very basis of my belief is based on it. Whats so irrational about there being a GOD? Whats rational to you doesnt means its the same to everyone , its all relative. So who decides what?

Religion is based on faith rather than on observable cause-effect chains.

If A then B.

In rational thinking you need some form of evidence of that relation. Practical observations or measurements. "If I drop an object here on Earth (A) then it will fall to the ground (B)"

In religion you have "If I follow this set of rules (A) then I will go to heaven (B)". Where B is obviously something that you have no observation of, no practical evidence. There is no rational foundation you can use to make the assumption "If A then B", but you still do, based on faith.

Quote[/b] ]There are limits in religion its a CODE you cannot break it or stretch it anyway you like thats absurd and if anyone does it you dont say :You can claim anything and get away with it, simce it's all based on faith : , because it isnt based on FAITH its human judgment. Whatever happened to YOUR rationality ?

The problem is that you cannot show that one religion or one religious interpretation is more correct than another. Since you can't in any way differentiate their validity they are all equally (in)valid. You can't prove that your interpretation of Islam is more valid than the one some radical sect uses.

Quote[/b] ]As for religion making you take actions , yes it does but within its boundaries plus you cannot get away with MORALLY dubious acts , thats against what every divine religion has taught and their messengers DID.

Of course you can. The people that attacked New York were highly religious and their interpretation of Islam fully allowed them to do it. They argued that they were under attack by America and that all Americans were guilty in one way or another. You may disagree with their interpretation of the situation, but you can't prove that they are wrong and that you are right.

Quote[/b] ]Example: No muslim country can in anyway use or promote nuclear weapons because it goes against our code of the quran and muhammeds teaching. Muslims arent allowed to kill indiscriminatly or women/children unless they fight themselves you leave them and the surrounding envoirnment is to be left alone. No harm to trees/wildlife etc etc. now a nuke doesnt bother with any of the above unless its fired at a specific point where theres no natural life except for your enemy's troops but in todays world its nearly an impossible feat so its to be ruled out.

That's your interpretation. And you can't get away without interpretation. On the very basic level you have language disambiguities, translation issues etc. The rule book was written centuries ago, so just translating it into today's context is difficult. More to the point, religious texts are commonly vague, and most of all you can't disprove anybody's interpretation. As for your example, the most simple work around there is just to declare everybody you bomb as not being innocent.

[miles teg 1]

I actually agree that religion can be interpreted to justify a VAST range of horrific attrocities.  

While I have few problems with Qu'ran verses I do have HUGE problems with many Hadiths which are held up on the same level as the Qu'ran by most Muslims.  I heavily disagree with many of my Muslim friends with the concept of "following the Sunnah".  By this it means doing everything that Prophet Mohammed did as much as possible in order to gain the maximum chances of getting into heaven.  This is why many believe that Muslims must dress like their prophet, must eat like him, but choose wives as he did, must pray as he did, ect...   Now certainly his actions and behaviors were as far as I can tell perfectly appropriate for that time period and he was a fantastic reformer in many ways.  However...  I have major issues with a Wahhabi who tells me that all Muslims should seek to marry young girls or that the world needs to be brought under Islamic rule and Shariat law as practiced EXACTLY as it was during the time of the prophet.  

Mohammed lived in a extremely savage society.  Shariat law was in many ways a vast improvement over existing laws and tribal traditions.  Even today much in the way of the rights of the woman in Shariat law is quite progressive.  

However I believe that many of the Ottoman rulers and more progressive Islamic societies had the right concept of Shariat law in which they followed the spirit of the law, but ultimately ruled by interpretatinos of the law that best fit that society.  

The danger of the Hadiths also is that there are many that are very iffy.   Even when you can say, "This Hadith came from this person, who recieved it from this person who recieved it from this person, ect..."  there is no proof of these unless you find two parallel Hadiths by different people observing the same event.     Not all, but most of the Hadiths were gathered together long after Mohammed's death.

