The Council for American Islamic Relations and Terrorism

[bydand]

How about starting a thread, or joining one in progress, about global warming?

Really, after Michealward disrupted things by accusing me of being racist, you stepped in to talk about just about anything other than CAIR.

Why are some people so scared to talk about these types of things? Why do they attempt to shut up reasoned, informative discussion about threats they may not have been aware of? Why is a martialtalk mentor doing her best to see that no discussion goes on about an organization she won't even read the links about?

Mr.E, I can see where you are passionate about some of the threads you post in; this of course being one of them, but you really need to reign in a bit. Michealward and Tez both have their point-of-view as well and should be free to post them as well as you, weather or not those views are in line with yours. Being the OP of a thread doesn't make you the leader of the discussion on that thread, it just makes you the first one to post. I have had plenty of threads go a direction I didn't agree with, or want, but good honest discussion was taking place and I appreciated that. Both of the posters you seem to be having a problem opening up and seeing their side of the story have been here on MT quite some time and although I do not agree with all of their posts, I still will look into the "why" behind their posts. I can see why Tez wouldn't read the links, she is is England and deals with the problems over their on a day to day basis, on a level that puts her and her colleagues/friends on the front lines. Frankly I wouldn't read or care about them either in her shoes, she has better resourses than the internet. Michealward, stated that the general purpose of a thread like this is generally motivated by bigotry/racism, not that you yourself were either (with his posts you really do have to read everything exactly the way he writes them, I don't agree with much he posts, but he is well read, and posts what he means. ) If he thought you yourself were a racist, he would have called you one without beating around the bush.

Now about the original post; Thank you for the links. I also think it is an organization that needs watching, along with plenty of others in our Country.

 

[bydand]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please, return to the original topic.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Moderator-

Sorry for the last post I made. I was typing it while you posted this warning. If you feel it is out of line, please delete it and we will get on with the intent of the thread.

 

[Tez3]

I posted this elsewhere but am posting it again. I have fought terrorism since 1971 and I am passionate about protecting people and enabling them to continue to live their lives as normally as possible. We cannot give in to terrorism, this means not fearing every shadow and organisation that appears to be a threat. It means that the best way to stand up to them is to live your life to the full and to face whatever comes with calmness and rationality.


My post....
I was asking about the demographics basically because I had a feeling the Muslims are very much in the minority in North America and I refuse to believe that all Muslims should be vilified for the beliefs of extremists. I have very good relationships with many Muslims, at the shows they rely on me to sort a room out for their prayers etc, they know I understand perhaps better than non Jews and Muslims how important this is to them.

When it comes to terrorist activities I maintain a totally impartial view which is why I think that CAIR itself will be very careful to remain only vocal.

I dislike hysterical responses and opposition based on fear. I have heard theories that govenments like a good scare as it enables them to push through legislature that otherwise would be opposed ie the ID card situation both in America and here.

Appalling as 9/11 was, it didn't herald the fall of the United States, the country is stronger than that. The shock of being attacked in your homeland is traumatic but stock should be taken and sensible precautions taken not hysterical ones. There has to be a balance between living the life you have chosen and living in a secure environment. We also have to have the moral high ground and behave as impeccably as we can, one of my concerns is the holding of prisoners without trial. We need to uphold democratic laws not make draconian ones which penalise everyone and imprison us all.

We have both in America and in the UK decided we are in favour of free speech, that it is important to us and our way of life. This brings obligations that we may not like but have to uphold. Organisations such as CAIR have to be tolerated to a certain point, the trick is to look at them in a cold and analytical way and see beyond the "trash talk".

Last night I saw something so horrific I still feel quite sick but I am filled with so much admiration for the medics and soldiers concerned I can't express my admiration for all the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan enough. It was a slide show of an American frontline medical unit (Field Hospital?) and the casualties going through it. This is the bottom line, young men and women giving their lives for our freedom. We had better make sure that it is for our freedom, that fear doesn't take away from us the very things they believe they are fighting for.
__________________

 

[Mr. E]

My post....
I was asking about the demographics basically because I had a feeling the Muslims are very much in the minority in North America and I refuse to believe that all Muslims should be vilified for the beliefs of extremists.

