Anti-mosque protests on the rise, say Muslim advocates

[Crimson King]

An MMA fighter said it best: what if we didn't allow Christian churches everywhere where they caused some form of bloodshed?

Europe and the Middle East would be devoid of Churches.

This topic is a non-issue.

 

[Osco316]

It should be a non-issue, but it is pretty clearly an issue.

 

[El Nino]

El Nino, the social contrac came from a Protestant Fidiest called Thomas Hobbes.

Yes, and Darwin was a Unitarian, but the theory of evolution didn't come from his religion. I was just curious as to what role religion played in the development of the concept of the social contract.

If movements both conforming and conflicting with culture are both products of it, then what isn't?

Well, sometimes you throw a ball against a wall and it bounces back at you. Other times, you may break a hole through the wall, in which case, it wouldn't come back. In either case, the outcome is a product of your actions, even if they are completely different in nature.

Product of culture means it reflects the influences of the time. Certain things such as Catholicism do not do that.

Okay. If that's how you want to define it, then, yeah, Catholicism may not have reflected the mainstream influences of the time, and thus it would not be a "product of culture."

But in my field, we define product as the "effect" in a cause-and-effect relationship. It doesn't matter how closely the effect resembles the cause. Clouds give rise to rain, even though rain doesn't look like clouds.

Religions are shaped by the societies and the cultures in which they arise. When religions migrate, they often change depending on what region they land in. Even if the texts remain the same, the people reading them are different, and thus their interpretations and their practices may also differ.

But I'm guessing that you're arguing against that idea because you have in mind that religion is the product of something else?

 

[Dre89]

Only certain religions.

Many theists may be defined by their culture, but that doesn't mean the religion is.

What would you say atheism is defined by?

With the social contract, social interaction may be a result if evolution, but the moral/political theory that we can do whatever we like as long as we don't harm others came from religion.

 

[El Nino]

What would you say atheism is defined by?

I have no clue. Atheism strikes me as a reaction against religion. A lot of people who are atheists seem to be people who were brought up in a particular religion, but they later rebelled against it due to personal reasons. So my guess is that atheism is actually defined, at least in part, by religion.

 

[1048576]

In the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby?

 

[BBQTV]

is it a mosque or not? because people are saying otherwise

 

[Pluvia]

It's a public community center with a mosque/praying section in it.

 

[Luigitoilet]

In the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby?

I don't think he meant all of atheism. You can't deny that there are many atheists who are very confrontational towards theists, especially Christians/Catholics. In many cases it really is a rebellion against religious beliefs, whether they were raised religiously or not.

 

[El Nino]

In the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby?

I'm just giving one example of how some people turn to atheism after a religious upbringing, not all of them. Dre. asked what defines atheism, and as far as I know most definitions have it as a belief that higher deities do not exist. So it's a definite "belief" set counter to a pre-existing belief.

I know some people are raised without religion and still consider themselves atheists, but I don't know if they'd have any reason to take up that name unless directly confronted with the idea of religion or spirituality. They might, but I'm not sure.

 

[Dre89]

Atheism is also influenced by the Enlightenment Period, hence the plentitude of materialist atheists in modern society.

In some cases, atheism may not be a reaction against religion (which is anti-atheism), but can a result of schools of thought which perhaps were reactions against religion.

 

[SuperBowser]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwaNRWMN-F4&feature=player_embedded#!

Black guy tries to walk through an anti-mosque protest and gets accused of being a Muslim.

 

[Pluvia]

I watched that video and (made the mistake) of reading some of the comments.

I just don't understand this. The US right wing is an extreme party. How can you proclaim your laws to be great and your country to have freedom but protest against it at the same time?

 

[BBQTV]

someone in my family says that if they build this mosque then muslims will eventually get power in the government and that all americans will start praying to allah

keep in mind he's not religious and watchs that glen beck program

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

EDIT: This post was poorly informed and islamophobic.

 

[Inui]

I agree that building a place of Muslim worship right next to a site where thousands of Americans were killed by radical Muslim terrorists is in very poor taste. Just build it somewhere else. If the people wanting to build it really didn't know it would cause some tension, lol...

 

[Evil-Guy]

Whoever planned to built the mosque were professional trolls.

 

[El Nino]

Whoever planned to built the mosque were professional trolls.

I agree that building a place of Muslim worship right next to a site where thousands of Americans were killed by radical Muslim terrorists is in very poor taste. Just build it somewhere else. If the people wanting to build it really didn't know it would cause some tension, lol...

