They want the world to believe THEY are peaceful...

I'm such a hyprcite :DThen you've come to the right place, this thread is a magnet for hypocrites and bigots. :lol:

link 1 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1554177.stm)
link 2 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/5111092.stm)
link 3 (http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=50802#compstory)
link 4 (http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=82592&sectionid=351020601)
Do all those links go to what YOU would call "prominent" muslim leaders? I think not. They are ALL in the UK! Until the UK is REALLY a muslim state I don't think they count.

If I was living in downtown Mecca, I think my rhetoric would have to be adjusted. Likewise for these guys.

It is easy to put out a press release condemning the acts of Islamic extremists/terrorists or give lip service for obvious reasons since saying bad things about Islam from the believers viewpoint is technically blasphemy but I don't think it will change the negative publicity or perception in the U.S. One of the biggest Islamic Centers in the U.S. put out the following, however, it has a dubious past and may still be on a U.S. Government watch list or at least some members of it. So what does it really mean. :rolleyes: In the meantime the U.S. would be foolish to let its guard down since we are still in two wars which have no end in sight for now.


Dar Al Hijrah Denounces Terrorism

The Dar Al Hijrah Islamic Center states clearly that those who commit acts of terror, murder and cruelty in the name of Islam are not only destroying innocent lives, but are also betraying the values of the faith they claim to represent. No injustice done to Muslims can ever justify the massacre of innocent people, and no act of terror will ever serve the cause of Islam. We repudiate and dissociate ourselves from any Muslim group or individual who commits such brutal and un-Islamic acts. We refuse to allow our faith to be held hostage by the criminal actions of a tiny minority acting outside the teachings of both the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

Link to Article (http://daralhijrah.wordpress.com/dar-al-hijrah-denounces-terrorism/)


Source: Washington Post
Imam From Va. Mosque Now Thought to Have Aided Al-Qaeda

Link to Article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/26/AR2008022603267.html?hpid=topnews)

Do all those links go to what YOU would call "prominent" muslim leaders? I think not. They are ALL in the UK!

So the combined heads of the Mosques/Islamic community of the UK don't count for anything.

Doen that mean that Bishops outside of the Vatican don't count for anything either?

So the combined heads of the Mosques/Islamic community of the UK don't count for anything.

Doen that mean that Bishops outside of the Vatican don't count for anything either?
Please....Please tell me you aren't serious! You don't. see a difference here!?!?
Talk about apples and oranges!! Am I debating with a door knob?!

I think the last few posts serve to show the diversity within the Muslim community, which is not unlike the diversity in the Christian community. Let me know if you need specific examples if the following are not sufficient: Sunni and Shiite; Catholic(Roman and Eastern Orthodox), Lutheran, Mormon, Baptist and Anglican.

There ARE regional differences, both in beliefs, morals, outlooks, and behaviors. You can NOT categorize an entire people (no matter what people they are) with one simple statement.

The point is...
Muslims will NOT talk their homies down in a non-muslim state. Catholic leadership hasn't been in a position where their defense of their religion would render them an ass beating. Sunni/shiite.....catholic/protestant is irrelevant.

The point is...
Muslims will NOT talk their homies down in a non-muslim state. Catholic leadership hasn't been in a position where their defense of their religion would render them an ass beating. Sunni/shiite.....catholic/protestant is irrelevant.

First of all, are you using the word "homies" as a derogative term for an individual of a certain race? If you are, then may I suggest you re-read the user guidelines before you earn yourself a ban, and keep a civil tongue in your head. Remember: you are attacking ideas, not the person or people putting out those ideas.

Now. I have spoken to Muslims that said they believed that certain actions by Muslim radicals were wrong, so I therefore disagree heartily about your first sentence above.

Your second sentence is also incorrect. Many Catholic leaders have been killed for their beliefs and defense of same. Check your history, or have a read of the Bible. It's all in there brother.

Please explain to me why you believe that referencing different sects of the same religion is irrelevant to this discussion. In case you missed it, I was using that as an example of why a group of people cannot be simply described with one statement.