The best way to do that seems to be to stand up to groups like CAIR and show that they do not speak for the peace- loving Muslims out there. There is a war within Islam for who will speak and lead them and so far the extremists seem to have the edge. Those that speak for the moderates or oppose the fanatics that have hijacked Islam are shouted down as bigots or attacked for some sort of bias.

Take a look at what I am talking about. I have talked about the St Petersburg Declaration before. Have you read it in the links I posted? Here is is again for those just joining us.

http://www.secularislam.org/blog/post/SI_Blog/21/The-St-Petersburg-Declaration

And here is the text of it.

Released by the delegates to the Secular Islam Summit, St. Petersburg, Florida on March 5, 2007

We are secular Muslims, and secular persons of Muslim societies. We are believers, doubters, and unbelievers, brought together by a great struggle, not between the West and Islam, but between the free and the unfree.

We affirm the inviolable freedom of the individual conscience. We believe in the equality of all human persons.

We insist upon the separation of religion from state and the observance of universal human rights.

We find traditions of liberty, rationality, and tolerance in the rich histories of pre-Islamic and Islamic societies. These values do not belong to the West or the East; they are the common moral heritage of humankind.

We see no colonialism, racism, or so-called “Islamaphobia” in submitting Islamic practices to criticism or condemnation when they violate human reason or rights.

We call on the governments of the world to

reject Sharia law, fatwa courts, clerical rule, and state-sanctioned religion in all their forms; oppose all penalties for blasphemy and apostasy, in accordance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights;

eliminate practices, such as female circumcision, honor killing, forced veiling, and forced marriage, that further the oppression of women;

protect sexual and gender minorities from persecution and violence;

reform sectarian education that teaches intolerance and bigotry towards non-Muslims;

and foster an open public sphere in which all matters may be discussed without coercion or intimidation.

We demand the release of Islam from its captivity to the totalitarian ambitions of power-hungry men and the rigid strictures of orthodoxy.

We enjoin academics and thinkers everywhere to embark on a fearless examination of the origins and sources of Islam, and to promulgate the ideals of free scientific and spiritual inquiry through cross-cultural translation, publishing, and the mass media.

We say to Muslim believers: there is a noble future for Islam as a personal faith, not a political doctrine;

to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Baha’is, and all members of non-Muslim faith communities: we stand with you as free and equal citizens;

and to nonbelievers: we defend your unqualified liberty to question and dissent.

Before any of us is a member of the Umma, the Body of Christ, or the Chosen People, we are all members of the community of conscience, the people who must choose for themselves.


Endorsed by:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Magdi Allam
Mithal Al-Alusi
Shaker Al-Nabulsi
Nonie Darwish
Afshin Ellian
Tawfik Hamid
Shahriar Kabir
Hasan Mahmud
Wafa Sultan
Amir Taheri
Ibn Warraq
Manda Zand Ervin
Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi

Now before you read on, please try to find something in the above that you can find fault with. Please read it again and try to find something that you think prevents a person who merely wants to practice their religion peacefully without interference. At the beggining, they clearly state that both believers and non- believers helped draft the document. But is there anything that you can find that would not be a grand way for Muslims to live in peace with their neighbors?

Now let us take a look at how CAIR has tried to stifle this type of thing.

I want you to note that the link below goes straight to the CAIR site and that the writer signs it with his title of board chairman of CAIR.


http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=43596&theType=NB

CAIR: REFORM IS ALREADY IN ISLAMIC TRADITION

A recent Wall Street Journal column ("Islam's Other Radicals") promotes the idea that only those who have left Islam have the moral and spiritual equilibrium to "reform" that faith.

This bizarre idea was also put forward at the controversial Secular Islam Summit.

An article by the St. Petersburg Times quotes Georgetown University Professor Yvonne Haddad as saying: "Legitimate scholars are horrified by the lineup [at the Secular Islam Summit]. The speakers are extreme in their views. Basically, it's everyone known for damning Islam."

One "reformer" and former Muslim Wafa Sultan who spoke at the summit told CNN: "Believe me, personally, I don't believe Islam really can be reformed ... I don't see any difference between radical Islam and regular Islam ... You cannot be American and Muslim at the same time."

