Let's get a few things straight...

[MetalMilitia]

The "main" Justification for the war was that we were directly (somehow) THREATENED by Iraq's WMD's. Don't give me any "human rights" rhetoric, or we'd be in Sudan or Africa providing humanitarian aid. We went in as an invading force, not a liberating, democracy spreading force. Turns out Iraq had no WMD's. That one fact ALONE makes this war, in retrospect, crooked from day 1. Months and months of corporate media, speaking on behalf of the administration... months and months of "MUSHROOM CLOUD USA" and "UNMANNED DRONES" - and it turns out it was all BS.

Here's a history lesson, we created the "brutal" man that was Saddam Hussein. That was never recognized by the Bush administration - and many of the same people who gave him money, weapons, and even smiling handshakes, (RUMMY) are the SAME people who then provided intel and support for this war. Talk about "creating the enemy your need". The fact that Saddam is a former US asset, and was installed with US support takes it one step deeper. What do we do? We bury the past, and ignore the fact that we gave him funding and weapons for years and years before 2003... all the way up through the early 1980's.

Ignoring the lies, and onto the invasion... Not enough troops were committed to be successful by any meaning of the term. That endangers both our troops, and the innocent Iraqis. When we first invaded, (not liberated) priceless relics from museums and historical sites were looted - history lost forever. Don't even get me started on how the troops were not properly equipped from the word go. We send em in... THEN worry about armor and equipment? Then later we have our officials crack jokes about it? F*** that. Maybe we should let Rumsfeld tear around in a jeep that lacks armor, let him run around with an inadequate flak jacket. See how he likes it.

How can we forget bush declaring victory in his dress-up flight suit in May of 2003? He then goes on to tell the insurgents "Bring it on". Well guess what, they did. 1429 killed since the war began (3/19/03). 1292 since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) Bring it on indeed.

Iraqis aren't stupid - most KNOW this election is a fraud. (Just look at the US 2004 elections) There may be a small percentage who don't think it's a crock and then a few more who know it is, but hope for the best anyway - but most of them see it for what it really is. They know an occupation when they see it and so would you if the situation were reversed. They didn't ask for all of this. They didn't ask for 100,000 of their friends, family, and relatives to be killed in airstrikes and "collateral damage" attacks. I know most are happy Saddam is gone, but look how it's been replaced. We are now the ones raiding homes, abusing detainees (physically and sexually) and killing civilians at a rate of 1 september 11th (which they had nothing to do with) every few months.

In my... honest.... opinion, You cannot spread freedom and democracy like this - even more so with m-14's and raids on homes. Voting does not equal democracy, the Palestinians just voted - does that make them a democracy? Why don't we take a look at the word "freedom" and what it means. Among the definitions of "freedom" to be found in Webster's Dictionary that might apply to a nation-state are: "1. state of being at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint. 2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc. 3. power of determining one's own action: freedom of choice. 4. the power to make one's own choices or decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination. 5. civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government. 6. political or national independence."

Does it seem like what we're doing in Iraq is spreading freedom to you?

I had another question : They had "millions of voters" in just a few hours right? Then im sure they had to stand in line for 8 hours like some places in the US.

Were there any reports, in war-torn hellish Iraq, where there was a line of Iraqi citizens, having to wait 6 to 8 hours to vote like in the democratic America? Last night, on CNN, they had two reporters at polling stations. One was in Basra, and the other in the Kurdish northern region. The reporter in Basra nearly let out a laugh when asked about the turnout. The elections officials were still a noshow over an hour after the polls opened. Some places never DID open.

In the North the Kurds were voting like crazy. I'd bet this is where turnout was highest - and how they somehow got the ridiculous assumption that 60% voted... But the rest of Iraq seems to be basically a noshow. How is anybody supposed to believe that in a country where the electricity works only a few hours a day - and where they vote by putting paper ballots into big plastic boxes, anyone could possibly have this data so quickly? It just smells funny.

But METAL... THEY VOTED TODAY! That means it's MISSON ACCOMPLISHED! BUSH WINS!!!

That's great... Our boys can come home, this time not in a publicly hidden flag-draped box. No more US casualties, no more suicide bombs, no more IED's taking the limbs of brave American soldiers.

George Bush would love to peg this election is a flawless success, and make everyone forget the perpetuated lies and deceptions that led us to the country in the first place. He would have you forget the month and months leading up, when he ignored the international community and went in gung ho. He would have you forget the 15,000+ civilian deaths that have resulted by our military action. He would have you forget the record debt we have from funding his ill-advised war - money we could have spent on hundry children, tsunami relief, or better healthcare in our own country.

I won't forget.

