• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Muslims

dzalphakilo said:
Didn't take the time to read any of my long winded posts?

No, sorry, I did not read the long cut-and-pastes.

dzalphakilo said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, the "jist" of this whole topic is the Islam kills anyone who does not want to be a part of thier religion, they are killing our troops in Iraq, terrorism is running rampant and most of those terrorist are Muslims, so since no one (being Islamic) wants to denounce any of those actions listed, we should kill all Muslims.

You are wrong. No one said all Muslims should be killed; you are the only one making such suggestions. But 99% of the worlds terrorist acts are indeed committed my those delightful, peaceful Muslims you so adamatly choose to defend.

dzalphakilo said:
If I missed it, what do you want to do with the Muslims?

What I would like people to do is to pull their heads out of the PC "tolerance" sand and truly understand exactly what they are defending. I feel the same way the Austrailian government feels: You want to live in America, then assimilate into American society as Americans or get the hell out. You plot against our country or support radical Islamist terrorism you get deported or prosecuted as a terrorist. A very simple solution.

All that "kill all Muslims" stuff you talk about is an argument of your own undertaking, not mine or anyone elses here.

dzalphakilo said:
Impression I get from you is that they (Muslims) are all Christian haters who if cannot convert us, will kill us.

I believe the vast majority do believe the koran and have no problem with American infidels having their heads sawed off on video. When I start seeing muslims on the Sunday morning talking head shows coming out and condemning these acts, then I could give serious consideration to your argument; but, as you are certainly aware; this has not happened yet.

The 9/11 hijackers were probably the most friendly Muslims you could ever meet. Their neighbors probably thought they were just some friendly Middleeastern immigrants working their way through flight school. So, all of you who have blindly defended all these wonderful Muslim friends you have; how do you know for sure what their intent is? Can you tell the good ones from the bad ones? Given the facts as they are in the world today, a little healthy suspicion is a good thing and might just save your life and the lives of your family and friends.

Stop all these silly suggestions that because someone speaks out against Islam, they are suggesting that all Muslims be rounded up into camps and shot. That is symptomatic of a very weak argument when one resorts to those kind of statements.
 
Ok, I don't know how to quote multiple quotes per one post:pat:

Cityboy said:
No, sorry, I did not read the long cut-and-pastes.

Apologies, did not mean to imply that I did type them, but sounded that way.

That being said, where did you get the quotes from per you "Koran" quote post?



You are wrong. No one said all Muslims should be killed; you are the only one making such suggestions. But 99% of the worlds terrorist acts are indeed committed my those delightful, peaceful Muslims you so adamatly choose to defend.

I'm defending a "generaliztion" of Muslims only due to thier religion. Perhaps in the last couple of years, the majority of terrorist acts we're committed by Muslim people, but don't generalize them all together.



What I would like people to do is to pull their heads out of the PC "tolerance" sand and truly understand exactly what they are defending. I feel the same way the Austrailian government feels: You want to live in America, then assimilate into American society as Americans or get the hell out. You plot against our country or support radical Islamist terrorism you get deported or prosecuted as a terrorist. A very simple solution.

"assimilate into american society"? What, no turbans? I agree with your last two sentences in that paragraph.

All that "kill all Muslims" stuff you talk about is an argument of your own undertaking, not mine or anyone elses here.

Then what are we to do with the Muslims who have not acted aggresivly (sp?) towards us (god forbid there are still people who actually like white americans).



I believe the vast majority do believe the koran and have no problem with American infidels having their heads sawed off on video. When I start seeing muslims on the Sunday morning talking head shows coming out and condemning these acts, then I could give serious consideration to your argument; but, as you are certainly aware; this has not happened yet.

Actually, I remember seeing some Muslim people denouncing these acts, but only in America. I don't think it would be pruden for an Iraqi to "speak out" against the Americans in Iraq due to how well we can protect anyone there at this point.

The 9/11 hijackers were probably the most friendly Muslims you could ever meet. Their neighbors probably thought they were just some friendly Middleeastern immigrants working their way through flight school. So, all of you who have blindly defended all these wonderful Muslim friends you have; how do you know for sure what their intent is? Can you tell the good ones from the bad ones? Given the facts as they are in the world today, a little healthy suspicion is a good thing and might just save your life and the lives of your family and friends.

Actually, if I remember correctly, some of those hijackers were not the most friendly and kept to themselves. I could be wrong, but I thought there was an inquiry on to how easy it was for them to actually get through flight school without any major questions being asked.