Even ignoring the counterintuitive premise that Islam needs to be reformed by people who openly disdain Islam, the champions of "reform" offered precious few details if such a preposterous idea ever helped reform any other faith.

Effective change always comes from within. Martin Luther was successful with his reform agenda because he was a practicing Christian devoted to his faith. So, too, with Islam.

The declaration at the Secular Islam Summit ignores the fact that many of the ideas they tout as "reform" are already part of Islam. Reform, known as islah in Arabic, is intrinsic to Islam. For without such flexibility, Islam could not have flourished in so many different continents and cultures for over 14 centuries, achieving some of the brightest points of human achievement.

Two trends account for the promotion of this pernicious idea of reforming Islam by asking Muslims to abandon their faith.

The first is the unchallenged growth of Islamophobia. Four out of 10 Americans admit to being prejudiced against Muslims. Second, the development of a veritable cottage industry of neo-experts pontificating about the cause-effect relationship between Islam and terrorism, despite scholarly research debunking this as myth.

Both trends lead to discrimination against Muslims, guilt by association and even hate crimes. This undermines America's vital interests, which necessitates that people of all faiths have equal access, equal respect and equal dignity.

Parvez Ahmed, Ph.D., is board chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy group.

If you only read what CAIR said about the St Petersburg Declaration instead of reading it for yourself, you would think that it was composed completely of anti islamic neocons who call for the death of all muslims.

You may also note that they do not deal at all with any of the points brought up in the declaration. They do not link to the original so that people can see what is said for themselves, they do not quote anything from the document and they don't bring up points and say why they oppose it.

Instead, they attack the people that proposed this alternate to the extremists. They hint that the declaration and things like it require muslims to renounce their faith.

Is there anything in the original that anyone can find that would prevent a person who just wanted to be left alone to practice Islam from doing so? The declaration rallies against those that call for the death of authors, or kill those that leave the faith, forced marriages and things of that nature. All of these things are things done to others. Are these things neccesary to be a good muslim? What part of banning honor killngs is "reforming Islam by asking Muslims to abandon their faith"?

We have seen in the quote supplied by Michealward that CAIR and its allies will twist words in order to make them sound biggoted and try to pull support away from those that speak for peaceful Islam. We can't expect people who use these type of tactics to fight fair in the realm of ideas.

The key to protect peaceful muslims is not to shout down those that oppose CAIR, but to raise your voice against groups like CAIR and show support for those groups whose only wish is to practice their faith peacefully. Without our support, the fanatics will have the upper hand since they are more eager to win for what they feel is God's way and are free to use any means to win.

It is our silence that will let the fanatics win. Our silence and fear of standing up to evil for fear of being branded a bigot is what will defeat those that work for a future where Muslims can live in peace with the rest of the world.

 

[michaeledward]

We have seen in the quote supplied by Michealward that CAIR and its allies will twist words in order to make them sound biggoted and try to pull support away from those that speak for peaceful Islam. We can't expect people who use these type of tactics to fight fair in the realm of ideas.

I have made four posts in this thread. This is my fifth post.

I have not supplied any quotes to this thread, that were not sourced from this thread. In post 4, I quoted Mr. E, to reply to the verb in his sentence; 'urge'. In post 27, I quoted Tez3, to respond to her question as to the demographics of the United States. The quotes I "supplied" are the words of my colleagues on this message board.

I have once been admonished for my participation in this thread, and have left participating. I would appreciate if you leave me out of your comments.

P.S. I suppose I should point out that in this post, post number 45, I use a quote of Mr. E in which, he brings forth my name. In this instance, I believes his calling out of my name (incorrectly, by the way) merits a response.

 

[Mr. E]

I have made four posts in this thread. This is my fifth post.

I have not supplied any quotes to this thread, that were not sourced from this thread. In post 4, I quoted Mr. E, to reply to the verb in his sentence; 'urge'. In post 27, I quoted Tez3, to respond to her question as to the demographics of the United States. The quotes I "supplied" are the words of my colleagues on this message board.

I have once been admonished for my participation in this thread, and have left participating. I would appreciate if you leave me out of your comments.

