I Think My Country is Finished

You guys are forgetting that Christianity has had periods where fundamental interpretations were prevalent.

Things such as witch burnings and crusades don’t happen these days, so obviously they aren’t inherent in Christianity itself.

Also, we do sometimes have people that blow up abortion clinics or assassinate doctors that provide them. I’m willing to guess that many of these perpetrators are fairly religious.

What we have is a widespread propaganda fed hatred of the west combined with a fundamental interpretation of Islam. It is a deadly combination. While we do have to battle those that have become terrorists, that is purely a holding strategy.

Winning this war will involve fighting these two pillars of thought. When I hear a government that has a clue how to do this, then I’ll get excited.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
jawara wrote:
I had a busy night last night so I didnt have alot of time. Anyway here’s Koran 8:12 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html If this isn’t hate for non muslims I don’t know what is.

So that’s why those idiots saw off people’s heads — its a dictum from the Prophet.

I’ve long held that eventually, if they follow their faith seriously, Muslims have to become Al-Qeada.

[/quote]

That depends first and foremost on the mindset of the believer. I think that in the right circumstances you personally would be an excellent extremist :slight_smile:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

Exactly what the Wahabbis believe, which is why the Turks set out to exterminate them. They missed one, his name ws al-Saud. Guess which country his family ended up ruling.[/quote]

Alsaudstralia?

[quote]pookie wrote:

Alsaudstralia?
[/quote]

Wow, how’d you know?

[quote]vroom wrote:
You guys are forgetting that Christianity has had periods where fundamental interpretations were prevalent.

Things such as witch burnings and crusades don’t happen these days, so obviously they aren’t inherent in Christianity itself.

Also, we do sometimes have people that blow up abortion clinics or assassinate doctors that provide them. I’m willing to guess that many of these perpetrators are fairly religious.

[/quote]

There’s plenty of people that voice a growing anti-Christian Ideal. So Islam isn’t feeling this phenomenon by itself.

My personal belief is that a growing understanding of rational thought is supplanting religion. Religion just isn’t offering anything of value in respects to what’s valuable today. The “Old Guard” acutely feels this. The result is what we see today. Fundamentalism coupled with violence: classic lashing out in order to hold on to their power structures.

When groups large enough to actually make a difference turn away from religion-based violence… that’ll be the turning point from one of humanities’ vices. Government based violence would be the next step.

Sadly, these have been the case since Hammurabi. We haven’t gotten far at all when it comes to treating one another with respect.

[quote]lixy wrote:
jawara wrote:
I had a busy night last night so I didnt have alot of time. Anyway here’s Koran 8:12 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html If this isn’t hate for non muslims I don’t know what is.

The Quran isn’t a set of instructions, and in this particular case, you are blatantly taking all context out of the equation.

Have a look at the following page, and get back to me.

http://www.islam101.com/terror/verse8_12.htm[/quote]

Sorry about the late response, I in the Army Air Assualt School and had alot of studying to do… Anyway after reading the page you posted I have a slighty warmer and fuzzy feeling about Islam. Slighty. I still have a problem with the fact that Islam/Muslims seem to want to change the cultural makeup of the countries that they move to http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2007/03/no_sharia_law_f.html

[quote]jawara wrote:
Secondly, I’m no expert on the subject
[/quote]

/thread

[quote]jawara wrote:
I still have a problem with the fact that Islam/Muslims seem to want to change the cultural makeup of the countries that they move to http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2007/03/no_sharia_law_f.html[/quote]

Trust me, you’re not the only one. I have a huge problem with that as well.

If they don’t wanna play the rules of the host country, they should stay home. That much, we can agree on.

Best of luck with your school work.

How would you interprete the verse from the Quran?

009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

[quote]jawara wrote:
How would you interprete the verse from the Quran?

009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
[/quote]

To attack/kill nonbelievers. Hardly unique to the Quran though.