I don't care if your Muslim or American, Chineese (sp?) Irish or whatever. I will always watch my ass, people being people. I'd haphazzard a guess and say more americans are killed by fellow americans than people of the Muslim faith (or Muslim americans).

Stop all these silly suggestions that because someone speaks out against Islam, they are suggesting that all Muslims be rounded up into camps and shot. That is symptomatic of a very weak argument when one resorts to those kind of statements.

And what are you suggesting?

May be silly to think about rounding people up due just to thier religion, but funny how things like this can happen in a society and what society can do to justify it.

Sounds like this thread was going down that path, anyway you cut it.
 
It's interesting to see how far this thread has gone so quickly. Here's my take:


Here's the tollerant, understanding religion of peace.

one - two - three - four - five - six

All the while chanting "God is great - God is great."

I will agree with CB and ask,

"Where is the outcry and denouncement of these acts from the 'Main-Stream' muslim population, not only the six million muslims in America, but from anywhere in the world?"

The deafening silence is the only thing being heard. To me, that means apathy and non-consern. Or in other words, quiet approval and satifaction.

Use logic to prove me wrong, please.
 
Those videos and the 9/11 footage should be shown on the nightly news on a regular basis to remind those among us who so easily forget.
 
Cityboy said:
Those videos and the 9/11 footage should be shown on the nightly news on a regular basis to remind those among us who so easily forget.

ABSOLOUTLY!!!!!:a1: Every American should be required to veiw at least one and be reminded of it daily....


So, I'll add my answer to the "what do you suggest" question.....

I say that we should exploit and promote the Abu Garib soldiers with praise.. I think we should have killed Sadam on national TV as well as drag his and Zarkawi's body through the streets and dowsed in pig blood.. Hell, maybe even roast them on an open fire like a pig...

Say what you will, but the longer this PC attitude continues to dictate our conduct and how we must be "better" than them by not resorting to their tactics, the more of our soldiers will get killed... Sorry, thats reality.. They will not go away because we become nice to them. They will not go away if we treat them kindly while captive.. You cannot call for genocide because all musslims are not bad, they are humans too.. However, they do deserve to be racially profiled and scrutinized for the security of our country.. I got pulled over in a predominatly black part of town, late at night(looking for my freinds stollen car) and I didnt get too bent out of shape when they explained that most whites in the area are buying drugs.. I wasnt, it delayed me, but what did I loose? They were protecting me too.. If they dont like it, they can leave... Bet they wont though...
 
Av8r3400 said:
The deafening silence is the only thing being heard. To me, that means apathy and non-consern. Or in other words, quiet approval and .

Geez, you've just described half of the american public.
 
I have argued with Cityboy this entire thread, largely because I believe he is lumping ALL Muslims into one group and I think that is wrong. He and I have to agree to disagree on THAT point. I still believe, and still will defend the point that not all Muslims are bad and not all Muslims want to kill me.

But now I find myself agreeing with his last post.

I consider how we are handling the war to be somewhat wrong. The problem is our weapons are too damn accurate and consequently our expectations of collateral damage are that ZERO civilian casualties is the only acceptable number. Further, we are fighting a dirty war but we are playing by gentleman's rules . . . sort of reminds me of the way the British Redcoats lined up in nice rows so the American Revolutionary soldiers could pick them off while hiding behind trees. Amazing how little we learn from history.
 
HGM said:
ABSOLOUTLY!!!!!:a1: Every American should be required to veiw at least one and be reminded of it daily....

...

Heck, why not Pearl Harbor, what about the U.S.S Maine, why not the Japaneese (sp?) treatment of U.S soldiers? Heck, we could have a 1/2 hour intro film into the news on how America has been wronged and why we should kick everyones ass.

I know what happened on 9/11, I don't need to be reminded of it on a regular basis.

Sorry fact is we should be out of Iraq by now, Bush apparently did not see this coming, or else he has the greatest gameplan going and I'm not sure anyone but himself knows what that gameplan is.

By the way, did we go to Iraq due to 9/11? I serioulsy thought it was the WMD issue (I could be wrong).
 