Here, let me state it in simpler terms so you'll get it. Let's take the statement:

All Muslims are terrorists bent on killing others.


There, that should get to the heart of the argument. The simple fact that we are here proves that not all Muslims are terrorists bent on killing others. Why? Because as has been so aptly put earlier, there are numerous examples of Muslim terrorists using bombs to blow themselves up, taking 20 or 30 people with them. The worldwide population is just over 6 billion (link (http://www.google.com/search?q=population+of+the+world&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)) The worldwide Muslim population is estimated at 1.5 Billion (link (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html))

Now if all Muslims were terrorists bent on killing others, then we can postulate that those 1.5 billion souls could easily take out, say, 10 people each. That makes 15 billion people, which is more than the entire population of the world. The simple fact that we are here discussing this proves that not ALL Muslims are terrorists bent on killing others and Q.E.D. that you cannot classify any group with a single statement.

Your turn.

Again....the point I was making dealt with the proximity of the muslims condemming the actions of the extremists. I wouldn't be stupid enough to go to Mecca and talk a lot of smack. They don't. Want a beat down any more than I do. That's all I was saying.

Again....the point I was making dealt with the proximity of the muslims condemming the actions of the extremists. I wouldn't be stupid enough to go to Mecca and talk a lot of smack. They don't. Want a beat down any more than I do. That's all I was saying.


So now you're saying that Muslims won't go to Mecca and say that other Muslims are doing wrong? I thought you said that Muslims outside of their countries "don't talk smack" about it.

Please clarify.

So now you're saying that Muslims won't go to Mecca and say that other Muslims are doing wrong?
.
Do you think that in Mecca they would need to condemn them? I think they'd sing their praises. No need to condemn them on their own turf. In Mecca it would be me that would have to be careful. Talking smack. I'd get my ass stoned in that peaceful state.

OK, I understand what you're saying now, and agree that if you went to Mecca and started trash talking Islam it would be a bad situation. But wouldn't that situation be the same in many other cultures also? If I go to downtown Dublin and go to the wrong bar and talk trash I'll get my butt handed to me. By extension, it's pretty much the same thing almost everywhere in the world [with of course some exceptions].

I'm having a hard time understanding, please explain to me how studying science, history and religious texts to come to your own conclusions can be interpreted as someone being controlled.

Well, if you believe some of the lies taught in science history and religion, you will be under the control of those propagating those lies!
(global warming and environmentalism is one of the big lies to control the masses)

Why should we? We're not held responsible for other people's actions. Just because they say they "represent" Islam doesn't mean it's true or they're right. Compare them to the majority of the Muslims and you will find the majority against them. Nothing in the Qur'an backs up there actions, in fact they're called hypocrites or criminals like it mentioned in the Qur'an. You need to get out there and talk to Muslims in person and reading help also.

I as a Christian will condemn the likes of those such as Jim Jones, Eric Rudolph and Westboro Baptist Church. Their actions are wrong, inspired by evil, not God, they do NOT represent the Christian religion in their actions in any way.

Now, if you want credibility as a Muslim, condemn those Muslims who Kill and torture innocent people in the name of the Muslim religion.

I happen to believe Muslims are secretly happy with the Muslim terrorists for their terrorism against Christians and others!

link 1 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1554177.stm)
link 2 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/5111092.stm)
link 3 (http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=50802#compstory)
link 4 (http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=82592&sectionid=351020601)

It was looking good until I read this in link three:


"But the 22 imams and scholars stopped short of condemning all suicide bombings, saying those that target occupying forces in countries such as Israel and Iraq are sometimes justified."

This is getting a little uncivil folks. There are also several posts that are claiming fact when its simply mislead perception. "
Curtis, you are guilty of doing the above in your post below.


And if you want to nitpick things... add up all the lives that have been taken in the name of MAINSTREAM Christianity throughout history during times like the Crusades, the Dark Ages, Slavery, American colonialism, and European Imperialism. Then compare it to the miniscule amount of lives taken by the relatively recent extremist terrorists and I think you'll find that Christians have that tally beat by a few billion.