Deuteronomy 17:12 - “Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the Lord your God must die. In this way you will purge the evil from Israel.”

Chronicles 15:12-13 - “They entered into a covenant to seek the LORD, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul. All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman.”

[quote]jawara wrote:
How would you interprete the verse from the Quran?

009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
[/quote]

The Quran isn’t some collection of commandments. You can’t remove the context of a verse, though that’s what many have done and are still doing. Quoting people and books out of context to suit one’s agenda is quite simple. It’s been done for centuries and is done on a daily basis. It’s a logical fallacy and can be very dangerous as demonstrated by Bolsheviks, Islamists, Inquisitionists and many others.

The verse you quoted is intrinsically linked to the previous verses of the Surah. So you may wanna start by reading it in full. What it states, is that peace treaties are to be respected and that if one side unilaterally breaks them, it’s OK to fight them. Try at least reading the preceding verse, where it’s clear that God refers to the Qurayshis who have been attacking Muslims.

I’m gonna disagree with two points on the translation as well. First, if you read the whole Surah, you won’t translate katiloo as “fight” but as “fight back”. Secondly, the last five words an yaden wa hoom saghiroon, is a reference to the fact that those living on Muslim lands should respect the common law. That is, they may do whatever they want in private (i.e: freedom of religion) but they should abide by the law when it comes to dealing with others (i.e: no killing, no stealing, no usury…) It’s no different than asking the Dutch who comes to America to refrain from smoking whatever they smoke in Amsterdam, or telling a Swede not to have sex with a 15 year old Texan.

[quote]lixy wrote:
jawara wrote:
How would you interprete the verse from the Quran?

009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

The Quran isn’t some collection of commandments. You can’t remove the context of a verse, though that’s what many have done and are still doing. Quoting people and books out of context to suit one’s agenda is quite simple. It’s been done for centuries and is done on a daily basis. It’s a logical fallacy and can be very dangerous as demonstrated by Bolsheviks, Islamists, Inquisitionists and many others.

The verse you quoted is intrinsically linked to the previous verses of the Surah. So you may wanna start by reading it in full. What it states, is that peace treaties are to be respected and that if one side unilaterally breaks them, it’s OK to fight them. Try at least reading the preceding verse, where it’s clear that God refers to the Qurayshis who have been attacking Muslims.

I’m gonna disagree with two points on the translation as well. First, if you read the whole Surah, you won’t translate katiloo as “fight” but as “fight back”. Secondly, the last five words an yaden wa hoom saghiroon, is a reference to the fact that those living on Muslim lands should respect the common law. That is, they may do whatever they want in private (i.e: freedom of religion) but they should abide by the law when it comes to dealing with others (i.e: no killing, no stealing, no usury…) It’s no different than asking the Dutch who comes to America to refrain from smoking whatever they smoke in Amsterdam, or telling a Swede not to have sex with a 15 year old Texan.[/quote]

Ok I’m pickin up what your puttin down. Maybe someday I’m get the chance o actually study the whole Quran. I will admit that I am biased toward being more anti-Islam because I don’t hear much from the mainstream Muslims about the current situation with murderers and other such attacks. Maybe all out war within the muslim community isn’t the answer but some finger pointing sure would help…

[quote]vroom wrote:
You guys are forgetting that Christianity has had periods where fundamental interpretations were prevalent.

Things such as witch burnings and crusades don’t happen these days, so obviously they aren’t inherent in Christianity itself.

Also, we do sometimes have people that blow up abortion clinics or assassinate doctors that provide them. I’m willing to guess that many of these perpetrators are fairly religious.

What we have is a widespread propaganda fed hatred of the west combined with a fundamental interpretation of Islam. It is a deadly combination. While we do have to battle those that have become terrorists, that is purely a holding strategy.

Winning this war will involve fighting these two pillars of thought. When I hear a government that has a clue how to do this, then I’ll get excited.[/quote]

Quoted for supreme truth.