P.S. I suppose I should point out that in this post, post number 45, I use a quote of Mr. E in which, he brings forth my name. In this instance, I believes his calling out of my name (incorrectly, by the way) merits a response.

Michealward,

When I say you supplied a quote, I talk about the one from post #27, the one you supplied about Daniel Pipes. Here it is.

As for the referenced Daniel Pipes. He should not be considered a credible source for information on Islam. He is a vitriolic Zionist. I believe he is on record as stating the the only way for Israel to secure itself, is to eliminate Islam. In October of 2001, he is quoted with "The increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims...will present true dangers to American Jews."

I dealt with how CAIR had edited that quote and then sent it out to be used against Mr Pipes.

I do not know where you got the quote, but it was not from this thread. And the original quote seems to have been edited by CAIR or one of its allies. That is the sort of thing they seem to do. I don't think people who would leave out the very important part I highlighted in post #29 of this thread can be trusted to do the right thing.

But much of what they say has been widely distributed and accepted. I found the Pipes quote as you gave it on many sites before I found one that gave the unedited version.

 

[Tez3]

Mr. E the thread is all yours. Enjoy.

 

[michaeledward]

Mr. E is correct. I did reference Daniel Pipes.

The reference comes directly, and verbatim, from Wikipedia, and I did not source it. I do so here and now. And I apologize for not so crediting Wikipedia in that post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pipes

This reference was not clarified in this thread because of the admonishments I had received from the MartialTalk staff. When received, I stopped posting on this thread.

Although it was hinted that there was a nefarious purpose to the elipses in the quote, a visit the Wikipedia entry on Mr. Pipes will demonstrate ~ right now, and from the time I used the original quote ~ that it was a direct 'copy and paste' from Wiki.

As much of this thread has been given to the credibility of sources, and reading the material provided by those sources. I might hope that the curious would expend energy in understanding the reported facts of Mr. Pipes.

 

[Mr. E]

Although it was hinted that there was a nefarious purpose to the elipses in the quote, a visit the Wikipedia entry on Mr. Pipes will demonstrate ~ right now, and from the time I used the original quote ~ that it was a direct 'copy and paste' from Wiki.

There was a nefarious purpose, but it was not on your part.

The quote you had is quite popular out on the internet. As I said, I found a whole lot of sites using the edited version before I found one that gave the full quote.

The section edited out shows that Mr Pipes clearly is worried about the radical, self- appointed leadership of Islam in America. So groups like CAIR who fit that description to a "T" are doing their best to ignore the real meaning and spread the false image of Mr Pipes as an Islamaphobe.

It is the same tactic as they did with the St Petersburg group. Rather than deal with the issues in a debate on the subject, they find it easier to scare people away from alternatives to their leadership and view of Islam by scaring folks with accusations about their rivals.

 

[alfyed11]

Islam is as Islam does. As hard as it is to accept the fact that Islam is spread by the sword, organizations like CAIR will always be around to call those who argue about it "unfair."

Don't argue the facts if it puts you in an unflattering light -- silence the opposition by labeling them an "Islamaphobe" or even a "racist" (as if race were a factor). Keep labeling until you get one to stick, and then you won't have to defend a position that can't be honestly defended.

A quote from the Koran, which MUST be taken "out of context." If you were to believe it literally, you might not think the religion of peace was peaceful.

Sura (8:12) - I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

 

[Mr. E]

I find a bit of offense at the last post. Especially the use of the Koran.

If you read the Old Testament, you will find that religious texts that alternate between tales of peace and love and things so bloody it makes your hair stand on end are more the norm than the exception. Most texts have contradictions in them like that. But there are very few people calling themselves Christians today who feel that homosexuals should be stoned to death alongside women who have sex outside of marriange. Those that do cling to those beliefs are marginalized by the greater mass of moderate Christians and thier stronger drive to push their version only makes them look looney.

Christianity has a long history of killing other Christians in the name of God. And killing non-Christians came even easier. It is only when the various sects were forced to live side by side with others without trying to push their views on them through force that reform seems to have begun. For most of history, whoever was in charge could do as they liked. So when one sect who had be persecuted came to power, they did the same damn thing they had done to them on others. Western secular governments seem to come into fashion not for some great love of fellow man, but from fear that they might be the next group to be cast down from power. So they put limits on what one group could do to another group.