The Qu'ran in this regard is alot more solid and while I think that most Hadiths are fine, I also think that it is very dangerous taking them literally when the chances of error and cultural polution (from traditional tribal traditions) in them is very high.  If indeed the Hadiths were the word of God to be followed forever and forever, then Mohammed would have put them in the Qu'ran.  That is my opinion anyways which of coarse my Muslim friends do not hesitate to tell me, is not as valid as the scholars who have studied Hadiths their entire lives.  But I tell them that I also know professors who have studied their fields of science and social sciences but yet who are still complete fools and idiots in many areas including how they apply their knowledge.  Being a scholar of your own religion also implies a VERY VERY strong bias to NOT criticize ANYTHING in their own religion.  This is a huge issue in Christian theology.  Many of the top scholars of Christianity are NOT Christian.  However their findings are automatically rejected by most Christians simply because they are not Christians unless those findings agree with their Christian beliefs.    I can say that at least I have to respect Jewish scholars in that most of the Jewish scholarly work on Judaism that I've seen is HIGHLY critical of their own religion in terms of interpretation and problems in interpretation.  

At any rate back to Hadiths,there are actually some Islamic groups that DO NOT believe in the Hadiths as being the pure words and actions of their prophet.  However they are regarded by most mainstream Muslims as nothing more then just cults.  

Regarding Shariat law, I also am a novice in that area and I am just beginning my study of them.  Most of my focus is more on research in areas surrounding Jihad.  It is here that I believe it is MUCH more difficult to use Islam to justify terrorism even if you use the Hadiths.  The vast majority of the Qu'ran and Hadiths refute the killing of women and children and of non-Muslim clergy.  

So anyways...yeah Shariat law is I think a difficult issue in Islam.  As an anthropologist I try not to pass judgement on what seems like "savage" laws from a Western perspective when in fact here in America I know we have some fairly savage laws and customs ourselves.  

If people in these countries want to be tried under Islamic law, fine, but if they don't, I don't think they should be forced to do so.   I believe there is enough contradictions and/or differences in Hadiths that should make Muslims be Very Very wary of accepting a few Hadith verses as absolute truth.  But because its over 40,000 verses and requires a scholar who has trained their whole life in the study of Hadiths, it gets really really difficult to debate Shariat law.  Maybe later on I will try to read up on Ottoman and Sufi scholarly interpretations of the Shariat.

At any rate, I believe that free and democratic Islamic nations will sort out Shariat law for themselves and not by America pointing a gun at their heads telling them to stop practicing fundamentalist interpretations of Shariat law.  That will only strengthen extreme interpretations of Shariat Law.

I think Muslims with free and democratic institutions will choose the right path as long as their democratic institutions are not co-opted by Islamic Imams as they have been in Iran.  Politics corrupts religion period.  If a population decides they don't want harsh Shariat law, then they should vote in lawmakers who oppose that.   But that is between them and Allah.  It does not say in the Qu'ran that a Muslim will go to hell if he or she doesn't practice Shariat law.  A Muslim is one who practices sincerely the central pillars of the faith of Islam.   But I still need to do more research regarding "following the Sunnah" and whether or not this is actually what Mohammed commanded in the Qu'ran.

But more on-topic, in my opinion, verses regading Islamic conduct in warfare are much easier to do research on and debate in a manner that makes it difficult for fundamentalist Muslims to refute the fact that Islam is most definitely against terrorism.  That is my focus for now which is why I think that Islam can be used VERY VERY effectively to combat terrorism because it very simply and clearly is against it.

OH and to Denoir.  Actually I believe that you can argue to terrorists like the 9/11 terrorists that indeed they are in error in their interpretations because they ignore vast sections of the Qu'ran and Hadiths.  While indeed religion does allow for a vast range of interpretations, I do believe that you can debate, at least on certain subjects, the validity of one interpretation over another. With terrorists you only need to create enough doubt in their minds that they may stand a strong chance of going to hell (according to their Islamic beliefs) for their terrorist actions. That is why I believe that it is actually MUCH easier to deal with terrorists who are truly deeply religious (despite their extreme beliefs) then with simple political terrorists who care about their own glory and political ideologies/ambitions.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[nSe7eN 0]

I n my opinion no religious system supposed to have nuclear weapons, or the knowledge to deploy and use them, especially the Islamic once, that just after reading the Avon replay, and tons of other lessons from history, unless that religious party was *maintained* and *forced* by democratic law and parliament and army if things goes that bad just like the system in turkey now!