[quote]jawara wrote:
lixy wrote:
jawara wrote:
How would you interprete the verse from the Quran?

009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

The Quran isn’t some collection of commandments. You can’t remove the context of a verse, though that’s what many have done and are still doing. Quoting people and books out of context to suit one’s agenda is quite simple. It’s been done for centuries and is done on a daily basis. It’s a logical fallacy and can be very dangerous as demonstrated by Bolsheviks, Islamists, Inquisitionists and many others.

The verse you quoted is intrinsically linked to the previous verses of the Surah. So you may wanna start by reading it in full. What it states, is that peace treaties are to be respected and that if one side unilaterally breaks them, it’s OK to fight them. Try at least reading the preceding verse, where it’s clear that God refers to the Qurayshis who have been attacking Muslims.

I’m gonna disagree with two points on the translation as well. First, if you read the whole Surah, you won’t translate katiloo as “fight” but as “fight back”. Secondly, the last five words an yaden wa hoom saghiroon, is a reference to the fact that those living on Muslim lands should respect the common law. That is, they may do whatever they want in private (i.e: freedom of religion) but they should abide by the law when it comes to dealing with others (i.e: no killing, no stealing, no usury…) It’s no different than asking the Dutch who comes to America to refrain from smoking whatever they smoke in Amsterdam, or telling a Swede not to have sex with a 15 year old Texan.

Ok I’m pickin up what your puttin down. Maybe someday I’m get the chance o actually study the whole Quran. I will admit that I am biased toward being more anti-Islam because I don’t hear much from the mainstream Muslims about the current situation with murderers and other such attacks. Maybe all out war within the muslim community isn’t the answer but some finger pointing sure would help…[/quote]

Definitely agree. Most Muslims maintain that they do not condone these acts or beliefs, but many don’t go so far as to denounce the acts, which gives the illusion of tacit support from the quiet ones.

http://www.enews.ma/algerians-protest_i68376_1.html

Algerians protest against terrorism after suicide attacks

ALGIERS (AFP) - Tens of thousands of Algerians protested against terrorism Sunday after two suicide bomb attacks in recent days claimed by an Al-Qaeda offshoot killed at least 52 people.

Demonstrations were held in Algeria’s major cities, including the capital Algiers, where participants gathered in a sports arena, displaying banners saying “no to violence and crime.”

Prime Minister Abdelaziz Belkhadem was among politicians attending the rally, where speakers denounced suicide attacks as “contrary to the values of Islam.”

Messages of support poured in from around the world, led by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon who said he was “deeply shocked and saddened by the escalation of terrorist violence in Algeria.”

The latest attack occurred Saturday when a blast ripped through a naval barracks in the port town of Dellys, 70 kilometres (45 miles) east of Algiers.

Most of those killed were members of the coastguard, but the interior ministry said three civilians also died and many of the 47 wounded were also civilians.

On Thursday, 22 people were killed and more than 100 wounded when a man exploded a device in a crowd waiting to meet President Abdelaziz Bouteflika in the eastern city of Batna.

It was an apparent assassination attempt against the president but the attacker was reportedly discovered by the crowd and set off the bomb before Bouteflika arrived.

Political parties, unions and civil society groups called for Sunday’s protests with the theme: “No to terrorism. Stop instability. Don’t touch my Algeria.”

Islamic militants from Al-Qaeda’s self-styled offshoot in north Africa have claimed credit for other recent bombings.

The Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) has pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden and renamed itself the Al-Qaeda Movement in the Maghreb, sparking Western fears of Islamist militants gaining a toehold in north Africa from which to launch attacks in Europe and beyond.

The United States denounced the attacks and called them a reminder of the threat posed by global extremism.

“We deplore the vicious attacks in Algeria. The attacks are another reminder of the terrorist threat faced by freedom-loving people around the world,” White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said.