Jeez :rolleyes:

This article caught my eye. Obviously the U.K. has some serious issues and it will probably get worse in the future. Thanks DM. :lol:

BTW - Don't ask us to help you guys out. We have enough of our own problems. You are on your own this time around. WWII is just a faded memory.



Source: BBC

'More Muslims radicalised' in UK

A higher proportion of British Muslims are radicalised than those in several other major western European nations, according to a US research body.

Muslims in the UK are more likely to see a conflict between being devout and living in modern society than in France, Germany and Spain, it found.

Thousands of people in 15 countries were questioned for a poll for the American Pew Research Center.

In Britain 902 residents took part in the survey in April and May.

Of British Muslims taking part in the poll, 77% said the rise of Islamic extremism worried them.

However, almost a quarter thought suicide bombings and other violence against civilian targets to defend Islam were justifiable - though among these some stated that this was rarely the case.

Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, said: "British Muslims were the most radicalised."

The French Muslims were the most temperate, he said.

Link to Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5111248.stm)

Just as I said....UK is becoming an -slamic state. As long as they turn a blind eye to it it will continue.

Is Chavez muslim?

“The United States empire is on its way down and it will be finished in the near future, inshallah," Chavez told reporters, ending the statement with the Arabic phrase for "God willing."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214709,00.html

It was looking good until I read this in link three:


"But the 22 imams and scholars stopped short of condemning all suicide bombings, saying those that target occupying forces in countries such as Israel and Iraq are sometimes justified."

Pretty much how your country seems to stand with torture.
"It's wrong but...."

I as a Christian will condemn the likes of those such as Jim Jones, Eric Rudolph and Westboro Baptist Church. Their actions are wrong, inspired by evil, not God, they do NOT represent the Christian religion in their actions in any way.

Now, if you want credibility as a Muslim, condemn those Muslims who Kill and torture innocent people in the name of the Muslim religion.

I happen to believe Muslims are secretly happy with the Muslim terrorists for their terrorism against Christians and others!

In your first sentence above, I agree that condemning those acts is proper; they were heinous.

But from what I know, Jim Jones thought he WAS a god, so I think insanity played a part.

Rudolph...is an idiot. You don't kill people to protest killing people. He WAS protesting that abortions were killing people, wasn't he?

And the Baptist church in question....they have no taste. You don't picket a funeral...what, are you protesting their death of someone that behaved as you perceive wrongly? Shouldn't you be protesting the ones that are still alive? Whatever.

All 3 of the folks/groups named above are nutjobs and/or extremists....which I take it was your point, just venting.


Now in your 2nd sentence I must say that it seems you are telling someone else how to act within their own religion, a concept I'm sure you would resist if the situation was reversed. Pointing your finger at someone who has different beliefs and telling them to act a certain way?

In your last, you are making a guess at what people are thinking, so it's pure speculation; you say you believe that is what they are thinking.....is this belief categorized as your opinion, or is it the type of belief as in your faith?


Remember that the participants of the Boston Tea Party were seen as terrorists by the British, and heroes by the future citizens of the US. Sometimes it's in your point of view. I recall that Islam teaches peace, until you are attacked; then it teaches to fight as best you can. [pardon me if I did not put it eloquently] While I don't agree with suicide bombings, perhaps that's the only way they have to fight back against what they perceive as an attack?

Pretty much how your country seems to stand with torture.
"It's wrong but...."

:shakehead

Thats a poor counter-argument DM. Worse than a straw man argument. Our country has come along ways since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started. Torture is not allowed and the U.S. military follows the Army Field manual which is being revised for all government agencies to follow like the CIA. I work with the Army's MOUT Counter-Insurgency program and know what training is conducted. No one is taught how to torture and the media blew a lot of it out of proportion. Ethics and morals classes are conducted before the troops deploy to the war zones. What is your definition of torture? What goes on in detention facilities is no better or worse than how you are treated in a civilian jail for a crime. At least we do treat our detainees humanely versus whopping their heads off with no trial/due process concluded with a summary execution. It is a two way street and obviously the Islamic extremists do not comply with the rules of warfare or the Geneva Convention.