Because if not that party after it been elected by the people, will try to enforce its own beliefs and bases upon the system and bases they used to get in power in the first place, they will try to remove the older system so they replace it with their own ideas and bases, I meant Algeria by that sample, that’s the Islam nature, Islam don’t accept the *other* because Islam thinks it’s the only solution for everything and the other are *wrong* and an enemy too, democracy and Islam are complete opposites, religions including Islam been used as an excuse (like denoir said) by many people including the none religious people to achieve anything they ever needed by fooling the people they control and telling them they are following the god instructions, so nuclear weapons + religious system is not acceptable at all conditions in my personal opinion!

[ralphwiggum 6]

let's not turn this thread into a religion thread. we all know what happens when that happens...

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Miles Teg- But as im sure you're aware no matter what you find its not likely to be regarded as valid by most muslims unless you are yourself an Islamic scholar. The Islamic refutations of terrorism must come from other muslims.

nSe7eN-

Quote[/b] ]because Islam thinks it’s the only solution for everything and the other are *wrong* and an enemy too, democracy and Islam are complete opposites, religions including Islam been used as an excuse (like denoir said) by many people including the none religious people to achieve anything  they ever needed by fooling the people they control and telling them they are following the god instructions, so nuclear weapons + religious system is not acceptable at all conditions in my personal opinion!

Rubbish. 'Islam thinks'? What is that supposed to mean? All muslims have exactly the same opinion/interpretation? If democracy and Islam are opposites, how come muslims in the US and throughout europe can vote?

Has religion been used as an excuse? Yes, so has nationalism, ethnicity, culture, and even science.

Move on.

[miles teg 1]

Sadly it is unavoidable Ralph. The War on Terror is tied with Islam. I absolutely reject nSe7eN's beleif that all Muslims want to rule the world and hate everyone. Sadly he like many are extremely ignorant of Muslims in general and try to lump them all together as all believing the same thing when in fact there are TONS and TONS of beliefs and interpretations in Islam. I HATE IT when people throw out some Wahhabi site and say: "SEE SEE THIS IS WHAT MUSLIMS BELIEVE" when in fact that website only represents one interpretation of the Qu'ran and Hadiths. For every Muslim that says one thing, you will get a different Islamic sect that says something else. Please do not believe that Wahhabis represent all of Islam.

Heck, there are even some fairly smart and good Wahhabis who are conservative but are open to new interpretations.

But on the whole most are very close-minded and ultra-conservative. This is reflected in the website that Avon Lady posted where they mention indirectly Sufi interpretations and dismiss them as a bunch of reformers who are trying to muddy what they see as clear and perfect truth in their minds...and yet DON'T put forth any solid evidence to refute the Sufi interpretations. They just use emotional arguments. This is classic Wahhabi type behavior. They make HUGE assumptions about people and act as if they know the mind of God and have the TRUE interpretation on matters where there are tons of grey areas and ambiguity. So, they just say, "Oh well such and such scholar said it was so, and so it must be truth."

At any rate. Don't feel bad, nSe7eN. There are millions of Arabs who are just like you and think very much the same thing of Westerners. Every country has people like yourself who are quick to lump some group together that they don't like. It makes life and the world alot simpler to do that...

...and alot more dangerous.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Getting back on your second point , but religion promotes rational thinking , thats what leads us to believe in GOD. The very basis of my belief is based on it.

Bwaaaahahahahahahhahahahahah

No.

[miles teg 1]

nSe7eN-

Quote[/b] ]because Islam thinks it’s the only solution for everything and the other are *wrong* and an enemy too, democracy and Islam are complete opposites, religions including Islam been used as an excuse (like denoir said) by many people including the none religious people to achieve anything  they ever needed by fooling the people they control and telling them they are following the god instructions, so nuclear weapons + religious system is not acceptable at all conditions in my personal opinion!

Rubbish. 'Islam thinks'? What is that supposed to mean? All muslims have exactly the same opinion/interpretation? If democracy and Islam are opposites, how come muslims in the US and throughout europe can vote?