You know, at this point, the smartest move for the muslims would be to stop building this mosque. Yes, I just said it. The smartest thing to ensure continuing peace for the USA with the muslims is to stop this. It's disturbing. Comletely disgusting, in fact, that it would come this far.

Terrorism is part mind games. The people who orchestrated 9/11 want the world to think that it was about religion. So, how smart do you think it would be to think in the way that your opponent wants you to think?

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Notice how, if this was a Christian version of this, probably nobody would care.

 

[BBQTV]

Notice how, if this was a Christian version of this, probably nobody would care.

you make it sound like thats not obvious

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Let me repost what I said in the debate hall ITT.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/3-reasons-the-ground-zero-mosque-debate-makes-no-sense/

Sums it up nicely.

To put it bluntly, if you are against this mosque, you are:
1. Probably exploiting the situation for political gain
2. Islamophobic, willing to group all muslims in with the "alleged" 9/11 terrorists
3. Anti-american, against probably the most basic ground rule for a functional and active democracy (first amendment)
4. A complete idiot who listens to whatever Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh/Sarah Palin tells you
5. Underinformed, believing it to be placed on the 9/11 site itself

Pick and choose a few of those. For most people, it's the last 4. For the rest, it's the first one.

If you are against this mosque, you are ****ing ********. And against the very basics of american policy.

Examples:
-My father was only 5. He thought it was on ground zero and found that wrong due to the government-sponsored nature of the site. Once he heard that this was not the case, then he revised his stance to similar to mine-opposition to this is ****ing ********.
-The republican party and Fox News are 1, and by association 3. Do you think they really care about the mosque there? No, they want to fan the flames, and cause a political scene. This is evidenced by the fact that they are purposefully saying that it's right on ground zero (as opposed to the accurate "2 city blocks away"). They want another partisan wedge issue. Homosexuality is so 2005.
-My redneck neighbors are 2, 4, and 5. Pretty much lost causes. And by association, 3.

Yeah, I've looked into it a little more and revised my stance. **** opponents of the mosque. Honestly.

 

[Kole]

If I see one more headline along the lines of "..Ground Zero Mosque.." I think I'll kill someone

 

[BBQTV]

and now we got this ****

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=285201

 

[El Nino]

And this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/25/ahmed-h-sharif-muslim-tax_n_694789.html

It looks like the attacker was drunk and might have suffered some mental trauma after time spent in Afghanistan traveling with U.S. troops. The police consider it an isolated incident. He's currently being charged with a hate crime.

 

[~N9NE~]

I've followed this thread since my last post but refrained from posting for a few reasons. The main reason was because I was lacking the enthusiasm to form a coherent post and the more I delayed it, the more there was that I wanted to comment on, leading to further procrastination.

Might aswell get it done, really long post ahead. I've spent a long time on this post and feel it is relevant to this thread. If mods disagree, please message me why.

I would like to make it clear once again that I AM FOR the building of this Muslim centre near Ground Zero. We can not become like Islamic states and became dictators concerning religion, people are entitled to practice their faith, no matter how much we disagree with their beliefs. I just want to highlight the error in branding Islam a peaceful religion and the error of claims that terrorism within Islam derives from extremism.

Concerning my post and when I quote the Qur'an:

Please note with the Qur'an that Islam states that it should not be translated from Arabic. This is because the belief that translation from Arabic leaves the Qur'an, believed to be the literal word of Allah front to back, open to corruption.

That said the Qur'an has been translated by respected Muslims. When I quote the Qur'an I'm using a summarized version of At-Tabari, Al-Qurtubi and Ibn Kathir with comments from Sahih Al Bukhari which has been summarized in one volume and translated by Dr Muhammad Taqi-ud Din Al-Hilali and Dr Muhammad Muhsin Khan. Different translators may utilise different terminology.

The Qur'an also does not hold universal structuring of its verses. This means that for example Surah 23:14 might differ in different translations. This is because of the translators discrepancy when translating the Arabic and how they structure it. Please keep these facts in mind when I quote the Qur'an. Furthermore, unlike the Bible, the Qur'an is not structured chronologically but by the length of the Surahs with the longest first and shortest last.

Finally, I will also refer to the Hadiths within my post. The Hadiths are commentaries concerning the Qur'an that are often essential to understanding the context of the Qur'an. They are held in extremely high esteem within Islam and the highest regarded Hadith is that of al-Bukhari.