I'm getting in late here -

Why don't we run this "war" like we ran WWII? Censor the news, and win the freakin war? Run it like a war. EXPECT casualties, both theirs and ours, civilian and soldiers. And if they choose not to wear uniforms, then we take out ANY suspected enemy. Maybe then the Muslims that do not agree with war will start showing us where the enemy is hiding. Or not. Their choice to meet Allah earlier as opposed to later. Shoot first, ask questions later. It should be over in about two months if we did not have to play PC. By then, Iran would either shut up and whither away, or they'd be in a one month war, if ran like a war that we fully intend to win. Syria about 2 weeks.

We did good with Japan. Remember - "We have awoken a sleeping giant and filled his heart with resolve" or something like that from Admiral Hirohito? We have no resolve, only pols and political correctness. We creamed them, they adapted the constitution, and are now prospering.

We started it with Iraq for any number of reasons, one mainly was Iraq's continued defiance of NATO's agreement for monitoring. EVERYBODY said they had WMD. Even the damn French. We fixed that problem. So now let's kick the press out, jam the radio waves, and finish it. Start with taking out any Mosque that has "insurgents" in it. And WTF is an insurgent? They are the ENEMY. Take out the bad guys, put in a constitution we come up with, and force compliance. AND, the oil fields are now ours. Give teh oil companies HUGE tax breaks to maximize pumping and flood the market with cheap oil. Thus destabilizing the other "religious muslim countries" by bringing the oil price way down. Same with Iraq. And who gives a crap if anybody says we only did it for the oil. No, we did it to start with because Sadam would not comply with global rules. Then Iran gets it for supplying enemy soldiers, as does Syria. Then we get the spoils of war. End of story.

That's my story and I'm stickin to it.
 
dzalphakilo said:
Heck, why not Pearl Harbor, what about the U.S.S Maine, why not the Japaneese (sp?) treatment of U.S soldiers? Heck, we could have a 1/2 hour intro film into the news on how America has been wronged and why we should kick everyones ass.

I know what happened on 9/11, I don't need to be reminded of it on a regular basis.

Sorry fact is we should be out of Iraq by now, Bush apparently did not see this coming, or else he has the greatest gameplan going and I'm not sure anyone but himself knows what that gameplan is.

By the way, did we go to Iraq due to 9/11? I serioulsy thought it was the WMD issue (I could be wrong).

OK, Maybe it wouldnt be a bad idea... Curently, we're at war agains a musslim enemy who is beheading people in the name of allah.. I believe that takes precidence over an old war.. No disrespect to those lost in the other wars(BTW, you didnt mention Vietnam, where we still have MIA's and I guess POW's are possible) but this war is being made into a joke in the worlds eyes because of our peoples capability of forgetting and moving on.. I agree that we need to move on, but we cannot forget that Al Quida attacked us(yes, they are in Iraq).. WMD is another discussion I choose not to get involed in because everyone has a different deffinition of WMD.. Something had to be done in the region, specificly with Sadam, because he was blatantly defying the UN inspectors.. He's gone(unfortunatly not dead, thats another joke) but the country isnt stabil enough for us to leave, I believe its related.. I believe its the same war as Afganastan/Bin Laden.. Iran will soon be included if they dont play nice.. The region is unstabil and will remain that way untill we play their game.. The problem with a large portion of the population in this country is the ability to just change the channel and ignore the facts by saying "I know what happened on 9/11, I don't need to be reminded of it on a regular basis"..
 
waybomb said:
I'm getting in late here -

Why don't we run this "war" like we ran WWII? Censor the news, and win the freakin war? Run it like a war. EXPECT casualties, both theirs and ours, civilian and soldiers. And if they choose not to wear uniforms, then we take out ANY suspected enemy. Maybe then the Muslims that do not agree with war will start showing us where the enemy is hiding. Or not. Their choice to meet Allah earlier as opposed to later. Shoot first, ask questions later. It should be over in about two months if we did not have to play PC. By then, Iran would either shut up and whither away, or they'd be in a one month war, if ran like a war that we fully intend to win. Syria about 2 weeks.

We did good with Japan. Remember - "We have awoken a sleeping giant and filled his heart with resolve" or something like that from Admiral Hirohito? We have no resolve, only pols and political correctness. We creamed them, they adapted the constitution, and are now prospering.