Has religion been used as an excuse? Yes, so has nationalism, ethnicity, culture, and even science.

Move on.

Quote[/b] ]Miles Teg- But as im sure you're aware no matter what you find its not likely to be regarded as valid by most muslims unless you are yourself an Islamic scholar. The Islamic refutations of terrorism must come from other muslims.

You are right.  But it is not my own findings.  Many Muslims believe very similar things to what I believe and are fighting hard against terrorism. But they lack resources.  It is my goal to work towards uniting these different organizations (who are generally Sufi-which is sect of the Sunni tradition that focuses more on the essence of Islam and the inner Jihad of the soul).  

However also I have talked to fundamentalist Muslims and believe it or not, they do listen to me after we establish a good dialog and I listen closely to their beliefs with respect.

However me not being Muslim is a problem for some.  One Muslim friend told me that he wanted to believe what I was telling him but that he had problems because I was not Muslim.  So I reffered him to Islamic sources and to Muslim friends who are more knowledgable then I am and who are also dedicated to peace and fighting against hatred in this world.

At any rate, I am a firm believer in reforming Islamic terrorists with the fear of Allah that is already in their hearts by showing them the many clear verses from the Qu'ran (not just Hadiths) and from historical evidence that Islam is against the killing of innocent people and respects other religions unless those other religions try to oppress Islam.

This type of reform is already being done in Yemen very successfully by the way.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[nSe7eN 0]

Quote[/b] ]Rubbish. 'Islam thinks'? What is that supposed to mean? All muslims have exactly the same opinion/interpretation? If democracy and Islam are opposites, how come muslims in the US and throughout europe can vote?

Has religion been used as an excuse? Yes, so has nationalism, ethnicity, culture, and even science.

Because they live under democratic system as you see, they can do things they can’t do in other places, so they used to live under democratic system and dealing with it in process, so that changed the way they look for things!

o.O anyhow at least your replays gives some helpful info, but I really didn’t mean to make anyone angry, angry like that, that was a personal opinion, if you didn’t agree with things in it try to correct that person information that related to that issue, and not attacking that person!

Quote[/b] ]Sadly it is unavoidable Ralph. The War on Terror is tied with Islam. I absolutely reject nSe7eN's beleif that all Muslims want to rule the world and hate everyone. Sadly he like many are extremely ignorant of Muslims in general and try to lump them all together as all believing the same thing when in fact there are TONS and TONS of beliefs and interpretations in Islam. I HATE IT when people throw out some Wahhabi site and say: "SEE SEE THIS IS WHAT MUSLIMS BELIEVE" when in fact that website only represents one interpretation of the Qu'ran and Hadiths. For every Muslim that says one thing, you will get a different Islamic sect that says something else. Please do not believe that Wahhabis represent all of Islam.

Heck, there are even some fairly smart and good Wahhabis who are conservative but are open to new interpretations.

But on the whole most are very close-minded and ultra-conservative. This is reflected in the website that Avon Lady posted where they mention indirectly Sufi interpretations and dismiss them as a bunch of reformers who are trying to muddy what they see as clear and perfect truth in their minds...and yet DON'T put forth any solid evidence to refute the Sufi interpretations. They just use emotional arguments. This is classic Wahhabi type behavior. They make HUGE assumptions about people and act as if they know the mind of God and have the TRUE interpretation on matters where there are tons of grey areas and ambiguity. So, they just say, "Oh well such and such scholar said it was so, and so it must be truth."

At any rate. Don't feel bad, nSe7eN. There are millions of Arabs who are just like you and think very much the same thing of Westerners. Every country has people like yourself who are quick to lump some group together that they don't like. It makes life and the world alot simpler to do that...

...and alot more dangerous.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

since you talking from experience it’s seems, how you can make none unified groups and they are even fighting between each other, to agree on the same bases and ideas, which is stop thinking that all world against them and stopping the wave of terror they launch against many countries out there!

Also nothing in my post indicates that I hate Muslims. I didn’t say that!

I just said I can’t accept seeing extremists with nuclear weapons that’s all!