The European Union issued a statement saying “terrorism in all its forms constitutes one of the most serious threats to peace in the world.” The bloc reiterated its “support for Algerian efforts to overcome the great sufferings of recent years and achieve national reconciliation.”

The Arab League also issued a strong condemnation of the attacks, with deputy chief of political affairs Ahmed Ben Helli saying “the Algerian people, who have defeated colonisation and terrorism in the past, are capable of conquering these small factions which kill innocent people.”

Messages of condolence and condemnations of the attacks also came from France, Iran, Jordan’s King Abdullah II, Morocco and Spain.

Bouteflika went on television after Thursday’s attacks to denounce the “criminals” responsible but vowed to pursue his national reconciliation policy.

That initiative aims to integrate Islamists who renounce violence that rocked the country after the army intervened in 1992 to cancel elections an Islamic fundamentalist party was poised to win.

About 2,000 militants have been freed from prison and the authorities say about 300 have given themselves up, earning a presidential pardon.

But in April, car bomb attacks on the government headquarters and a police station in Algiers killed 33 people and injured more than 220.

Three months later, 10 soldiers were killed and 35 people wounded when a suicide bomber rammed a truck full of explosives into barracks at Lakhdaria, 100 kilometres east of Algiers.

In a separate incident, Algerian security services said they had arrested two suspected Islamist militants “as they were preparing an attack” in the town of Medea, 80 kilometres south of Algiers.

[quote]jawara wrote:
Maybe someday I’m get the chance o actually study the whole Quran. I will admit that I am biased toward being more anti-Islam because I don’t hear much from the mainstream Muslims about the current situation with murderers and other such attacks. Maybe all out war within the muslim community isn’t the answer but some finger pointing sure would help…[/quote]

I don’t know what’s more disturbing; that you entertain the idea of an “all out war”, or that you adopt a passive attitude in gathering the position of the “mainstream Muslims”?

That goes to show something is severely twisted in the American attitude towards the rest of the world.

[quote]Chushin wrote:
That goes to show something is severely twisted in your attitude towards one of the most diverse countries in the world. As if there were some monolithic “American attitude.” [/quote]

Use your brains.

The US is the only country on earth to have contingency plans to attack every country - maybe not the UK or Israel but you get the idea. The fact that Jawara doesn’t dismiss the idea of an all-out-war with countries that didn’t attack the US (think Iran, Iraq…) shows that something is wrong.

And yes, as far as foreign policy is concerned, there is a monolithic American attitude. Democrats as every bit as interventionist as Republicans. They just keep it under the radar.

As for expecting voices of “mainstream Muslims” to reach him while he stays passive in front of his Fox newscast, that’s not gonna happen. Many Muslims cried on 9/11, but did any media present them? No. All you had were pictures of cheering Palestinians who were represented as “the Arab street”.

So, again, with regards to the mainstream media, the goals are clear and they include making money publishing sensationalist pieces. It is IMHO monolithic as well.

[quote]lixy wrote:
jawara wrote:
Maybe someday I’m get the chance o actually study the whole Quran. I will admit that I am biased toward being more anti-Islam because I don’t hear much from the mainstream Muslims about the current situation with murderers and other such attacks. Maybe all out war within the muslim community isn’t the answer but some finger pointing sure would help…

I don’t know what’s more disturbing; that you entertain the idea of an “all out war”, or that you adopt a passive attitude in gathering the position of the “mainstream Muslims”?

That goes to show something is severely twisted in the American attitude towards the rest of the world.[/quote]

Ok I’m gonna rephrase what I said. An all out war within the Muslim community (between moderates and radicals) isn’t THE best solution to the problem, but the radicals would really start getting their asses kicked. Radical Muslims getting their ass kicked is good.

Finger pointing (“Hey we know where the bad guys are and we’ll take you to them Mr. FBI, CIA, Special Forces, and police man so you and kill em”) will also work. I would prefer the later but I don’t hear too much about that kind of thing going on.