We started it with Iraq for any number of reasons, one mainly was Iraq's continued defiance of NATO's agreement for monitoring. EVERYBODY said they had WMD. Even the damn French. We fixed that problem. So now let's kick the press out, jam the radio waves, and finish it. Start with taking out any Mosque that has "insurgents" in it. And WTF is an insurgent? They are the ENEMY. Take out the bad guys, put in a constitution we come up with, and force compliance. AND, the oil fields are now ours. Give teh oil companies HUGE tax breaks to maximize pumping and flood the market with cheap oil. Thus destabilizing the other "religious muslim countries" by bringing the oil price way down. Same with Iraq. And who gives a crap if anybody says we only did it for the oil. No, we did it to start with because Sadam would not comply with global rules. Then Iran gets it for supplying enemy soldiers, as does Syria. Then we get the spoils of war. End of story.

That's my story and I'm stickin to it.

Are you going to run in '08???
 
HGM said:
Are you going to run in '08???

Hahahahaha. That would be precious, wouldn't it? I wonder how much money I could raise to run a campaign on that platform? I'd probably raise about 10 bucks (5 from my mom!) and have two votes, mine and hers.
 
Eh, and they could say I beat the crap outa the Muslims only because I needed more fuel for Plain Vanilla! I'd say, "Yup, that's why!"
 
waybomb said:
Hahahahaha. That would be precious, wouldn't it? I wonder how much money I could raise to run a campaign on that platform? I'd probably raise about 10 bucks (5 from my mom!) and have two votes, mine and hers.

Hell, I'd give double that..... Been saying the same thing for a long time now...
 
B_Skurka said:
we are fighting a dirty war but we are playing by gentleman's rules . . .

Bob, there is no thing such as gentleman's rules in war.

If I said it once, I said it 1000 times, it has now become a

G O R I L L A W A R !!!!!!!!!

Guys, look it up in the dictionary if you have to.

How long do we want to stay in the region? how many guys do we want to lose?

Anyone want to argue with me on that point, go join up and help uncle sam kick butt and help the Iraqi people "find" freedom.

We've already kicked butt, we are now a reactionary police force trying to do the goverments work.

Please don't even compare this "action" (per other threads here, heck, this isn't even a "war") to WW1 or WW2, total different ballgame all the way around.
 
dzalphakilo said:
Bob, there is no thing such as gentleman's rules in war.

If I said it once, I said it 1000 times, it has now become a

G O R I L L A W A R !!!!!!!!!

Guys, look it up in the dictionary if you have to.

How long do we want to stay in the region? how many guys do we want to lose?

Anyone want to argue with me on that point, go join up and help uncle sam kick butt and help the Iraqi people "find" freedom.

We've already kicked butt, we are now a reactionary police force trying to do the goverments work.

Please don't even compare this "action" (per other threads here, heck, this isn't even a "war") to WW1 or WW2, total different ballgame all the way around.

It isn't a war only because this government, along with about the last 10 administrations, are more concerned with pols and getting re-elected then protecting our country and its ideals. If run properly, the war would be over. So then there would be something called peace. And if Korea or anybody else wants to screw with us, then expect the worst. Which might also mean cutting off their oil, since we'll control most of it and the price of it. This war or action or whatever you want to call it is not over until Iran becomes a compliant country.
 
waybomb said:
It isn't a war only because this government, along with about the last 10 administrations, are more concerned with pols and getting re-elected then protecting our country

That is not a commander in chief. When you want to survive in politics and you don't have young men putting thier lives on the line for our country, hey, do what you need to do, BUT...when you have obligated thousand upon thousands of lives to give the ultimate sacrifice, respect goes both ways, and use those lives as wisely as you can.

You're correct if you were saying it (which I already have), that this war should already be over.
 
dzalphakilo said:
That is not a commander in chief. When you want to survive in politics and you don't have young men putting thier lives on the line for our country, hey, do what you need to do, BUT...when you have obligated thousand upon thousands of lives to give the ultimate sacrifice, respect goes both ways, and use those lives as wisely as you can.

You're correct if you were saying it (which I already have), that this war should already be over.

If I insinuated that I would recklessly line my guys up as sitting ducks, I did not mean it. What I mean is that if this war were run like a war, we would probably have lost less lives because we would have taken out the enemy long, long ago, no matter where they were, even in the "Holy" Mosques,or running across the borders, or even engage other countries supporting the enemy. Smart bombs targeting the enemy wherever they may be means fewer lost lives. Ground troops as a last resort, and then only to claim the spils of war and install our government and rules.
 
waybomb said:
If I insinuated that I would recklessly line my guys up as sitting ducks, I did not mean it. What I mean is that if this war were run like a war, we would probably have lost less lives because we would have taken out the enemy long, long ago, no matter where they were, even in the "Holy" Mosques,or running across the borders, or even engage other countries supporting the enemy. Smart bombs targeting the enemy wherever they may be means fewer lost lives. Ground troops as a last resort, and then only to claim the spils of war and install our government and rules.