And it seems to have worked pretty well.

Most Christians seem to think that their religion is between them and God. If they think that adultery is against their religion, then they think that it means that they should not engage in it and not that those caught in it should be stoned to death. I think this really only came into being after Christianity was forced into living in a secular society.

Today there are a lot of different views on Islam. In some places a woman can't even leave her house alone. In others, the head of the nation has been a female. The Muslims of Bosnia used to drink quite a bit last time I checked and there are nations even in the middle east where women do not where the veil.

You can't say that all Muslims are the same or have the same message. They pick and choose from their religious texts just as other religions do. But when you look at CAIR's message that Islam should take care of Islam, and you couple it with their rather radical view of the religion, you can tell they want others to abandon moderate Muslims so that they can use their greater drive and ruthlessness to take over.

Moderates that just want to be left alone to practice their religion as they see fit are not very driven or have a desire to organize. The radicals in CAIR with their belief that what they do comes from God's will are a lot more active. And of course, if it is God's will, then the end justifies the means. And there is very little they will hesitate to do.

 

[alfyed11]

Yes, that is exactly the response I'd expect for someone who hasn't read the Quran (Koran). Comparisons to Christianity or pretty much any other religion are ridiculous. And by the way, there is no country with a Muslim majority where Christians or any non-Muslims are allowed the same rights as Muslims. This includes Turkey, the one country where a Muslim majority has actually kept itself secular. Non Muslims pay the Jizya, which you may want to look up before you find yourself insulted. Consider that Egypt, Turkey, North Africa (Morocco, and more), were once Christian and coverted by the sword. Surrender and pay the Jizya, or, convert.

The Koran is a war manual. If you don't think so, you haven't read the Koran. If you think Mohammed has the same stature as any other religious figure, you may want to read about the life of Mohammed, who was a warlord, slave keeper, murderer, rapist, and pedophile. This is all described in the Koran and the Hadith -- not from any other source -- this is from the actual Islamic holy books.

As for any of the bible passages, show me the ones where:

The followers were encouraged to convert or kill those who did not want to be converted.

The penalty for leaving the "religion" is death.

There are passages specifically describing the way to rape captured women, and in fact, that it is acceptable (by Allah's will) to do so in front of their captive husbands.

Finally, if you see any passages about Jesus (or any other religious figure) keeping slaves, murdering people, or pedophilia being acceptable, let me know. I'm not interested in comparisons that will "make my hair stand on end." Mr E, with all due respects, read the Koran and get back to me. Let me show you a couple of more Sura from the Koran. And once again, consider how Jesus would be looked at today if it was discovered that he personally murdered hundreds, kept slaves, or had sex with 9 year old girls. Mohammed did all of this, and take it from an ex-Muslim, I've studied these texts more than most.

Sura (8:39) - And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah

From the Hadith:

Bukhari (80:753) - "The Prophet said, 'The freed slave belongs to the people who have freed him.'"

Bukhari (52:255) - The slave who accepts Islam and continues serving his Muslim master will receive a double reward in heaven.

Bukhari (41.598) - Slaves are property. They cannot be freed if an owner has outstanding debt, but rather used to pay off the debt.

Bukhari (62:137) - An account of women taken as slaves in battle by Muhammad's men after their husbands and fathers were killed. The woman were raped with Muhammad's approval.

Bukhari (47.765) - A man is rebuked by Muhammad for freeing a slave girl. The prophet tells him that he would have gotten a greater heavenly reward by giving her to a relative (as a slave).

Bukhari (72:734) - Some contemporary Muslims in the West, where slavery is believed to be a horrible crime, are reluctant to believe that Muhammad owned slaves. This is just one of many places in the Hadith where a reference is made to a human being owned by Muhammad

(Bukhari 84:57) "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

Mr E, I know you and I have disagreed on stuff in the past. I have read what you said carefully, and I humbly request you read my response as well. I might mention that I may be a little closer to the subject matter than you are, but, I don't know your background. I'm leaving at the end a website which may be informative if you are willing to spend some time doing research.

www.thereligionofpeace.com

 

[Mr. E]

Al,
It will take me a while to get through that last source you posted and the others. I will be back with a more informed reply, maybe, after I get through it. What you wrote does deserve more thought. However, I thought about what you wrote for a few hours already.