[ralphwiggum 6]

Sadly it is unavoidable Ralph.  The War on Terror is tied with Islam.

i'm well aware of the ties to the thread and current affairs. however, it is my wish that this thread do not turn into a religion debate thread.

[denoir 0]

Sadly it is unavoidable Ralph.  The War on Terror is tied with Islam.

i'm well aware of the ties to the thread and current affairs. however, it is my wish that this thread do not turn into a religion debate thread.

In this context, it's difficult to separate religion and politics as they are closely tied. But I'm sure we can keep it civil and count on you to come down and smite any sinners

[nSe7eN 0]

I agree! You can’t separate religion and politics if some countries policies and actions based on religious beliefs and judgments!

Keeping the argument civilized is the most important, its not war it’s just an argument, there’s no need explode in my face if I was just giving an opinion!

Don’t agree with it explain why, many other forums with such open topics to debate about politics and other issues that faces this planet, but here its another story!

[miles teg 1]

Quote[/b] ]

since you talking from experience it’s seems, how you can make none unified groups and they are even fighting between each other, to agree on the same bases and ideas, which is stop thinking that all world against them and stopping the wave of terror they launch against many countries out there!

Also nothing in my post indicates that I hate Muslims. I didn’t say that!

I just said I can’t accept seeing extremists with nuclear weapons that’s all!

You can't make everyone agree the same thing. But what you can do is teach tolerace for the ideas of others. Mohammed very clearly forbid Muslims from fighting each other and yet, soon after his death what happened? They were fighting each other.

It is in the tolerance of others that democracy plays a key role especially one in which the miniorities have important rights that are protected and in which freedom of religion is protected.

But in Iraq and in the Middle East, this is not something they are familiar with so it is a slow painful process that may take decades or centuries to develop.

However just remember that all this horrible fighting you see in Iraq is just one small segment of the world Islamic population. SE Asia is actually where the majority of Muslims live (Thailand, Malaysia, and the biggest Islamic country, Indonesia are examples). America has between 8-13 million Muslims with the vast majority being good law abiding citizens.

Like any religion, Islam is has its share of good people as well as idiots. But overall, the majority of Muslims I've met and talked to were good people who like most human beings just want peace and freedom.

I do agree with you however that nukes in Islamic countries are bad ideas.

I have many arguements with my liberal friends about this issue. They believe they have the right to defend themselves with nukes, but I argue that the danger is an Islamic extremist government deciding to make their entire country, a country of martyrs by trying to start "The Day of Judgement" themselves. What they will end up doing is just getting their entire country wiped out with millions killed in their country and many as many in Israel or in the US. The only hopeful thing is that most countries in the Middle East can not afford to make more then a handful of nukes. So it would not destroy the world....only leave tons of radiation in their country and neighboring countries as well as in the section of whatever country they attack.

It would just be a stupid senseless loss of life caused by a few idiots. But maybe if that happens the world will get much tougher and move to simply ban nukes and exporting any nuclear technology period.

A much smarter move on the part of most Middle Eastern countries would be to harness solar energy and wind power to help with their energy needs.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Acecombat 0]

Funny avon how you didnt bother with the whole verse? Or maybe the rest wasnt meeting up to your 'agenda'?

126. And if you punish (your enemy, O you believers in the Oneness of Allâh), then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted. But if you endure patiently, verily, it is better for As-Sâbirin (the patient ones, etc.)

http://darululoom-deoband.com/english/teachings/index2.htm

Quote[/b] ]

According to Islamic Shariah, whether it is the matter of an individual, group or ideological difference, persons who are not concerned or related to a particular action, cannot be held respon­sible for the action of others. For example, if the communal elements suppress or victimize members of Muslim minority of India, destroy the mosques and madrasas, it is not incumbent on the people of Muslim-majority areas to ill treat the Non-Muslim minority or destroy their places of worship. It is injustice and atrocity to blame someone not concerned with an act, for the act committed by others.

However, legitimate possible methods may be adopted for opposition to oppression and excesses. Holy Quran makes it clear, "Namely, that no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another. " (AI-Qamar, verse 38)

Before the advent of Islam, the custom of "Saar" was prevalent. If someone was killed, the members of the tribe of the victim had their revenge by killing a member of the tribe of the assassin. It was not necessary that the assassin be killed for revenge. In that process, several innocent persons got killed merely due to their affiliation with a particular tribe.