I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about GW.

From a military standpoint, our losses have been minimal, and our "conquest" swift and fast compared to the amount of troops stationed in that country. As mentioned before, we really did kick butt.

That's one reasoning, we can afford to lose the men at the rate we currently being KIA for an extended period of time until the Iraqi goverment can actually gain control over the country.

When Sadamn (sp?) was taken out of power, how many troops were KIA? How many KIA after that?

Whats worse are the guys who are maimed, discharged, then have nothing but an uphill battle for the rest of thier lives.

I SINCERELY hope what we accomplish in Iraq is worth the sacrafice our troops have made, and regretfully (sp?) may continue to have to make. Let me rephrase that, anytime our troops go to war, ANY sacrifice our troops make IS worth it.

I'm starting to repeat myself, but just pull all the troops back to a "safe zone" in Iraq, have them stand by to watch what happens with the "new" goverment, and if you don't like it, take em out again and start all over (I'k kidding to an extent on that statement).
 
Last edited:
Regardless of anyones thoughts on the war in Iraq, young men continue to volunteer to serve. The last news I saw is that the armed servics are continuing to meet their recruiting goals. That tells me that these young Americans believe in the mission, which I believe is to stamp out terrorists. When the recruiting numbers start going down and staying down, then you can start paying attention to the critics.

These Isalmo-fascists are flooding to Iraq, or so it appears. We kill them. This is a good thing because they are not able to commit their terrorist acts here because they are fighting their holy war in Iraq. We are killing lots more than is being reported because the MSM does not want to report anything positive from Iraq for fear that it might help George Bush.

Many here have fallen for the MSM's doom and gloom view after hearing day in and day out how bad things are; meanwhile, 18 year old high school graduates are still heading to the recruiters office and signing enlistment papers. These kids are the ultimate deciders because we are a 100% volunteer military force in the United States and these kids know full well they may see hot combat and may be wounded or killed. They are not being forced into it, nor are they blindly being led; they are volunteering willingly. Some here tend to forget that fact.
 
Cityboy said:
This is a good thing because they are not able to commit their terrorist acts here because they are fighting their holy war in Iraq.

Sad to say, in war, there are no "terrorists acts". Our opposition in Iraq is outnumbered, outrained and outgunned (or so I believe).

Theres a little part of me that thinks if our enemy can get us to react, and have that reaction directed to the general public (in Iraq), our enemy gains strength through the people.

How many here thought this would be a walk in the park? Or at least over by now?

How long has Iraq had it's new goverment?
 
dzalphakilo said:
Sad to say, in war, there are no "terrorists acts". Our opposition in Iraq is outnumbered, outrained and outgunned (or so I believe).

Theres a little part of me that thinks if our enemy can get us to react, and have that reaction directed to the general public (in Iraq), our enemy gains strength through the people.

How many here thought this would be a walk in the park? Or at least over by now?

How long has Iraq had it's new goverment?

I think most of the people who thought it would be a "walk in the park" are the ones who are whinning the loudest right now. We want instant gratification in our remote control position on the couch. These people and the MSM are playing right into the enemy's hands.
 
Cityboy said:
Regardless of anyones thoughts on the war in Iraq, young men continue to volunteer to serve.

The key word in that sentence is "young".

My point is that alot of U.S citizens don't look at this "war" as a "make or break" conflict that will destroy the U.S if we loose.

I may be right or wrong, but I also think that the general public opinion is "I don't care about this war anymore". Oh sure, we all have our opinions, and will voice them if asked, but thats about it.
 
Cityboy said:
I think most of the people who thought it would be a "walk in the park" are the ones who are whinning the loudest right now. We want instant gratification in our remote control position on the couch. These people and the MSM are playing right into the enemy's hands.

How long has this war been?

When was Mr. S.H taken out of power?

When was a new goverment "installed"?

We can end up losing MANY more men in this "war", or perhaps not, to me the question is what will we gain.

How long do we stay there up?

I can't help but hear Bush say "until the jobs done"! (with thumbs up of course).
 
dzalphakilo said:
... When was a new goverment "installed"? ...