I think your points are valid if people did not interpet what their sacred texts say. But Christianity would not have everything from the Baptists to the Catholics if everyone was on the same page, so to speak, of the Bible. People put in what they want where it does not exist and ignore straight out restraints if they don't like it.

So I am more concerned with movements of interpetation like Wahabism more than Islam as a whole. Some texts say that God made man in his image, my observation is that the opposite it true. A person raised in a certain culture will look at religion based on the way he was raised. People do not think about religion, except to perhaps justify what they want.

Take the example of Aisha. If you ask 99 percent of the Muslims in America if it alright to sleep with a nine year old, they will express disgust that you even consider such an act. Yet Mohammed did consumate his marriage with Aisha after she had her first menses at age nine.

Most American Muslims probably don't even think or are really aware of that. If you point it out to them and make them research and think before they respond, they will probably tell you that Aisha was married to the Prophet to cement a political alliance and not because Mohammed was in the market for six year olds. And he did not touch her for three years. But in the culture of the time is was expected that a girl who had her menses would be married and start having kids. For Mohammed to refuse to fill his husbandly duties might have put strain on the reasons he married her.

That might be the reason they justify his actions. It was expected of him from a society that was not as advanced as we are in our knowledge of what that does to children. So since the culture has changed, there is no longer a justification for having sex with a nine year old. And as one Muslim friend of mine said on another matter, if the Prophet refrained from something then lesser folks don't have an excuse to run counter to him. But there may be things that someone who talks to God can do that the rest of us can't.

But in any case, I think these people that give these excuses do so because that is what they want to believe. At the same time that American muslims would retch at the idea of a 40 plus man taking a nine year old as a bride, there are those in the middle east doing just that. People tend to have a certain outlook based on how they were raised, and that is largely based on where they were raised, and then find some way of justifying what they do with religion. It is just human nature.

So, again, I am not opposed to those that want to practice their religion so that it does not impact anyone else. It is those that preach an interpetation that states that everyone must follow what they think God wants the world to be that I stand against. And I do think that the typical American Muslim is more American in outlook than the guys in the middle east. And if they are given a chance to just live their lives in peace without groups like CAIR controlling their voice, then they may be the force that changes Islam from within.

I am going to go through some of your links now and maybe get back to you on this. Am I to assume that you are a ex-Muslim yourself and so I value your insight on this matter.

 

[alfyed11]

I think you bring up a good point Mr E, so let me see if I can respond without having someone (and I don't suspect the someone being you) simply pop a label on me.

First, yes, there are many Muslims, and in fact the majority living in the West, who don't agree with the "strict" interpretation of Islam that leads to, for lack of a better word, misery. I submit to you that when someone considers the word "strict" itself, it means something along the lines of "literal." That is, if you mention that the "bad" guys of any group are following a strict interpretation of a philosophy, it really indicates that they are following that philosophy to its most exact or specific meaning.

I submit to you therefore that as much as all those who follow Islam do not believe in murder, forced conversations, rape, etc (and how could they), if they were to follow the strict interpretation -- that is, that Mohammed was indeed the "perfect" man, his acts and revelations would therefore lead them to follow the perfect path, as the perfect man was following the word of God.

In short -- all Muslims are certainly not bad people! However, it might be argued that they really aren't following the Koran. It is when people get closer to the "letter of the law" that they begin to degrade a society into chaos. Islam as a major religion seems unique in this, and because of its strict interpretation, the worst of its followers are able to use the letter of the law to justify the worst of their natures. As every nation now Muslim was once Christian (or at a minimum a different Religion, Zoroaster comes to mind), I further submit that these nations didn't cheerfully convert, and I base this on hard historical facts and the Koran and Hadith themselves.