I apologise for any mis-quotes, I have tried to ensure I quoted everything accurately.

I think you are over-emphasizing the role of a religion in what is essentially a politically motivated conflict.

I think you are over-emphasizing the role of politics in what is essentially a religiously motivated conflict.

That said, you have to remember the political influence of Islam in Islamic states. Islam IS the law. Islam is not merely a religion (and I use the term religion loosely) but forms the laws and practices that all the inhabitants of that state must adhere to, Muslim or not. Not complying with Sharia law leads to punishment and death. Islam dictates every aspect of life.

We've clashed over this topic before. You may have had a strong religious background that shaped your view, but for me, my background makes me view things politically, and nothing that I've seen suggests that religion is anything more than an accessory in this issue. Religion has a habit of taking the main focus because it has the power to trigger people emotionally, and for that reason alone it can't be underestimated, but that emotional reaction also has a way of obscuring the underlying motives of the key players in a conflict.

I remember our discussion and I remember we echoed the same sentiments we are putting forth now. My religious background doesn't change that what we are experiencing in the world today stems directly from the clash between Islamic principles and the Judeo-Christian principles of the West.

Religion is not an accessory to this issue, religion is the issue. Let me put this into context.

As I stated earlier, within Islam, Muhammed is considered to be the pinnacle of human nature, he embodied what every Muslim should strive to emulate to be. But don't just take my words for it, take these words for example;

Safi-ur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri wrote in his biography of Muhammad Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar):

the Prophet combined both perfection of creation and perfection of manners...The Prophet is the most just, the most decent, the most truthful at speech, and the honestest [sic] of all.

Safi-ur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri won first prize in an international Muhammad biography comptetition held in Mecca in 1979. But why just take the words of Safi-ur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri? Let us take the words of Allah himself according to the Qur'an:

Qur'an 33:21

Indeed in the messenger of Allah (Muhammad) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much.

Qur'an 68:4

And verily, you (O Muhammad) are on an exalted standard of character.

Qur'an 4:80

He who obeys the Messenger (Muhammad), has indeed obeyed Allah, but he who turns away, then we have not sent you (O Muhammad) as a watcher over them.

The Qur'an repeatedly instructs Muslims to obey Muhammad
3:32, 3:132, 4:13, 4:59, 4:69, 5:92, 8:1, 8:20, 8:46, 9:71, 24:47, 24:51, 24:52, 24:54, 24:56, 33:33, 47:33, 49:14, 58:13, 64:12

Why did I quote all this? To illustrate that Muslims today strive to emulate Muhammad within all aspects of life.

Muhammad advocated violence. It is therefore natural that Muslims that strive to emulate Muhammad will echo the perspective that violence is a legitimate means of action. The actions of Islamic terrorists are not the consequence of political influences or other circumstances, but ultimately the words and actions of Muhammad hold the most weight towards their belief that terrorism is a legitimate course of action.

Mukhlas, involved in the 2002 Bali bombings stated:

You who still have a shred of faith in your hearts, have you forgotten that to kill infidels and the enemies of Islam is a deed that has a reward above no other....Aren't you aware that the model for us all, the Prophet Mohammed and the four rightful caliphs, undertook to murder infidels as one of their primary activities, and that the Prophet waged jihad operations 77 times in the first 10 years as head of the Muslim community in Medina?

But why just take the words of a terrorist, who Islamic apologists would state has been fundamentalised?

The Battle of Badr is just one example of Muhammad participating in battle against non Muslims, namely the Quraysh, the pagan Arabs of Mecca and the tribe Muhammad belonged to. Let us take the instructions Allah gave Muhammad at that time:

Qur'an 47:4-6

4 So, when you meet (in fight - Jihad in Allah's cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded them, then bind a bond firmly (on them i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islam), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allah to continue in carrying out Jihad against the disbelievers till they embrace Islam (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-Fire) or at least come under your protection], but if it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost,

5 He will guide them and set right their state.

6 And admit them to Paradise which He has made known to them (i.e. they will know their places in Paradise more than they used to know their houses in the world).

There is no ambiguity. Muhammad told his followers to behead the non Muslims. Jihadists today regularly behead captives, fulfilling Muhammad's instructions. The passage also shows that the reward for committing Jihad is eternal salvation. This is where Jihadists get their ideology. Not from Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda or any other ''extremist'' group, but from the Qur'an itself.