Remember that the participants of the Boston Tea Party were seen as terrorists by the British, and heroes by the future citizens of the US. Sometimes it's in your point of view. I recall that Islam teaches peace, until you are attacked; then it teaches to fight as best you can. [pardon me if I did not put it eloquently] While I don't agree with suicide bombings, perhaps that's the only way they have to fight back against what they perceive as an attack?

That is no real comparison.
No one was killed in the FIRST Boston Tea Party.
(or any that are happening today.):smile:

Pretty much how your country seems to stand with torture.
"It's wrong but...."

The belief that the U.S. condones torture is a flat out lie!

Thats a poor counter-argument DM. Worse than a straw man argument.

First of all, I was talking about this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8003537.stm) and this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8006597.stm).

Secondly, I was using it as an example of how a person (or nation for that matter) can be against the principle of something and still see circumstances where it may be justified.

Thats a poor counter-argument DM. Worse than a straw man argument.

First of all, I was talking about this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8003537.stm) and this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8006597.stm).

Secondly, I was using it as an example of how a person (or nation for that matter) can be against the principle of something and still see circumstances where it may be justified.

But those charges of "torture" are a trumped up complete LIE!
You are pathetically ignorant if you can't see that.[/quote]

That is no real comparison.
No one was killed in the FIRST Boston Tea Party.
(or any that are happening today.):smile:

Sure there is. It's the perception of the people involved; whether or not people (or tea) was killed is part of it, but the basic underlying idea is that a group of people did something that the other group found heinous in order to strike back.

I guess you'll not be answering my other questions?

I guess you'll not be answering my other questions?I'm sure she'll answer them as soon as a religious or right wing talk show tells her what she thinks the answers should be. Until then, everything that those sources don't express are all lies, Lies, LIES! :icon16:


That is a lie. If it was true those "Muslim" nations in the Middle east wouldn't be trying to annihilate Israel and calling the U.S. the "Great Satan"

Well, if you believe some of the lies taught in science history and religion, you will be under the control of those propagating those lies!
(global warming and environmentalism is one of the big lies to control the masses)

The belief that the U.S. condones torture is a flat out lie!



But those charges of "torture" are a trumped up complete LIE!
You are pathetically ignorant if you can't see that.

And I thought I was going to have some actual debating going on.


Bummer.

Ir.



Now in your 2nd sentence I must say that it seems you are telling someone else how to act within their own religion, a concept I'm sure you would resist if the situation was reversed. Pointing your finger at someone who has different beliefs and telling them to act a certain way?Are you saying it is inappropriate to expect others to act in a way that respects others life, liberty and property?

In your last, you are making a guess at what people are thinking, so it's pure speculation; you say you believe that is what they are thinking.....is this belief categorized as your opinion, or is it the type of belief as in your faith? It is an educated guess based on their actions!


Remember that the participants of the Boston Tea Party were seen as terrorists by the British, and heroes by the future citizens of the US. Sometimes it's in your point of view. I recall that Islam teaches peace, until you are attacked; then it teaches to fight as best you can. [pardon me if I did not put it eloquently] While I don't agree with suicide bombings, perhaps that's the only way they have to fight back against what they perceive as an attack? Why don't they have a "Tea Party" protest, like many Americans do with no violence???? Also there is no "attack" that came before their bombings that wasn't first provoked by their deadly attacks. They are the FIRST aggressors!

I would be careful CL8. Not worth getting into any further discussion or argument over. :grinno: You don't want to get the atheists, non-believers, anti-Christians and the ones that believe the Islamic Extremists are justified in their actions all riled up and let this thread drag on. :rolleyes:

I have a question how many here that are religious and have attended church in the past or present have ever heard of the pastor, reverend or priest calling you to take up arms and use them against your enemies?

fredjacksonsan http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5956899#post5956899)
Now in your 2nd sentence I must say that it seems you are telling someone else how to act within their own religion, a concept I'm sure you would resist if the situation was reversed. Pointing your finger at someone who has different beliefs and telling them to act a certain way?
/fredjacksonsan


Are you saying it is inappropriate to expect others to act in a way that respects others life, liberty and property?

