Who or what is Terrorism??

[PSoft 0]

Not true. Hindus who convert to Islam in India are explicitly instructed by their imams that they must never use Sanskrit-derivative words for God, even in conversation. The only acceptable words are Allah or Khuda.

What does Khuda mean?

In Persian Khuda = Parwardigar = Allah = God

[Veiled Princess 1]

The problem with the word god in english is that we use it with a big G to mean the one God and with a little g to mean anything worshipped as a diety.

Allah, in Arabic, just means the god. It is not so much a name. We, in English wouldn't call Allah/God -Dianna for instance.. because that's not His name and it's the name of a false god/goddess. So of course if the name in hindi is the name of one of those gods that the hindus worship then it stands to reason that a muslim convert would stop using that name for God.

Right. In other words, when your false book says that a conquered people must worship "God", they mean their God. Allah. Not the God of the conquered peoples choice, but the God of your false books choice. Thank you for clearing that up.

That is one of the two outcomes mentioned. You are completely missing the part that says IF they stop fighting the muslims before they convert then the fighting must cease and they are allowed to live in peace.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The problem with the word god in english is that we use it with a big G to mean the one God and with a little g to mean anything worshipped as a diety.

Allah, in Arabic, just means the god. It is not so much a name. We, in English wouldn't call Allah/God -Dianna for instance.. because that's not His name and it's the name of a false god/goddess. So of course if the name in hindi is the name of one of those gods that the hindus worship then it stands to reason that a muslim convert would stop using that name for God.

Right. In other words, when your false book says that a conquered people must worship "God", they mean their God. Allah. Not the God of the conquered peoples choice, but the God of your false books choice. Thank you for clearing that up.

That is one of the two outcomes mentioned. You are completely missing the part that says IF they stop fighting the muslims before they convert then the fighting must cease and they are allowed to live in peace.

No I am not missing the point. I'm aware of that and don't care. My point is that if non-Muslims fight and do not surrender, your false religion does not allow for them to remain non-Muslims and remain alive. They must convert or die. That is the hallmark of an intolerant faith.

[tsunamihart 0]

The problem with the word god in english is that we use it with a big G to mean the one God and with a little g to mean anything worshipped as a diety.

Allah, in Arabic, just means the god. It is not so much a name. We, in English wouldn't call Allah/God -Dianna for instance.. because that's not His name and it's the name of a false god/goddess. So of course if the name in hindi is the name of one of those gods that the hindus worship then it stands to reason that a muslim convert would stop using that name for God.

Right. In other words, when your false book says that a conquered people must worship "God", they mean their God. Allah. Not the God of the conquered peoples choice, but the God of your false books choice. Thank you for clearing that up.

That is one of the two outcomes mentioned. You are completely missing the part that says IF they stop fighting the muslims before they convert then the fighting must cease and they are allowed to live in peace.

No I am not missing the point. I'm aware of that and don't care. My point is that if non-Muslims fight and do not surrender, your false religion does not allow for them to remain non-Muslims and remain alive. They must convert or die. That is the hallmark of an intolerant faith.

Pwnd

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If so, aside from the ideological similarities between Islam and christianity, I have to wonder if many of the criticisms of Islam stem simply by virtue of the fact that it is not christianity.

Nope. The criticism comes from the lack of ability to deal with the internal problem and the fact that governments sponsor these actions. Abducting soliders is criminal....and the organization that did it resides in Lebanon and in fact has representation in the government. They also choose to do nothing about it, making them criminals themselves. Israel attacks and innocent Lebanese people die. Like I said before, Lebanon values Hezbollah more than their own people and would rather see their own innocent people die than take down Hezbollah. Lebanon in a sense, sanctions the death of their own citizens by supporting a group that murders citizens of another country.

That's not what I said - I mean't general criticisms of Islam. You know this 'where is the outrage' tune that people seem so intent on playing - is based, I think, on a general misunderstanding not only of comparative religious doctrines but how the fact that it is not a organised, hierarchical institution - compared to say, the various denominations of the catholic church.

In that regard, Islam is often criticised simply because it is not more like christianity (structurally at least).

Am not condoning in any way the tactics of Hezbollah.