The reward of Jihad is again highlighted in the Hadiths.

Sahih al-Bukhari 1.35, also Sahih al-Bukhari 4.386

Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr). Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not remain behind any sariya going for Jihad and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah's cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause."

Again why am I quoting all this? To demonstrate that Islamic terrorists are not motivated primarily by political motives but by religion. Religion is the issue.

Earlier in the thread you and SuperBowser pointed out that Jihad has two meanings, the political violent definition and the internal struggle aspect. Let us put these two conflicting definitions of the word into context.

Within the West arguably one of the most cited verses in the Qur'an is the following verse

Qur'an 2:256

There is no compulsion in religion.

Islamic apologists state that this verse serves to demonstrate how peaceful and accepting Islam is and that Jihad is for extreme circumstances. Such a view is flawed. Muhammad recited this verse appealing to the Jews of Khaybar, which is an oasis north of Medina. Muhammad was appealling to the Jews so that they might accept his prophetic status. When they explained that they did not deem Muhammad a prophet, Muhammad recieved this revelation:

Qur'an 2:89

And when there came to them (the Jews), a Book (this Qur'an) from Allah confirming what is with them (the Torah and the Gospel), although aforetime they had invoked Allah (for coming of Muhammad) in order to gain victory over those who disbelieved, then when there came to them that which they had recognised, they disbelieved in it. So let the Curse of Allah be on the disbelievers.

Indeed if we just read on after Qur'an 2:256 we read that

Qur'an 2:257

Allah is the Wali (Protector or Guardian) of those who believe. He brings them out from darkness into light. But as far as those who disbelieve their Auliya (supporters and helpers) are Taghut [false deities and false leaders, etc.], they bring them out from light into darkness. Those are the dwellers of the Fire, and they will abide therein forever.

Furthermore within Islam, there exists the concept of abrogation. Abrogation states that later revelations within the Qur'an that contradict earlier revelations are correct. That is to say, Muslims must adhere to the new revelation and diregard the earlier revelation, since the new revelation is more correct.

When Muhammad started his prophetic career after his initial, supposedly divine revelations in Mecca his rhetoric was full of peaceful messages. In Mecca, Muhammad struggled to gain followers with his peaceful words and went to Medina where his following increased. It was then that he returned to Mecca with a large army with far harsher sentiments. He commanded the indigenous pagan Arabs and Jewish tribes of Mecca either convert to Islam, subjugate themselves to Muhammad's rule or die. In summary, his peaceful words only existed when he wasn't in a position of power. As soon as Muhammad gained support and power those peaceful words were replaced by death threats and dictatorship qualities.

Muhammad's orders are clear;

Qur'an 9:29

Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya (tax for non Muslims) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Muhammad could not have been any clearer. In reality, there is compulsion of religion within Islam and failing to meet this compulsion leads to either submission or death. Surah 9 of the Qur'an is one of the last revelations given to Muhammad, thereby abrogating past peaceful revelations.

Furthermore, Muhammad clearly states that Jihad, the violent Jihad, is the second best deed any man can do:

Sahih Bukhari 1.25, Sahih Bukhari 1.51, Sahih Bukhari 2.594

Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause." The questioner again asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" He replied, "To perform Hajj (Pilgrim age to Mecca) 'Mubrur, (which is accepted by Allah and is performed with the intention of seeking Allah's pleasure only and not to show off and without committing a sin and in accordance with the traditions of the Prophet)."

Islam can not reconcile the concept of Jihad with the ideology of an internal struggle. To do so would be against Allah's Will as stated by the Qur'an and Muhammad.

The Muslim world, with regards to the political jihad, is at war with itself. The failure of leadership here is the failure of leaders to stand up and defend their followers from things like oppression and bigotry. When there is a power vacuum and people feel persecuted, the stage is set for another party to step in and take command. And if that new leadership offers strength that the old one could not, people will follow the new leaders because these are the guys who will stand up for them. From that, people will be enlisted to carry out the new leadership's political agendas.

I am not ignoring other influences. Jihad is undoubtedly fuelled by other factors apart from religious doctrine, such as the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the US continually flirting with conflict with Iran, the Israeli Palestinian conflict and the perception of the ethnocentric nature Western society being at odds with Islamic states.