No, I'm saying that you are trying to tell them how to act within their religion, just as I wrote.

Would you appreciate someone of another religion telling you that your beliefs were wrong, and then telling you how you should act in situations? I certainly think not.

I have a question how many here that are religious and have attended church in the past or present have ever heard of the pastor, reverend or priest calling you to take up arms and use them against your enemies?


Excellent question BNaylor!
I have been a member of at least 10 churches in 5 different states, CHRISTIAN churches, and not one had Any preacher preach to do harm to
your enemies, or the enemies of Christ!
( that's not counting churches I've visited and preacher in chapel at college, none of them have either!)

[b]

No, I'm saying that you are trying to tell them how to act within their religion, just as I wrote.

Would you appreciate someone of another religion telling you that your beliefs were wrong, and then telling you how you should act in situations? I certainly think not.

:thumbsdow FAIL!

The Muslims, tell us Christians we are wrong, and on our way to their hell because we don't worship Allah and bow down eight times a day to pray to him!

And frankly, it doesn't matter a hill of beans to me if they tell me I'm wrong, though it does matter when they try to kill me and my fellow Americans!

:thumbsdow FAIL!

The Muslims, tell us Christians we are wrong, and on our way to their hell because we don't worship Allah and bow down eight times a day to pray to him!

This is rich ground for commentary, but I'll be brief (apologies for not doing it the justice it deserves).

1) If so, then the Muslims and Christians are on even ground, each telling the other they are wrong and they're going to hell. Christians tell Muslims to embrace Christ or they'll go to hell, and Muslims tell Christians that the true word is in the Koran and they should adhere to it or go to hell.

2) Christians go to church generally on Sunday. Muslims choose to pray to God 8 times daily. It seems here your are inferring that praying to God more frequently is wrong. That is just what the followers of Islam believe.

3) Why can't everyone just get along? I mean it's the same God, after all. Since we were all created in infinite variety, might not God have created religion in infinite variety also?

3) Why can't everyone just get along? I mean it's the same God, after all. Since we were all created in infinite variety, might not God have created religion in infinite variety also?

No he didn't.
He is a God of truth about himself and he doesn't change!

No he didn't.
He is a God of truth about himself and he doesn't change!
On that basis, then I have a question.
If he is a God of Truth about himself and he doesn't change, then wouldn't you say that there was only one true religion. Since you claim that Fred's comment of "might not God have created religion in infinite variety also" be false. And if there is only one true religion wouldn't it be the most oldest religion which historically would be Judaism, not Muslim or Christanity which both came much later.

TS out

This is rich ground for commentary, but I'll be brief (apologies for not doing it the justice it deserves).

1) If so, then the Muslims and Christians are on even ground, each telling the other they are wrong and they're going to hell. Christians tell Muslims to embrace Christ or they'll go to hell, and Muslims tell Christians that the true word is in the Koran and they should adhere to it or go to hell.

2) Christians go to church generally on Sunday. Muslims choose to pray to God 8 times daily. It seems here your are inferring that praying to God more frequently is wrong. That is just what the followers of Islam believe.Choose which ever response you like best:

1. They should do as we say, not as we do!

2. If they can do it we can do it too!

3) Why can't everyone just get along? I mean it's the same God, after all. Since we were all created in infinite variety, might not God have created religion in infinite variety also?

Lies!

On that basis, then I have a question.
If he is a God of Truth about himself and he doesn't change, then wouldn't you say that there was only one true religion. Since you claim that Fred's comment of "might not God have created religion in infinite variety also" be false. And if there is only one true religion wouldn't it be the most oldest religion which historically would be Judaism, not Muslim or Christanity which both came much later.

TS outBlasphemy! God is super great he never changes, unless he wants to. If he wants to change, he can. Who do you think you are to question him?!