[substand]

The "main" Justification for the war was that we were directly (somehow) THREATENED by Iraq's WMD's. Don't give me any "human rights" rhetoric, or we'd be in Sudan or Africa providing humanitarian aid. We went in as an invading force, not a liberating, democracy spreading force. Turns out Iraq had no WMD's. That one fact ALONE makes this war, in retrospect, crooked from day 1. Months and months of corporate media, speaking on behalf of the administration... months and months of "MUSHROOM CLOUD USA" and "UNMANNED DRONES" - and it turns out it was all BS.

As much as you feel the need to convince yourself and others that this war was only about WMD, in order to downplay the positives that are coming out of it and call it a quagmire, you simply are not correct. Yes, you said "'main' justification," followed up with "dont give me any 'human rights' rhetoric." You can't ignore, as you antiwarriors often do, that there were MANY reasons leading up to war with Iraq, none of which alone would have been enough. You can't say "why not iran, why not north korea, why not sudan or liberia or haiti" and use it as an excuse to leave Iraq alone.

1) you would be bitching about us in those other countries too, if we had decided to help.
2) There were many many years of non-war solutions to resolve the differences in the forefront of public view with iraq. This provided political capital as well as a non-rush to war. This situation simply did not exist for any of the other countries you use in your list of "why nots."
3) everyone of any note thought they were working on wmd.
4) they were in violation of the terms that ended the first war with them in the first place, regardless of WMD.
5) not somehow directly threadted by iraq's wmds- we were told many times over we had to act "now," BEFORE Iraq became a threat. So I don't know where you are getting that from
6) evil dictator
7) support for terrorism
8) a population who we had recently seen rise up against thier evil dictator

no other state you mention had all of these ingredients prior to the war. the choice of Iraq was clearly the only choice to make among the ones you ask us to. And about the "humanitarian rhetoric"- our military are in Aftica and Haiti and Bosnia and Indonesia as "humanitarian" workers... so its evidently something we do quite often with our military.



Here's a history lesson, we created the "brutal" man that was Saddam Hussein.


Not much of a history lesson. We did not create Hussein. We used him as an enemy of our enemy and gave him weapons. He was in the right place at the right time to strike against the terrorist Iranians, whom he didn't like anyway.



Not enough troops were committed to be successful by any meaning of the term.


I can see the wisdom in waiting a couple of months to "properly" equip troops. However, I don't see how this is "unsuccessful" at all. We roll over the conventional army in a matter of weeks, they convert to guerrilla fighters (in addition to other terrorists coming in) and we are fighting them. We have very few dead for such a large scale operation. They had a successful and mostly violence free election today. Progress is being made. In war, people die, including soldiers. You and others seem to expect that we can pinpoint everything and attack solely from our armchairs hitting the A button on the Xbox controller and pulling the trigger and no one but the enemy can be hit, and thus no one but the enemy will die.



How can we forget bush declaring victory in his dress-up flight suit in May of 2003? He then goes on to tell the insurgents "Bring it on". Well guess what, they did. 1429 killed since the war began (3/19/03). 1292 since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) Bring it on indeed.


I don't know how many times I need to say this, but clearly the mission accomplished refered to one part of the overall war- that of ousting saddam. That same day Bush said it was not yet over. Of course we should lament the loss of our soldiers, but it appears to me you are using them purely as propaghanda- so lets leave now and let thier loss be for nothing.



Iraqis aren't stupid - most KNOW this election is a fraud. (Just look at the US 2004 elections) There may be a small percentage who don't think it's a crock and then a few more who know it is, but hope for the best anyway - but most of them see it for what it really is. They know an occupation when they see it and so would you if the situation were reversed.

I don't think you know "most Iraqis" very well. Clearly many were jubilant. If the observational predictions today are any indication- most Iraqis voted. Why vote if you beleive its a sham? 2 yrs ago they were forced to vote- on premarked ballots where saddam was the only candidate. Most Iraqis are not fighting this "occupation" either. This election gives us the delegates to an Iraqi Constitutional Convention. 7-8 months from now they will have written a constitution, in which the PEOPLE will get to vote for or against. then they will have the rules of thier new government, and then will elect one, over and over again throughout the years.

[DonkeyPunch]

I had another question : They had "millions of voters" in just a few hours right? Then im sure they had to stand in line for 8 hours like some places in the US.

Were there any reports, in war-torn hellish Iraq, where there was a line of Iraqi citizens, having to wait 6 to 8 hours to vote like in the democratic America?

http://www.foxnews.com/photo_essay/0,3927,287:1,00.html

[MetalMilitia]

Wonder how long it would take if all the people were getting on a plane...

Seriously though, if the US isn't tampering with the vote - that's fine by me. We got their government in the works, lets ease the US troops outta harms way. Hell, I'm happy for the Iraqis that will gain "freedom" from this...