But religious doctrine is the primary justification of Jihad for nothing holds more importance in Islam than Allah, Muhammad and the Qur'an. Their belief that Jihad is legitimate derives directly from Allah and Muhammad's actions derived from the Qur'an and Hadiths. Muhammad is an inspiration to these people, they long to emulate him. They take pride in it.

Edit: I don't think Islam will re-evaluate "itself," if by "itself" you are referring to the religious text itself. Texts evaluate nothing. People evaluate text, and as you said, there is a spectrum in every religion, and there is a spectrum among Muslims. What a religion is is what its practitioners take it to be. Here, the practitioners are divided.

As I stated earlier Islam is extremely unwilling to change with society. This is because as I stated earlier, Islam regards the Qur'an to be the literal word of Allah, front to back. That is why the practices of Muslims that were with Muhammad in the 7th century are being replicated exactly today.

This extends to all aspects of Islam. For example, Muhammad's marriage with Aisha who was 9 at the time of marriage and when the marriage was consummated is still used as legitimacy for grown men, as old as 90 to marry girls below 10 years of age today within the Islamic world.

Fair enough N9NE. It sucks your family had to go through that. I asked that question because it gives perspective to your posts

We were blessed to escape that situation. I'm Assyrian and our people pre date even Christ and the emergence of Christianity. Many Assyrians in Iraq have been killed for their faith. Our civilization, nation, identity and very existence has been wiped out by the emergence of Islam.

I understand you were asking about my life experience to gain insight into my perspective. I hope you didn't misunderstand my tone and felt that I was annoyed, I wasn't. I was just highlighting that regardless of my experience that doesn't change anything of importance.

Because the Qu'ran is a large book and context is important and it is therefore open to more than one (literal) interpretation.

God wasn't exactly the nicest guy in the Old Testament. Teran's post gives us one example: the Bible can and has been used to advocate the murder of gay people. This abhorrent crime has taken place in the past and continues taking place today under the veil of religion. Can we really say those who commit these acts did not follow their religious text? This explicit command is repeated more than once.

Context is important, I fully agree with you. If one takes the entire context of the Bible, it is practically impossible for a credible Christian to commit acts such as the killing of homosexuals. Why is this? This is because if one takes into context the entire Bible, one acknowledges Christ came to advocate that the law of the Old Testament is to be perfected through Him.

Matthew 5:43-48

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Christ was love and mercy. Unlike Muhammad, he did not behead his enemies but he loved them. He did not subjugate them but elevated them.

People do violence in the name of Christianity, but this is at total odds with the message of Christ. People that do violence in the name of Islam are in total agreement with the message of Muhammad. There is a stark, stark contrast.

I implore you to look into Islam and understand it for what it is and not for what it is branded as to a Western audience.

 

[1048576]

So you can chop off the half of the bible that you don't like, but reasonable Muslims can't?

Apparently perfecting the law and contradicting it are synonyms.
Whatever, I've heard the claim violence vs. nonviolence 1 bajillian times. From where I'm standing, you're basically saying Christians are the MLK of bigotry and slavery, and Muslims are like the Malcolm X. It's not exactly convincing me that you're better.

 

[GreenKirby]

You know, at this point, the smartest move for the muslims would be to stop building this mosque. Yes, I just said it. The smartest thing to ensure continuing peace for the USA with the muslims is to stop this. It's disturbing. Comletely disgusting, in fact, that it would come this far.

In the early 20th century:

You know, at this point, the smartest move for the blacks would be to stop trying to get the right to vote. Yes, I just said it. The smartest thing to ensure continuing peace for the USA with the blacks is to stop this. It's disturbing. Completely disgusting, in fact, that it would come this far.

What?

Also, lookie here. The terrorists actually don't want the mosque built because it would to prove their point about American being a Muslim hating nation.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

In the early 20th century:



What?

Valid statement, and I agree with it 100%. As shown:

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=11083438&postcount=101
(this is the more new post btw)

Also, lookie here. The terrorists actually don't want the mosque built because it would to prove their point about American being a Muslim hating nation.

****, this is good info.

 

[El Nino]

Welcome back, N9NE. I've always enjoyed talking with you. We'll take this one step at a time.

That said, you have to remember the political influence of Islam in Islamic states. Islam IS the law. Islam is not merely a religion (and I use the term religion loosely) but forms the laws and practices that all the inhabitants of that state must adhere to, Muslim or not. Not complying with Sharia law leads to punishment and death. Islam dictates every aspect of life.