This gets much more complicated when we add social and economic factors to the puzzle. Frankly, the nature of Islam is not to enhance science or economies. If you look at every Muslim nation post-conquer (is that a real term), you'll see very limited expansion and influence of culture, simply due to the understanding that people are told that all they need to know is contained in the Koran itself. Exporting this philosophy without bloodshed is difficult, and in modern times, exporting this without technology to support the bloodshed is impossible. The best that can be done is to use the West's tools and technology, even its rules and freedoms against it.

One more point, and it supports your argument. I believe that many Muslims in Eastern countries have not read the Koran. I've learned this from hard experience, but I suggest if we were to look at nations like Afghanistan (and perhaps the worst example), we'll notice that the majority of the people are uneducated, and can't read or write -- they are dependant upon other people's interpretation of the Koran (strict?), and therefore can easily be manipulated into believing that the only religion that they are exposed to expouses actions which they would meet with disgust if they had the ability to analyze the inspiration for the actions.

Anyway -- the link I've sent to you provides more links at the top menu for some historical information and the strict interpretations of what has caused misery in Eastern nations and now, slowly but vividly, the Western world as well.

Yes, my family is still mostly Muslim, and I might add, they are very nice people and I love them! If they were to follow the "letter of the law" in the holy texts, through their own admission, they would do things that they consider horrible. The reason that my family is even here is that they needed to escape Islam -- unfortunately, however, they brought the Islam with them! Will our next generation, living here in America, one day decide that the Islam they are following isn't "strict" enough?

Sorry, more than I think anyone would like to know. Again, as I'm rather close to the subject matter, I again submit that I may at least have more of a reason (if not a right) to speak in harsh tones on this subject.

J Al-Fyed (call me Al)

P.S. Thanks again for entertaining my opinion and at least looking at the site I sent to you. The link again for anyone who actually cares: www.thereligionofpeace.com

 

[Blotan Hunka]

If you read the Old Testament, its full of passages about wiping out opposing villages/cities to the last woman and child. Didnt Lot sleep with his own daughters? Stone the homosexuals, stone the adulterers etc. The difference is you dont find any lage, mainstream religions of the Christian/Jewish variety that want to follow Old Testament law to the letter.

 

[alfyed11]

That isn't quite true -- that is, the Old Testament doesn't specifically call out to its contemporaries to do anything now, today. There are several passages in the books of the Bible that talk about wars and assorted skirmishes, and they aren't pretty. There is little if nothing in the way describing the murder or forced conversion of people as a matter of course. This is a crucial, crucial distinction. If the Bible was truly calling out for blood now, today, you'd be watching videos where people were getting their heads hacked off in the name of Jesus on MySpace or whatever. The fact is that you aren't seeing this. The reason is not because Christians or Jews, or Hindus, or Budhists, or...well, whatever...are less strict about their religion. It is because their religion doesn't abdocate this as a matter of course.

If you look at the passages in the Bible, you'll see references to war all right, and specific battles, against specific peoples. All very unpleasant. Normally it is against the Hittites, Jebusittes, etc. These are specific battles at specific times against specific peoples. Bad, yes. But period pieces. The fact that Islam is still killing in the name of God and on a grand scale is because the Koran and Hadith aren't suggesting specifics. They demand constants. A constant battle against all disbelievers until they are forced to believe. This doesn't end. It will keep on going until it succeeds. So far, it has captured a huge amount of the East.

Futher point. If you think Islam has been "hijacked" by "radicals," take a look at how many of these "radicals" exist. Look at all of the organizations we've found supporting terrorism. Look as close as London, where recent demonstrations called for the beheading of cartoonists. Huge populations in many countries are demanding death to disbelievers on a religous platform. Where are the moderate Muslims who should be marching against the radicals who have "stolen" a "peaceful" religion? Why are they silent? Is it possible that they quietly believe the radicals to be right? Have ALL of these Muslims misinterpreted the Koran?

One more point -- I'm not trying to defend any other religion's holy books. Personally, I'm not exactly excited about joining another religion. I'm pointing out that this particular religion is dangerous to civilization. And again, Islam is as Islam does. Deny it or not, it's still there, and, coming here.

Here's an article about Bible vs. Koran violence. It is in response to a paper written against the Bible by a Muslim. I've read both of these very well.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Bible-Quran-Violence.htm