No more "30 killed in hellicopter crash" for the US.

Go back Sam, can you honestly tell me, that if the weapons scare had never existed, that the population would have agreed with Bush to invade? Had the population not been scared by the "mushroom cloud" and "45 minute strike" comments, do you think they would have followed so blindly?

Not much of a history lesson. We did not create Hussein. We used him as an enemy of our enemy and gave him weapons. He was in the right place at the right time to strike against the terrorist Iranians, whom he didn't like anyway. So at the time, you woulda walked up and shook his hand... and shot him a smile? Gotcha. I'm simply saying, that at the time - we helped fund this man, and gave him weapons, regardless of the cirumstances - and put him in control.
That same day Bush said it was not yet overOf course it's not over. Bush has a whole plan for that "neighborhood" of the world. How many lives will it take to liberate all those people.

We need to get it out of our heads. American values aren't world wide values, and we are not the world's police. You have the rich elite war hawks sitting back making decisions that get thousands killed, and then to top it off the public is mislead and even lied to about it. They "hate our freedom"... no, they don't "hate our freedom" they hate our middle east policy and the fact that we can kill thousands more civilians than died in 9/11, and dismiss it as collateral damage.

[hoyeru!]

oh gosh so you are "helping" them?? Is that what you call the 100,000 killed and unknown number of meimed iraqies? Shades of 1984 hey? up is down and down is up, bad is good, good is bad and so on. I see, I get it NOW. And why pray tell the majority of the world deson't think you are helping the Iraqies and is against USA being in Iraq the first place?
I WISH you would put your money where your mouth is and DO help countries such as Sudan and others where civil wars have been killing hundreds of million of citizens for years and years. Yet you run to "help" a country that has tons of oil. Whatta coincidence ey? A helpless coubntry weaked by a decade old sanctions, easy pickings. FYI, I did NOT believe for a second Iraq had weapons of mass distractions err distraction, sorry cant type that word right and I millions others didn't.
Enough said.

[LGM]

Well they sure told you, Metal. I can tell that Sammy is a constitutional scholar right off the bat. And the other guy posted a link from Fox News. What more do you need? If I were you, I wouldn't mess with these two heavyweights. They have you cold. Besides, it never pays to argue with the reality challenged, they don't know jack, but are always right. Not to mention you might catch something.

[MetalMilitia]

Heh - Substnad (Sam) is a friend o Mine so we don't get hard feelings.

I play the WMD card cause it's the ONLY THING you saw for news in the months leading up to the invasion. There was no talk of "spreading democracy" - everyone (FOX news buffs especially) were so hell bent on pointing out the fact that we "could" be attacked they didn't stop to question anything. Fear is a powerful motive - scare people enough, and they'll listen to whatever you propose.

[DonkeyPunch]

Well they sure told you, Metal. I can tell that Sammy is a constitutional scholar right off the bat. And the other guy posted a link from Fox News. What more do you need? If I were you, I wouldn't mess with these two heavyweights. They have you cold. Besides, it never pays to argue with the reality challenged, they don't know jack, but are always right. Not to mention you might catch something.

The link I posted is to a photograph of a long line of voters. Did you look at it?

There's plenty of other photographs demonstrating high voter turnout on other news sites for you to look at if photographs on Fox News offend you for some reason.

[smile]

hi

my name is amin and i am a young muslim from the UK. i believe the self proclaimed "leaders of the free world" and "protectors of freedom" went to war on the basis of a lie. in the build up to the war all i heard from the "free press" was wmd, wmd and more wmd. i didnt here nuthin abt liberation and terror. it was only after no weapons were found and the "elite" forces of saddam crumbled and fled the field that the liberation of iraq and the introduction of democracy became a priority.

the war in iraq was opposed by most the world. the coalition of the willing was made up of countries that didnt have any armed forces or weapons (costa rica, nicaragua etc). then bush asks the mujahideen to bring it on! big mistake! guess wat? occupied people fighting for theyre country are not going to give up. if your demolishing theyre houses, killing theyre children and violating theyre women they are going to bring it! this war is fast become a struggle that will be won by the people who are willing to fight on no matter the number of lives lost. the USA will lose such a war just as they lost the war in vietnam. loads of iraqis and americans will die but the USA will lose such a war.

why do americans think that everyone in the world should share theyre beliefs, values and priorities? why should everyone see the world the same as the americans? why should people want to lead an american life and live the american dream?

the american way of life is not the best way of life. if it was then there would be no poor people in the US, there would be no murder in the US, there would be no racism in the US and so on.

but there is all of this in the US.

so why cant the US leave the world to develop theyre own way of life? yes fair enough the US has some responsibility with regard to peace keeping as it is the strongest country in the world. however all such actions should be carried out under the auspices of international organisations such as the UN.