Correction, Judaism is the oldest biggest religion, but the true oldest regardless of size is Hinduism.

TS

On that basis, then I have a question.
If he is a God of Truth about himself and he doesn't change, then wouldn't you say that there was only one true religion.

TS out

Not really Dave. It is the other way around. According to the Muslims I know Islam is the best of the religions because it is the last (circa 500 AD) and takes into consideration the other majors religions before it. Even Jesus is a prophet. Thats what they used to tell me when trying to get me to convert. :uhoh:

BTW - Hey guys Muslim prayer is supposed to be 5 times per day. I've been invited into a mosque and in the open to pray with them. Interesting but bad on the knees and back. :lol:

Saw this and thought of y'all! (http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2007/12/26/husband-cut-off-wife-s-ears-nose-on-eid-day.html) Here we go folks. Another example of peaceful love and understanding.

Saw this and thought of y'all! (http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2007/12/26/husband-cut-off-wife-s-ears-nose-on-eid-day.html) Here we go folks. Another example of peaceful love and understanding.

And it's no coincidence it has happened in a Muslim dominated culture.

It is a lie that the Muslim religion is peaceful.

so what about this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8381119.stm)?

on the one hand you have a case of a mentally disturbed individual.
on the other, you have systematic child abuse, abuse of power, corruption and conspiracy within an institution.

so what about this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8381119.stm)?

on the one hand you have a case of a mentally disturbed individual.
on the other, you have systematic child abuse, abuse of power, corruption and conspiracy within an institution.

Obviously he was mentally disturbed. Do you not think the Islamic culture he was raised and influenced by was a major contributor?

The links below testify to the abuses in Muslim COUNTRIES and CULTURE
unlike your example which is only limited to certain Catholic priests and leaders in the church, NOT an entire Christian culture or Country.


http://www.islam-watch.org/Laina/Afghanistan-Model-for-Abuse-of-Women.htm

http://www.bootsnall.com/articles/08-08/women-islam-tales-from-the-road-islamic-countries.html

obviously you missed the part about the Catholic Church as a whole deciding that the image and reputation of the Church was more important than the wellfare of the children involved.

i.e: it was the institution that created a situation where it was ok to turn a blind eye to child abuse by its priests and bishops.

if it is the religious/cultural background of a person's country that determines these sort of things please have a look at this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_murderers_by_number_of_victims) and compare the number of christian countries compared to non-christian countries with respect to their serial killers and murderers.
what do those numbers tell you?

obviously you missed the part about the Catholic Church as a whole deciding that the image and reputation of the Church was more important than the wellfare of the children involved.No I didn't miss that point. Those actions are inexcusable,
but you don't have a part of the Catholic church preaching abuse against kids
like Muslim Mosques have in at least 10% of their Mosques (probably more than that) preaching jihad and killing Christians, Jews, and non-Muslims.

Did you notice this quote in one of those articles?
Does anyone say that about the "Christian" world?

Being a woman in most of the Muslim world is not lucky either,





i.e: it was the institution that created a situation where it was ok to turn a blind eye to child abuse by its priests and bishops.

if it is the religious/cultural background of a person's country that determines these sort of things please have a look at this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_murderers_by_number_of_victims) and compare the number of christian countries compared to non-christian countries with respect to their serial killers and murderers.
what do those numbers tell you?Those numbers and that list just tells me the compiler chose certain serial or spree killers to list. It is not exhaustive by any means.
Anyone can list more criminals in one nation than in another, it doesn't tell how the culture affected the minds of the criminals.

Furthermore, many European nations and even America is becoming more and more dominated by the Islamic way of thinking.
(Look at who the U.S. has as president now, so sympathetic to the Muslim mindset many think he IS one.)

it doesn't tell how the culture affected the minds of the criminals.

so why is it ok for you to come to the conclusion that the deranged guy in that news article carried out his actions due to his Islamic background?

It is inconceivable that any civilized person would defend these vomitous gobs of excrement! It speaks volumes about the defenders!