I guess since we held guns to the heads of millions of Iraqi votors that elected our "puppet" government. By the way, under threat of death from the sub-human animal terrorists, the Iraqi people still turned in many times higher the voter turn out of the average American election.

But, we "installed" the government, like a new set of tires.
 
dzalphakilo said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, your saying if you follow the Koran, you're supposed to kill non-believers, and those who are "moderate" muslims don't really follow the Koran?

Uh yeah - that pretty much sums it up. Look at all of the Muslims who follow Al-Queada - the typical story you hear is that they start reading the Koran - fall in with a Muslim Fundamentalist group - attend a Madras school - where you pretty much have to do nothing but memorize the Koran - and what comes out of that path? I have yet to hear a single story where the result was peace love and understanding.

Furthermore when Sept 11 happened, when all of the other terrorists incidents happened, when the Danish cartoon thing was in full swing - there was little to no outcry from the Muslim world in general that these were "bad" things. This is my opinion - but I feel that that this is because the majority of the Muslim world at some level agrees with the terrorist actions - and realizes that they are fully condoned by the Koran - hence how can you speak out about them and say they are not in line with the teachings of Mohammed?

I'm no expert in Islam, can I ask what education or personal experience you have had with Muslims/Islam?

On top of that, if you've never read the Koran, how can you make those "general" statements?

I have the same education that most of the people responding to this thread probably have - I read and watch the news every day - I follow the actions of the Muslim countries looking for some faint hope that there might be one that speaks out against what the terrorists are doing - and find none. Here in the Boston area there is a Muslim on the City Council who used back door dealings to get city land sold to a local Islamic group to build a mosque. The land was sold for something like $500,000 - problem is it was multiple acres - and the land had value that probably was realistically in the millions of dollars. When this action was protested the inevitable cries of racism and oppression of religion started getting thrown around. I will grant you that this particular story is not necessarily indicative of the Islam in general but it is just one more case that seems to be typical to me of Islam in general - they don't REALLY want to get along with us. There is way too much literature out there about what is happening in Europe , the Middle East, and here - about Islam not really wanting to really get along with the rest of the world - but rather take it over by any means necessary - for there not to be some truth to it.
I have read the 3 links that B_Skurka posted near the beginning of this thread - and countless others like it. I have spent quite a bit of my own time searching (in vain) for something to counteract what that author is trying to say - and found pretty much nothing.

Sort of like a Muslim making a statment about the bible by reading some passages, then making a "general" statement about all Christians becuase that said Muslim think he knows everything about Christianity.

Make it even more easier of a question. To all of those who believe that Islam is a "bad" religion, what personal contacts, personal association, or "first hand experience" do you have to make such a broad statement?

I have no real desire to read the Koran - so I go by the hopefully accurate statements of those who have spent the time to research it. Pretty much everything I have found from those who have studied it says that all of the accusations against Islam of being for killing infidels, taking multiple wives, converting unbelievers, etc. etc. -are true. I try to be unbiased - and have spent a bit of time looking for rebuttals that would refute the accusations of Islam being bad - and pretty much the best I can find are people saying things like " well Islam is not bad because I am a Muslim and I haven't killed anybody and I don't beat my wife" - this is not a rebuttal but just a personal account of one person who from all the accounts I have read is probably not a Muslim who has read the Koran in depth - which is where my analogy of a " good " Muslim being one who doesn't really follow the Koran comes from.

If you believe that Islam is a "good" religion what personal contacts, personal associations, or first hand experience do you have to back up this assumption?
 
jdwilson44 said:
If you believe that Islam is a "good" religion what personal contacts, personal associations, or first hand experience do you have to back up this assumption?

I'm not saying that Islam is a "good religion", but I'm also not saying it's a bad religion. The exact same can be said for Chritianity or any other religion.

I've worked with Muslims overseas some time ago, and not in the middle east.

As mentioned before, ignorance isn't a one way street, and sometimes I think other peoples perceptions of the U.S and it's general population is as bad, if not worse of how we consider others outside the U.S

Take an Iraqi, put him in Camden N.J for a week, send him "back home" and what could some of his thoughts be of our country? Would they be correct? (of course at this point, he may feel right at home in Camden).

Why are there people in Iraq who want to work with us?

How many here actually have read the "bible" of your religion?

"know your enemy", just don't assume you know him.
 
dzalphakilo said:
I'm not saying that Islam is a "good religion", but I'm also not saying it's a bad religion. The exact same can be said for Chritianity or any other religion.