I can see your point to an extent, but I don't think it takes it far enough.

Basically, you are stating the criticism comes from the fact that Chritians don't like muslims because they are not Christians. I think that is absurd.

As far as the "where is the outrage" comment......don't you think that is acceptable? People are having their heads cut off...slowly I may add....people are being blown up in trains while going to work, people are being dismembered and having thier private parts stuffed in their mouths, etc.

Outrage is expected and required. What are we supposed to do then? Say....well all this stuff is happening....we don't really see the outrage but I trust it is there. I'm sure they are taking care of the problem.

The reason you do not see public outrage and larger scale movements is fear.

Again, you are misunderstanding what was said. I'm saying part of the reason why people criticise Islam as not showing enough outrage over fundamentalist atrocities lies in the fact that the religion itself is structured differently to christianity. There is no Islamic equivalent to say, the Catholic Church.

It would be saying something if VJers from muslim countries were directly condoning extremism and fanaticism, but they aren't. Many muslim groups don't either - how then is that rationalised as (at best) a broad indifference in the islamic world?

People brought up in a western, predominantly christian culture in the main, have no other reference point for other religions than christianity. In that respect the criticisms they bring against muslims stem from that misunderstanding, not only of the doctrines themselves but of the way in which it is structured.

OK - I understand your point much better now, thanks. I don't entirely disagree either. If there was a central figure head or something than at least there is someone to point to for answers. Like was mentioned before though, not all Christians answer to the Pope.

An exception to this however are heads of state that speak in the name of a religion or openly sponsor organizations that commit crimes in the name of a religion. Then, there is a central point for a voice and information. The government represents the people....and in this case unfortunately the religion.

If these countries were serious about getting rid of these criminals then it would have happened already. People see that and see it as condoning the behavior.....right or wrong.

I'm not sure that centralisation of religion is necessarily 'better' - that's the point. The mistake is to look at one religion as being ultimately 'better' than another because it doesn't share, for example, certain organisation features characteristic of christianity. Decentralisation of course make it easier to hijack, but I don't think this is a specifically religious issue anyway.

In any case, I would hardly call the likes of Saddam Hussein, Hezbollah and the Taliban 'representative' of muslim opinion.

I don't consider them representatives of muslim opinion either, but the public does and you seriously have to ask the question why is that? Is it ignorance? Racism? If I were muslim, I would consider that a crisis of the utmost priority and I would want those leaders removed. If removal was not possible than the counter voice must be raised to light the way. You can act how you want but don't do it in the name of my religion. Let your actions stand on their own without the false backdrop of rightousness. I feel the same way when Bush talks about his actions and mixes in religion. There's no place for that and it is insulting to the religion itself. The chip on the shoulder has to be removed and people need to realize there is a world audience. Why allow a few people take off their shoe and hit the Koran with it?

The lack of outrage is weak.......western biased structure or not. Human is human and outrage is an emotion shared by all regardless of color, culture, religious background or geography.

Isolationist strategy did not work for the U.S. and it will not work for practicing muslims.

But surely the point is that muslims are speaking out. You know that simply by listening to Vjers from muslim countries. The fact is that the structure of islam doesn't allow for a centralised debate, doesn't mean that individual muslims and muslim groups don't oppose terrorism.

Let me ask you this, do you think that the fact that many middle-eastern countries are still far from the western democratic ideal, do you think that has anything directly to do with Islam?

Note that I threw Saddam Hussein in there for the simple reason that he is a muslim in name only. His regime was specifically anti-religious.

If they are speaking out......to what extent I won't get into, a terrible job is being done. Terrorism is flourishing in those areas. They are losing the battle and have lost control over their countries and religion. Someone needs to assist apparently because it is quite clear that the capability to solve this problem is not there. That would be ok if it were confined to their area (their problem, allow them to solve it), except that it has spilled across borders and has involved other countries.

If the muslim community is combating terrorism their grade from me is D

I prefer results rather than 3rd party commentary and rhetoric. What I see in front of me is death and destruction, much of it government sponsored.

"Let me ask you this, do you think that the fact that many middle-eastern countries are still far from the western democratic ideal, do you think that has anything directly to do with Islam?"