Communism works in much the same way. The party doctrine dictates everyday life. However, do we want to say that workers' rights was the central point of conflict that caused communist revolts in many parts of Asia, the Pacific Islands, and South America?

Before we address that question, it may help to know that there was contact between the communists in those countries and the Soviet Union.

The Taliban came out of religious schools at refugee camps in Pakistan, and they may believe in their religious doctrine. However, the weapons and the money that financed their operations came from the Pakistani intelligence agency. That agency was about as concerned with religion as the Soviet Union was about workers' rights.

what we are experiencing in the world today stems directly from the clash between Islamic principles and the Judeo-Christian principles of the West.

In the minds of the foot soldiers and the devout, perhaps that is true. Culturally, there is a clash between principles.

However, there is also a clash in principle between American communists and American society, which functions under free-market capitalism. Why has there not been a communist revolt in America?

Probably because they didn't have access to Soviet funds or weapons.

The cultural clash you are addressing is different from the political and militaristic clashes we have witnessed. Cultures are often at odds with each other, but the ability to take up arms depends on an economic base from which to draw resources. The economic base (usually a government) is strictly concerned with political and economic objectives.

Why did I quote all this? To illustrate that Muslims today strive to emulate Muhammad within all aspects of life.

Muhammad advocated violence. It is therefore natural that Muslims that strive to emulate Muhammad will echo the perspective that violence is a legitimate means of action. The actions of Islamic terrorists are not the consequence of political influences or other circumstances, but ultimately the words and actions of Muhammad hold the most weight towards their belief that terrorism is a legitimate course of action.

Muhammad is admired as a charismatic leader. His leadership is what people tend to emulate. Violence may be justified at times, but it is not the only course of action, nor is it always the smartest course of action.

Taking arms against terrorists would also seem to follow within the guidelines of what you've just outlined.

Again why am I quoting all this? To demonstrate that Islamic terrorists are not motivated primarily by political motives but by religion. Religion is the issue.

You are correct. For the troops on the ground, religion is the issue.

But for the people financing their operations, religion is just a tool by which the troops can be controlled.

For example, Muhammad's marriage with Aisha who was 9 at the time of marriage and when the marriage was consummated is still used as legitimacy for grown men, as old as 90 to marry girls below 10 years of age today within the Islamic world.

I am not the theologian that you are, so correct me if I am wrong, but Islam is not the only religion that endorses marriages like that. Currently, those laws are being challenged by other practicing Muslims within their own societies.

People do violence in the name of Christianity, but this is at total odds with the message of Christ. People that do violence in the name of Islam are in total agreement with the message of Muhammad. There is a stark, stark contrast.

Well, two things come to mind.

The first: If true, then Christians are capable of doing violence against their doctrine, and Muslims are capable of being peaceful against their doctrine. How important is it that we look at doctrine and ideology when people are proven to be capable of acting outside of them? This undercuts your message in a way, not in the way that it is false, but in a matter of how significant it is.

The second: Western civilization is not founded on the peace and love aspects of Judeo-Christian tradition. The West was built on war, genocide and slavery. Peace and love don't fuel economies. If Islam acknowledges political violence, that only makes it more realistic. For the rest of that argument, refer to the above paragraph.

 

[Strong Badam]

In the early 20th century:



What?

I don't think it's very fair to equate building a religious structure to civil rights.

 

[Thino]

I don't think it's very fair to equate building a religious structure to civil rights.

since when do or should religious structures have a status that is different from any other private property?

 

[The Drifter]

.....What?

I never got this mentality at all, that if you have radical extremists who do awful things, non-extremists should be ridiculed by the community, and ultimately in this case, denied a sacred place of worship. When will people get a clue and realize that every religion has its extremists, and often, these extremists are a very very very very small fraction of a religious community, and are often looked down upon.


With that in mind, one should not let themselves stereotype, that all Muslims are terrorists. If you want a TRUE look at the Muslim religion, just go to a Mosque, or talk to the Average Joe in your community that's a Muslim, and you will find that Muslim is actually a beautiful religion with many inspiring teachings.


God, this whole thing baffles me. Ignorance *shakes head*

 

[Luigitoilet]

since when do or should religious structures have a status that is different from any other private property?

er, you know churches don't pay taxes, right?