The Prophet (pbuh} strictly prohibited the practice as it belonged to the era of ignorance and darkness. As in the case of 'Saar' persons were killed due to their tribal affiliation, likewise killing persons on account of their religious, linguistic or national affiliation also is a crime. In the Age of Great Caliphate and subsequently, the just rulers did not interfere in the religious matters of their enemies, even during the battles.

During the crusade, Salahuddin Ayyubi did not victimize the Christians of Syria, Palestine and other places although he was at war with their co-religionists. Instructions in detail have been given in the books of Islamic jurisprudence & Sunnah about the treatment of Non-Muslim subjects and those under contract.

Islamic jurisprudence allows punishment of the culprit accord­ing to the gravity of the crime, permitting revenge equal to the injury caused. Pardon is preferred to punishment.

Holy Quran has several verses, elaborating the point, "And so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then anyone transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves." (Surah Al Baqarah, verse 194) .

"And if ye punish, let your punishment be proportionate to the wrong that has been done to you: but if ye show patience, that is indeed the best (course) for those who are patient. "(Surah Al Nahl, verse 126)

It means that if you suffer injuries and if you are competent, you may take revenge of the same degree. Revenge is permitted but self-restraint or forbearance is preferable. If you are patient that would be better for you and those who are witness.

"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. " (Surah Al Baqarah, verse 190)

Refraining from committing excesses in this context implies that during the battle, children, aged persons and women should not be killed. Revenge against a tyrant should be of defensive type, limited to the degree of injury suffered. The intention is to dissuade the tyrants and oppressors from committing further atrocities and excesses.

The orbit of suppression should not grow wider. Vindictive action against persons belonging to the tribe or the community of the assassin, but who have nothing to do with an atrocity, leads to further enlargement of the area of hostility. Accordingly Islamic Shariah permits action directly only against the culprit.

That covers all terrorist activities, which affect innocent persons, or others not directly or indirectly connected with the cause of hostility. There is no clear direction or instruction applying to kidnapping innocent persons for the acceptance of certain demands or slow torture with the intention of killing in the most inhuman and brutal manner.

However the principles laid down, prohibiting killing or tar­geting innocent persons are applicable to such cases also. Arson, racial cleansing, atrocities on people worshiping according to the practices laid down for their creed, rampage and destruction have no place in the teachings of Islam. Islam has strictly forbidden arson and murder of an envoy even in the course of battle.

The Prophet (Pbuh) has strictly forbid assassination in a brutal and painful manner. Likewise animals too should not be killed in that manner. Passengers of hijacked planes and persons taken hostage too, suffer in the same manner. Hijacking too is a threat to peace and freedom so it has no support in the Islamic Shariah. Such acts done, even with the most noble and great cause in mind have no justification under Islamic jurisprudence.

Now remind me where does this all leads to if your 'nuked' , you can 'nuke' back and kill loads of people that had nothing to do with you being nuked in the first place .

@Denoir:

Quote[/b] ]Religion is based on faith rather than on observable cause-effect chains.

If A then B.

In rational thinking you need some form of evidence of that relation. Practical observations or measurements. "If I drop an object here on Earth (A) then it will fall to the ground (B)"

In religion you have "If I follow this set of rules (A) then I will go to heaven (B)". Where B is obviously something that you have no observation of, no practical evidence. There is no rational foundation you can use to make the assumption "If A then B", but you still do, based on faith.

Faith is based on 'observable cause-effect chain'. Can you tell us how the chain even started? Matter doesnt pop out from nowhere , it needs a source. All this didnt exist at one time and then suddenly started to exist without reason or CAUSE. If its cause and effect (my love as the saying from the matrix goes ) then the effect (universes creation) had a cause behind it and a creator to make it happen.

If (A) universe was created out of nothing then it has to have a creator which leads to (B) that God exists.

Quote[/b] ]The problem is that you cannot show that one religion or one religious interpretation is more correct than another. Since you can't in any way differentiate their validity they are all equally (in)valid. You can't prove that your interpretation of Islam is more valid than the one some radical sect uses.