No....it's choice and history. I could care less about their choice of government heirarchy. That's their business.

The reason I asked is because I'm curious as to whether you think religion is ultimately responsible for certain countries being dominated by various forms of dictatorship (in which free speech is limited).

Muslims are politically active - unfortunately the last strictly revolutionary act took place in Iran, which was itself a response to foreign intervention.

Edited July 14, 2006 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 13,678]

No I am not missing the point. I'm aware of that and don't care. My point is that if non-Muslims fight and do not surrender, your false religion does not allow for them to remain non-Muslims and remain alive. They must convert or die. That is the hallmark of an intolerant faith.

[Veiled Princess 1]

No I am not missing the point. I'm aware of that and don't care. My point is that if non-Muslims fight and do not surrender, your false religion does not allow for them to remain non-Muslims and remain alive. They must convert or die. That is the hallmark of an intolerant faith.

Then they shouldn't attack muslims and this wouldn't even come up.

[tsunamihart 0]

No I am not missing the point. I'm aware of that and don't care. My point is that if non-Muslims fight and do not surrender, your false religion does not allow for them to remain non-Muslims and remain alive. They must convert or die. That is the hallmark of an intolerant faith.

Then they shouldn't attack muslims and this wouldn't even come up.

...and vice a versa and they won't be driven into the sea?!????

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

No I am not missing the point. I'm aware of that and don't care. My point is that if non-Muslims fight and do not surrender, your false religion does not allow for them to remain non-Muslims and remain alive. They must convert or die. That is the hallmark of an intolerant faith.

Then they shouldn't attack muslims and this wouldn't even come up.

I notice you didn't dispute my characterisation of the intolerance of your so-called "faith".

[Veiled Princess 1]

No I am not missing the point. I'm aware of that and don't care. My point is that if non-Muslims fight and do not surrender, your false religion does not allow for them to remain non-Muslims and remain alive. They must convert or die. That is the hallmark of an intolerant faith.

Then they shouldn't attack muslims and this wouldn't even come up.

I notice you didn't dispute my characterisation of the intolerance of your so-called "faith".

Because I'm not going to argue with you. You don't believe in my faith, as you keep referring to my holy book as a "false book" and I don't worship beef! Let's just agree to disagree.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

No I am not missing the point. I'm aware of that and don't care. My point is that if non-Muslims fight and do not surrender, your false religion does not allow for them to remain non-Muslims and remain alive. They must convert or die. That is the hallmark of an intolerant faith.

Then they shouldn't attack muslims and this wouldn't even come up.

I notice you didn't dispute my characterisation of the intolerance of your so-called "faith".

Because I'm not going to argue with you. You don't believe in my faith, as you keep referring to my holy book as a "false book" and I don't worship beef! Let's just agree to disagree.

Disagree on what? Sounds to me like we're in perfect agreement.

[Ban Hammer 13,678]

No I am not missing the point. I'm aware of that and don't care. My point is that if non-Muslims fight and do not surrender, your false religion does not allow for them to remain non-Muslims and remain alive. They must convert or die. That is the hallmark of an intolerant faith.

Then they shouldn't attack muslims and this wouldn't even come up.

I notice you didn't dispute my characterisation of the intolerance of your so-called "faith".

Because I'm not going to argue with you. You don't believe in my faith, as you keep referring to my holy book as a "false book" and I don't worship beef! Let's just agree to disagree.

Disagree on what? Sounds to me like we're in perfect agreement.

opens up the champagne

[Veiled Princess 1]

Disagree on what? Sounds to me like we're in perfect agreement.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Hezbollah ownes how many seats in the democratic Lebanon government? Quite a few! Everyone knows their tactics.....which means people know it and vote for them anyway. They agree with those tactics. That's frightening.

For the sake of accuracy, Hezbollah has 23 out of 128 seats in the Lebanese government, less than 20%. On the other hand, Hezbollah has its own military. What would happen if, say, the Republicans had their own armed wing and were firing missiles into Canada, all the while threatening to kill any Democrat who objected?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

What would happen if, say, the Republicans had their own armed wing and were firing missiles into Canada, all the while threatening to kill any Democrat who objected?

Canada would surrender.