 

[Thino]

er, you know churches don't pay taxes, right?

no I didnt know , but still in this case , how does it matter in terms of fairness

 

[pickle962]

I say that those Muslims need to keep their filthy stuff away from Ground Zero..you don't go and build a church(or any kind of building for that matter) near the location of a great tragedy...You just don't, Okay! Those muslims need to respect our wishes and find somewhere else to out that mosque. If that mosque does indeed get built near Ground Zero, I can guarantee you that its gonna be destroyed instantly...

 

[Luigitoilet]

I say that those Muslims need to keep their filthy stuff away from Ground Zero..you don't go and build a church(or any kind of building for that matter) near the location of a great tragedy...You just don't, Okay! Those muslims need to respect our wishes and find somewhere else to out that mosque. If that mosque does indeed get built near Ground Zero, I can guarantee you that its gonna be destroyed instantly...

So how do you feel about the plans to build a WTC monument on Ground Zero?

 

[pickle962]

So how do you feel about the plans to build a WTC monument on Ground Zero?

I say no to that also..Keep in mind that several people lost loved ones to those **** terrorists...I don't think they would appreciate even something like a monument being built on ground zero....

 

[Thino]

I say that those Muslims need to keep their filthy stuff away from Ground Zero..you don't go and build a church(or any kind of building for that matter) near the location of a great tragedy...You just don't, Okay! Those muslims need to respect our wishes and find somewhere else to out that mosque. If that mosque does indeed get built near Ground Zero, I can guarantee you that its gonna be destroyed instantly...

not only said great tragedy happened 9 years ago , some other catastrophes elsewhere with many more victims in the world are forgotten within months , sure people are allowed to mourn victims , but I do believe 9 years and having those wounds still open is a TAD exaggerated

but also , even if the tragedy was recent , why should religious buildings be associated to a tragedy more than the porn shops and bars that around Ground Zero? how are they related?

sure , they do need to respect peoples wishes , but the reasons they have to are bull**** , ignorance , bigotry , and people not moving on , IMO

 

[Pluvia]

I say that those Muslims need to keep their filthy stuff away from Ground Zero..you don't go and build a church(or any kind of building for that matter) near the location of a great tragedy...You just don't, Okay! Those muslims need to respect our wishes and find somewhere else to out that mosque. If that mosque does indeed get built near Ground Zero, I can guarantee you that its gonna be destroyed instantly...

I find it ironic that innocent people are getting threats from radical extremists telling them that their building is going to be attacked and/or destroyed.

 

[~N9NE~]

So you can chop off the half of the bible that you don't like, but reasonable Muslims can't?

When did I ''chop off'' half of the Bible? Show me where I stated that the Old Testament is to be completely and utterly denied and ignored.

What is essential is that the Old Testament is seen in light of Christ's teachings in the New Testament. If you read The Bible it is obvious that Christ mandates we must depart from the eye for an eye mentality and adopt an outlook built on forgiveness and peace. On the same note, reading the Qur'an and Hadiths and keeping the concept of abrogation in mind, it is clear that Muhammad consistently advocated violence.

This isn't what I've decided, this is basic Christian and Islamic theology and doctrine.

Apparently perfecting the law and contradicting it are synonyms.
Whatever, I've heard the claim violence vs. nonviolence 1 bajillian times. From where I'm standing, you're basically saying Christians are the MLK of bigotry and slavery, and Muslims are like the Malcolm X. It's not exactly convincing me that you're better.

Approaching people with love and reconciliation is not better than approaching people with violence and demanding subjugation?

Each to his own opinion I guess.

Welcome back, N9NE. I've always enjoyed talking with you.

Ditto.

Communism works in much the same way. The party doctrine dictates everyday life. However, do we want to say that workers' rights was the central point of conflict that caused communist revolts in many parts of Asia, the Pacific Islands, and South America?

Before we address that question, it may help to know that there was contact between the communists in those countries and the Soviet Union.

As you've probably established, I'm not as politically versed as yourself, so I can't really comment on any communist revolts with any authority or reliability.

The Taliban came out of religious schools at refugee camps in Pakistan, and they may believe in their religious doctrine. However, the weapons and the money that financed their operations came from the Pakistani intelligence agency. That agency was about as concerned with religion as the Soviet Union was about workers' rights.

Weapons and money are necessary to incite violence, but alone they are useless without a belief in the legitimacy of violence.

In the minds of the foot soldiers and the devout, perhaps that is true. Culturally, there is a clash between principles.