I've worked with Muslims overseas some time ago, and not in the middle east.

As mentioned before, ignorance isn't a one way street, and sometimes I think other peoples perceptions of the U.S and it's general population is as bad, if not worse of how we consider others outside the U.S

Take an Iraqi, put him in Camden N.J for a week, send him "back home" and what could some of his thoughts be of our country? Would they be correct? (of course at this point, he may feel right at home in Camden).

Why are there people in Iraq who want to work with us?

How many here actually have read the "bible" of your religion?

"know your enemy", just don't assume you know him.

Honestly I have not much personal experience with Islam or Muslims - unfortunately what little experience I have had - and this is thru things like 9/11, the Iraq war, reading about the Taliban, etc. has been pretty universally bad. It is true that that this may make me not the best judge of the real truth of the matter but from what little I know the societies where Islam predominates are societies that are ruled by religion. This is a complete contrast to what we have here in the US - which may be a society heavily dominated by religion if you believe some people - but the reality is that there are multiple religions here - Muslims included - and know of many people who have "switched religions" or practice no religion whatsoever - and are free to do so. To my mind Islam is a closed society - and when Islam dominates a population it does not usually tolerate any other religion existing on an equal basis.

There is a saying "it's not what you say but what you do that counts" - well lately a lot of what Muslims have been doing go in direct conflict with the claims they make about their religion being peaceful - when I take these historical events - and match them up against what many writers have written about what they feel the Koran says about what permissable behavior is for a Muslim - I have come to the belief that - while considering Islam to be a "bad" religion may be going too far - it surely has a lot to answer for. And there are plenty of ex-Muslims who feel the same way:

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/
 
jdwilson44 said:
This is a complete contrast to what we have here in the US - which may be a society heavily dominated by religion if you believe some people - but the reality is that there are multiple religions here - Muslims included - and know of many people who have "switched religions" or practice no religion whatsoever - and are free to do so. To my mind Islam is a closed society - and when Islam dominates a population it does not usually tolerate any other religion existing on an equal basis.

Actually, I found the muslim-dominated society that I lived in to be very tolerant of other religions. The Muslims there were quite forthcoming with information about their religion and about Christianity. Islam believes - as does Judism - that Jesus was a prophet but not the son of God. Muhommad is the prophet who wrote the Quran. There were practising Christians living in that society and working alongside practising Muslims. There were varying degrees of worship amongst the Muslim population - some people didn't go to daily prayers, some women didn't wear the headgear (Kuwait is cinserbative, but not as conservative as Saudi or Iran). I worked in Kuwait for a year and people all around knew that I was a Christian and they respected that. Didn't get any anger directed towards me based on my religion.

Just as not all muslims are fundamentalists, not all muslim societies are either. There were no beheadings or stonings or taking of hands in Kuwait (part of fundamentalist Shari law) while I was there, but there were alot in Saudi. Don't paint all muslims or muslim societies with the same brush.
 
This is what I mean when I say I rely on people who may know a little more about Islam than I do when I do my research and try to figure out if Islam is a "bad" religion or if this is just all some big misunderstanding:



November 2, 2001

Yes, This Is About Islam

By SALMAN RUSHDIE

spacer.gif

l.gif
ONDON -- "This isn't about Islam." The world's leaders have been repeating this mantra for weeks, partly in the virtuous hope of deterring reprisal attacks on innocent Muslims living in the West, partly because if the United States is to maintain its coalition against terror it can't afford to suggest that Islam and terrorism are in any way related.
The trouble with this necessary disclaimer is that it isn't true. If this isn't about Islam, why the worldwide Muslim demonstrations in support of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Why did those 10,000 men armed with swords and axes mass on the Pakistan-Afghanistan frontier, answering some mullah's call to jihad? Why are the war's first British casualties three Muslim men who died fighting on the Taliban side?
Why the routine anti-Semitism of the much-repeated Islamic slander that "the Jews" arranged the hits on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, with the oddly self-deprecating explanation offered by the Taliban leadership, among others, that Muslims could not have the technological know-how or organizational sophistication to pull off such a feat? Why does Imran Khan, the Pakistani ex-sports star turned politician, demand to be shown the evidence of Al Qaeda's guilt while apparently turning a deaf ear to the self-incriminating statements of Al Qaeda's own spokesmen (there will be a rain of aircraft from the skies, Muslims in the West are warned not to live or work in tall buildings)? Why all the talk about American military infidels desecrating the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia if some sort of definition of what is sacred is not at the heart of the present discontents?
Of course this is "about Islam." The question is, what exactly does that mean? After all, most religious belief isn't very theological. Most Muslims are not profound Koranic analysts. For a vast number of "believing" Muslim men, "Islam" stands, in a jumbled, half-examined way, not only for the fear of God — the fear more than the love, one suspects — but also for a cluster of customs, opinions and prejudices that include their dietary practices; the sequestration or near-sequestration of "their" women; the sermons delivered by their mullahs of choice; a loathing of modern society in general, riddled as it is with music, godlessness and sex; and a more particularized loathing (and fear) of the prospect that their own immediate surroundings could be taken over — "Westoxicated" — by the liberal Western-style way of life.
Highly motivated organizations of Muslim men (oh, for the voices of Muslim women to be heard!) have been engaged over the last 30 years or so in growing radical political movements out of this mulch of "belief." These Islamists — we must get used to this word, "Islamists," meaning those who are engaged upon such political projects, and learn to distinguish it from the more general and politically neutral "Muslim" — include the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the blood-soaked combatants of the Islamic Salvation Front and Armed Islamic Group in Algeria, the Shiite revolutionaries of Iran, and the Taliban. Poverty is their great helper, and the fruit of their efforts is paranoia. This paranoid Islam, which blames outsiders, "infidels," for all the ills of Muslim societies, and whose proposed remedy is the closing of those societies to the rival project of modernity, is presently the fastest growing version of Islam in the world.
This is not wholly to go along with Samuel Huntington's thesis about the clash of civilizations, for the simple reason that the Islamists' project is turned not only against the West and "the Jews," but also against their fellow Islamists. Whatever the public rhetoric, there's little love lost between the Taliban and Iranian regimes. Dissensions between Muslim nations run at least as deep, if not deeper, than those nations' resentment of the West. Nevertheless, it would be absurd to deny that this self-exculpatory, paranoiac Islam is an ideology with widespread appeal.
Twenty years ago, when I was writing a novel about power struggles in a fictionalized Pakistan, it was already de rigueur in the Muslim world to blame all its troubles on the West and, in particular, the United States. Then as now, some of these criticisms were well-founded; no room here to rehearse the geopolitics of the cold war and America's frequently damaging foreign policy "tilts," to use the Kissinger term, toward (or away from) this or that temporarily useful (or disapproved-of) nation-state, or America's role in the installation and deposition of sundry unsavory leaders and regimes. But I wanted then to ask a question that is no less important now: Suppose we say that the ills of our societies are not primarily America's fault, that we are to blame for our own failings? How would we understand them then? Might we not, by accepting our own responsibility for our problems, begin to learn to solve them for ourselves?
Many Muslims, as well as secularist analysts with roots in the Muslim world, are beginning to ask such questions now. In recent weeks Muslim voices have everywhere been raised against the obscurantist hijacking of their religion. Yesterday's hotheads (among them Yusuf Islam, a k a Cat Stevens) are improbably repackaging themselves as today's pussycats.
An Iraqi writer quotes an earlier Iraqi satirist: "The disease that is in us, is from us." A British Muslim writes, "Islam has become its own enemy." A Lebanese friend, returning from Beirut, tells me that in the aftermath of the attacks on Sept. 11, public criticism of Islamism has become much more outspoken. Many commentators have spoken of the need for a Reformation in the Muslim world.
I'm reminded of the way noncommunist socialists used to distance themselves from the tyrannical socialism of the Soviets; nevertheless, the first stirrings of this counterproject are of great significance. If Islam is to be reconciled with modernity, these voices must be encouraged until they swell into a roar. Many of them speak of another Islam, their personal, private faith.
The restoration of religion to the sphere of the personal, its depoliticization, is the nettle that all Muslim societies must grasp in order to become modern. The only aspect of modernity interesting to the terrorists is technology, which they see as a weapon that can be turned on its makers. If terrorism is to be defeated, the world of Islam must take on board the secularist-humanist principles on which the modern is based, and without which Muslim countries' freedom will remain a distant dream.

Salman Rushdie is the author, most recently, of "Fury: A Novel."
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/02/opinion/02RUSH.html?ex=1006444528&ei=1&en=b8a931974b12cb95
 
Top