There can only be a limited number of interpretations so dont use that word in a sense as if (say the value of pie (or however you spell it) it can be 3.147 or maybe 3.14769594 or add more numbers or change a few first by rounding off) but you just cant say the value is 7.2794 thats just wrong we have a value specified you can argue over it within its limits and not beyond thats just WRONG. Same applies here.

Quote[/b] ]Of course you can. The people that attacked New York were highly religious and their interpretation of Islam fully allowed them to do it. They argued that they were under attack by America and that all Americans were guilty in one way or another. You may disagree with their interpretation of the situation, but you can't prove that they are wrong and that you are right.

Highly religious? Oh more like oxymorons if you mean. They were in violation of the islamic code of do not hurt non-combatants along with several others , if the idiots decided to pull a mullah/avon over us and decided to say hey lets just read this one part of the quran and forget the rest conveniently we'll be alright. Yeah , bloody hell only a complete tosser would do that. How about i take some book lets say an army officers rule book or whatever and read only the few sentences which mention killing of soldiers and forget the rest , can i get away with killing everyone , not to mention the book had written something against that but it never fit in with my loony brain and its paranoid ideology?

Quote[/b] ]That's your interpretation. And you can't get away without interpretation. On the very basic level you have language disambiguities, translation issues etc. The rule book was written centuries ago, so just translating it into today's context is difficult. More to the point, religious texts are commonly vague, and most of all you can't disprove anybody's interpretation. As for your example, the most simple work around there is just to declare everybody you bomb as not being innocent.

Thats what i see is written and what history testifies and proves and what the quran means. So forgive me for my interpretation. Translating it in to todays context is not at all difficult if youve got a bit of common sense running in the brain. Muslims are free to perform ijtihad and reform their ways of life to constantly evolving times by conforming the modern way of life to islamic code and not simply sit back at the end of history and not move forward.

The simple work around here is a lie which you and i know at heart is completely wrong and so will the others if the situation is more open for others to see. Fact of the matter in the end is , whatever you do or get away with on earth you'll pay for it later on , god justice will be swift and equal.

[theavonlady 2]

Funny avon how you didnt bother with the whole verse? Or maybe the rest wasnt meeting up to your 'agenda'?

126. And if you punish (your enemy, O you believers in the Oneness of Allâh), then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted. But if you endure patiently, verily, it is better for As-Sâbirin (the patient ones, etc.)

I have no particular agenda. But these guys do.

And my only objection to what you said was that according to Islam, nukes can "NEVER" be used.

Even the remainder of verse 126 is itself a recommendation but the first half still permits equivalent reciprocity.

You, too, apparently only do partial reading when it comes to my posts.

Quote[/b] ]if the idiots decided to pull a mullah/avon over us

Flamebaiting, AC?

I'm very happy for you Miles that you're cozy with your interpretations of the Quran. Miles has a dream - and you seem to agree - that he can rationally convince Islamic terrorists that they are misinterpreting the Quran's teachings.

Great! Go ahead. Make everyone's day. But I don't see it working. And what we do see more often is just the opposite - perfectly "moderate" Muslims being convinced that they have been misinterpreting the Quran all there lives.

Please make the tide turn. I'm all for it. I just don't see it happening.

BTW, for what it's worth:

Join the March Against Terror

But if I'm not mistaken from previous posts of yours or Miles', this organization does not represent devout Muslims but rather minimally traditional or secularized Muslims.

[Acecombat 0]

No avon i wasnt flamebaiting you , i was only implying there that most of the time your logic on islam is equivalent to some fanatical mullah , i find it difficult to udnerstand why you always have to pick on the negative instead of for once seeing a positive.

Nukes shouldnt be used unless as i said before the conditions for their use are as i specified before (and those type arent possible in todays world). Nowhere does the verse says that you forget your code and go berzerk without any thought for the surrounding envoirnment or people. Once again its only a matter of mindset , fanatic and off the edge people with no reason in their decisions can do it and THINK theyre ok with it but then can you make a mental person see reason? DOnt think so.