However, there is also a clash in principle between American communists and American society, which functions under free-market capitalism. Why has there not been a communist revolt in America?

Probably because they didn't have access to Soviet funds or weapons..

Again I'm not as politically knowledgeable as you, but do American communists believe murdering and subjugating advocates of capitalism is the best deed they can do in life? Do they believe it grants them instant access to Paradise?

If they don't then maybe that's why they're not revolting against America as the Islamic world is.

Muhammad is admired as a charismatic leader. His leadership is what people tend to emulate. Violence may be justified at times, but it is not the only course of action, nor is it always the smartest course of action.

I've heard you speak of Muhammad being admired for his charisma on previous occasions. Can you direct me to anything to support this view of Muhammad as a charismatic leader? From my understanding of Islamic sources, Muhammad was illiterate and was often unsure of himself.

Taking arms against terrorists would also seem to follow within the guidelines of what you've just outlined.

A distinction should be made between defence and inciting violence and causing death. That said, I think the best approach concerning terrorism is education and addressing Islamic doctrine.

I am not the theologian that you are, so correct me if I am wrong, but Islam is not the only religion that endorses marriages like that. Currently, those laws are being challenged by other practicing Muslims within their own societies.

I am not a theologian by any means, I still have so much to explore and understand.

Islam may not be the only religion, or indeed the Islamic world may not be the only society that encourages marriages like that, but that doesn't make it justifiable in any way. Remember their justification for child marriage comes directly from Muhammad's example as opposed to sociological influences.

Could you link me to anything about practising Muslims challenging such traditions in their own societies?

Well, two things come to mind.

The first: If true, then Christians are capable of doing violence against their doctrine, and Muslims are capable of being peaceful against their doctrine. How important is it that we look at doctrine and ideology when people are proven to be capable of acting outside of them? This undercuts your message in a way, not in the way that it is false, but in a matter of how significant it is.

A very good point. Both Christians and Muslims can act outside of their doctrine, I fully agree. People will always act outside of doctrine, just as people will act outside of law. But this has no influence on what the religious doctrine does legitimize and deem immoral.

When doctrine advocates such behaviour as Jihad, than surely examining doctrine is essential to understanding the topic at hand. Examining Islamic doctrine and theology over this issue would only be insignificant if Jihad were an issue spontaneously produced by Muslims outside of Islamic doctrine.

People act outside of the law but that doesn't mean examining the law becomes insignificant.

The second: Western civilization is not founded on the peace and love aspects of Judeo-Christian tradition. The West was built on war, genocide and slavery. Peace and love don't fuel economies. If Islam acknowledges political violence, that only makes it more realistic. For the rest of that argument, refer to the above paragraph.

The West departed from most Christian principles a long time ago and is successfully eradicating any traces of Christian heritage as we speak. When I refer to a clash of principles, it is the principle in the West that all citizens should have equal rights, a principle alien to Islamic states. Such Western ideology echoes the Christian principle (and the principle of other religions) of treating others as you would like to be treated.

I never got this mentality at all, that if you have radical extremists who do awful things, non-extremists should be ridiculed by the community, and ultimately in this case, denied a sacred place of worship. When will people get a clue and realize that every religion has its extremists, and often, these extremists are a very very very very small fraction of a religious community, and are often looked down upon.

These ''extremists'' are only acting in complete accordance with their most revered Prophet. Nothing more, nothing less.

I say that those Muslims need to keep their filthy stuff away from Ground Zero..you don't go and build a church(or any kind of building for that matter) near the location of a great tragedy...You just don't, Okay! Those muslims need to respect our wishes and find somewhere else to out that mosque. If that mosque does indeed get built near Ground Zero, I can guarantee you that its gonna be destroyed instantly...

Adopting such a tone is unnecessary and breeds hostility. Destroying it would be a horrible course of action to take and should not be tolerated or even suggested.

not only said great tragedy happened 9 years ago , some other catastrophes elsewhere with many more victims in the world are forgotten within months , sure people are allowed to mourn victims , but I do believe 9 years and having those wounds still open is a TAD exaggerated

but also , even if the tragedy was recent , why should religious buildings be associated to a tragedy more than the porn shops and bars that around Ground Zero? how are they related?

sure , they do need to respect peoples wishes , but the reasons they have to are bull**** , ignorance , bigotry , and people not moving on , IMO

I think you're trivializing 9/11 way too much.