It is apparent to me that wife beating and child molestation are not necessarily linked to a certain religion - although the wife beating seems to be worse in Middle East countries. But can the wife beatings be attributed solely to Islam, or is there a cultural element here? If there are similar examples from Islamic households worldwide, THEN you can say Islam begets wife beating. But if not, then Middle Eastern culture begets wife beating.

It is inconceivable that any civilized person would defend these vomitous gobs of excrement!

i) who is defending the person in that article?

ii) just to be clear, who are you calling vomitous gobs of excrement?
People who abuse and mutilate their wives or Muslims?

so why is it ok for you to come to the conclusion that the deranged guy in that news article carried out his actions due to his Islamic background?

Re read the articles on these sites I posted before.

As I said, it shows pretty good evidence that there is a connection to Muslim beliefs and culture and abuse and demeaning of women.



http://www.islam-watch.org/Laina/Afg...e-of-Women.htm (http://redirectingat.com/?id=252X400&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.islam-watch.org%2FLaina%2FAfghanistan-Model-for-Abuse-of-Women.htm)

http://www.bootsnall.com/articles/08...countries.html (http://www.bootsnall.com/articles/08-08/women-islam-tales-from-the-road-islamic-countries.html)

I am not saying that the treatment of women is some Islamic countries isn't behind what it should be.
What I have issue with is this:

And it's no coincidence it has happened in a Muslim dominated culture.

It is a lie that the Muslim religion is peaceful.

you are implying that the man in that article carried out his mutilations because he is Muslim, not because he is deranged.


Let me put this another way.
What if I started a thread titled
They want the world to believe THEY are not conspiring child molesters
and then linked to the BBC article I did earlier?
If I follow your rationale and switch in a few words I get this:


And it's no coincidence it has happened in a Irish Catholic dominated culture.

It is a lie that the Catholic/Christian religion isn't paedophilic.


Would that be a fair summation; to imply that the child abuse that occured for 30+ years and was covered up was because they were Irish and Catholic instead of the simple fact that they were/are paedophiles?

Leave it to the asians to brutally attack someone and have them leave without a scratch

I am not saying that the treatment of women is some Islamic countries isn't behind what it should be.
What I have issue with is this:



you are implying that the man in that article carried out his mutilations because he is Muslim, not because he is deranged. Not because he is Muslim, but because the Muslim way of thinking and treating women had a large influence on him.


Let me put this another way.
What if I started a thread titled
They want the world to believe THEY are not conspiring child molesters
and then linked to the BBC article I did earlier?
If I follow your rationale and switch in a few words I get this:


And it's no coincidence it has happened in a Irish Catholic dominated culture.

It is a lie that the Catholic/Christian religion isn't paedophilic.


Would that be a fair summation; to imply that the child abuse that occured for 30+ years and was covered up was because they were Irish and Catholic instead of the simple fact that they were/are paedophiles?Do Irish/Catholic dominated countries and culture have a higher rate and reputation of child abuse than others like the Muslim dominated countries do of abuse of women?

Interesting concept:

Can Muslims Be Good Americans ?

This is very interesting! Every real American needs to
read it from start to finish.....and share it with anyone
who will read it.

(Maybe this is why our so-called American Muslims are so
quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities.)

Can a good Muslim be a good American?

This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi
Arabia for 20 years.

The following is his reply:

Theologically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to
Allah, The moon God of Arabia .

Religiously - no. . . . Because no other religion is
accepted by His Allah except Islam
(Quran, 2:256) (Koran).

Scripturally - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to the
five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.

Geographically - no. . .Because his allegiance is to Mecca,
to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially - no. . . . Because his allegiance to Islam
forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically - no. . . . Because he must submit to the
mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of
Israel and destruction of America , the great Satan.

Domestically - no. . . . Because he is instructed to marry
four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys
him (Quran 4:34).

Intellectually - no. . . . Because he cannot accept the
American Constitution since it is based on Biblical
principles, and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically - no. . . . Because Islam, Muhammad, and
the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression.
Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government
is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - no. . . . Because when we declare "one nation
under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while
Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he
ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.

Therefore after much study and deliberation, perhaps we
should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country.
Are they the walking time bombs that all the previous
terrorists have turned out to be?

They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good
Americans.

* * * Call it what you wish; it's simply the truth.

* * * The more who understand this, the better educated
they will be about the real enemy of our culture, and our
country.

Good info Thegladhatter.

Although I believe I know some Muslims who would probably be on the side of not being such good Muslims and are actually sympathetic to Christianity.

Gladhatter's above post is factually incorrect and utterly unreasonable. It cannot be taken as a judgement of any person.

If we were to use gladhatter's logic, then all Christians cannot be good Americans. Why?

Because the bible permits slavery, it forbids the consumption of pork and shellfish and instructs every good Christian to kill worshippers of a non-Christian god, destroy their towns and sow the remaining earth with salt.

Do good American Christians condone this kind of Biblical interpretation? Of course not.

There are many different interpretations of Islam and many different kinds of Muslims. Most do not follow a strict adherence to radical Islamic interpretations of the religion, just as most Christians are not radical.
In fact the largest Muslim nations generally have very few radical islamists in them, such as Indonesia, Bangladesh, India and Turkey. They are all stable democracies and Turkey is a secular, valued NATO ally.

FWIW most American Muslims are very moderate and share the same distaste to radical Islam as the rest of us do. They are usually very happy to be in the US because they are free from having radical Islamists tell them what to do all the time.... they are free to practise their religion in peace, just as American law permits them to.

If we were to use gladhatter's logic, then all Christians cannot be good Americans. Why?

Because the bible permits slavery, it forbids the consumption of pork and shellfish and instructs every good Christian to kill worshippers of a non-Christian god, destroy their towns and sow the remaining earth with salt.

Do good American Christians condone this kind of Biblical interpretation? Of course not.


Good effort MagicRat, but you are wrong in your interpretation of the bible,
and you didn't even site any bible verses to back up what you posted.:headshake

you are wrong in your interpretation of the bible,
e

<MagicRat weeps in his hands> You have just re-stated my point!

Yes, I chose controversial Biblical passages with differing opinions. That was my point.

The Bible is subject to a wide variety of interpretations and opinions..... which is one reason why there are dozens of different Christian sects...... just as there are many different Muslim sects. Like the Bible, the Koran is also subject todiffering interpretation, some harmful, some not. This was my point.

And because you disagree with my interpretation proves my point. Imo a discussion of your version of the correct interpretation is not relevant to my telling gladhatter how rediculous and hateful his post was. But if you want to pm me with info or links, that's fine.. :)

FWIW, here are some references.

Slavery:
Ephesians 6:5-6 (New International Version)

Slaves and Masters
5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

And:

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life... Lev. 25:44-46

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/the-bible-diet-1.html

During the pre-Christian era, it is a well-known fact that God forbade the Israelites to eat certain types of animal flesh. While the Israelites frequently disobeyed God's instructions, it was quite clear that God's law prohibited the consumption of pork, shellfish and other types of animal flesh. Therefore, if a person ate "unclean" food in Old Testament times, it was because they were choosing to disobey God's instructions, not because they felt they had a divine authorization to consume such meats.

The destroying the neighboring towns reference came from hours of Youtube religious opinion I was reviewing. For the life of me, I forget the biblical references...... and I don't have the time to review it all again :(

Not because he is Muslim, but because the Muslim way of thinking and treating women had a large influence on him.

Sorry for being stupid here but how is this not saying that he did what he did because he was Muslim?
Excuse the rhetoric but show me where in the Islamic way does it say it's ok for you scold the feet of your wife with boiling water and cut of her ears and nose if you suspect them of adultary.


Do Irish/Catholic dominated countries and culture have a higher rate and reputation of child abuse than others like the Muslim dominated countries do of abuse of women?

The short answer; yes.
Irish Catholic Church is notorious for rumours of covered up child abuse that has now been proven/confirmed.