Just as an addition wat kind of election is it when the people dont know who they are voting for or where the polling stations are until the day of the vote? do the people of iraq even know wat each candidate stands for?

thats all for now.

take care

amin

[midnightsonblaze]

Amin,
That was a great post you just wrote and I commend you for that....Point is is that the US has more sinister plans, and in that plan they have is World Domination. "Democracy" and the spreading of that, is just a mask for the real problem at hand, and any people that listen to the lies of their corrupt US leaders, are just going along with that ugly plan. IT's not ever going to stop unless people stand up and stop it. Problem is.....and I fear it, is that the "Good guys", have already lost.....

Later and take care.....

[smile]

Amin,
That was a great post you just wrote and I commend you for that....Point is is that the US has more sinister plans, and in that plan they have is World Domination. "Democracy" and the spreading of that, is just a mask for the real problem at hand, and any people that listen to the lies of their corrupt US leaders, are just going along with that ugly plan. IT's not ever going to stop unless people stand up and stop it. Problem is.....and I fear it, is that the "Good guys", have already lost.....

Later and take care.....

hi

i was trying to be as rational as possible without bringing in conspiracy theories. the US has been in the business of manipulating governments all around the world since its creation and has murdered to achieve its aims. its blanket control over the media means that only news they want is reported. independent stations like al jazeera are bombed, blocked or forced to leave scenes by puppet governments (allawi in iraq).

if that is democracy i want none of it.

i am a muslim and i live for the day when muslims unite under one banner. i do not wish for the muslims to become an avenging force that takes over the world. i wish for the muslims to become a single entity so that they can protect themselves better. i look around the world today what do i see? muslims dying in palestine, iraq, chechnya, africa, kashmir, china. all over the world muslims die every day but there is noone to protect them. all the leaders of these countries worry about is money and corporate profits. i just wish for a day when there is a single body with the full wieght of the worlds muslim population behind it to represent it in world politics.

as i said i dont want muslims to become alienated from the rest of the world. i live in england and i love my country and my home. i am proud to say that in england though there are very right wing people the majority of people are totally sane and only wish to live in peace with theyre neighbours. for the muslims to be strong we need to be friends with the world not enemies or just "partners" in trade.

if the world was changed today i would wish for leaders to look after people first and money second. millions die every year for reasons that could be prevented if enough money was pumped in. take aids as an example or third world debt or why not illegal wars!

i'm sorry for the babble and i hope i havent scared anyone away thinkin im a "terrorist". i am not a terrorist just a person who wishes to see his people safe and secure in the world.

i would not consider fighting to achieve this aim. BUT if do believe that if the USA continues to attack muslim countries then the mujahideen have every right under any law to fight them. the USA cannot expect the world to roll over for them when they want them to.

ive heard people say that the last thing a man loses is his pride. people fight very hard for theyre pride. the USA didnt learn this in Vietnam and are having to be taught again by the Iraqis

amin

[DonkeyPunch]

Are there any threads on this forum that don't dissolve into incoherent conspiracy theories?

[BigPheces]

This is something that has always bothered me with arguements like these. In no way am I trying to be confrontational or disrespectful here so please keep that in mind.

Who cares if you're a Muslim? Who cares if I'm a Jew? Why should it matter at all? Who cares what color my skin is? My favorite color is blue, does that make me different than someone who likes red more? Everyone is different, no matter how similar they think they are.

I hate what my country (USA) is doing in the world at large on the whole and I do what I can to help, but until the global mindset of separation by borders and beliefs changes, your dreams will stay just that, dreams. I believe that people will never be able to agree on one way of life, all we can hope for is for people to agree to disagree and live with one another. I take people for who they are, not what they look like or believe in.

Sorry, after all that nice touchy feely stuff, I'm going to go kick something.....

[smile]

ok my dreams may be dreams but its something for muslims to aim for.

as for conspiracy theories i dont think the deaths of countless human beings can be descrived as a conspiracy theory.

my statements were something i would wish for my people as a whole.

i live in a multicultural society and i totally agree with your statement that we shoudl all live with people as they are. but i also believe that all people should have a voice that is heard be they muslim, jewish, black or white it doesnt matter.

i also believe that a world in which everyone agrees in one faith is a long way off but in its place i would look for understanding. i wouldnt want the world to follow the american example of make up bullcrap, bomb a country and then make up more bullcrap.

i care that i am a muslim and that is all that matters. everyone may be different but we are all humans and we only have the one planet so we have to live together. the current world order isnt going to allow this anytime soon.

people have to put human lifes before money and power.

[BigPheces]

I agree with you on all but one point which was the reason for my previous post.

my statements were something i would wish for my people as a whole
This is what I was trying to get across. Why are they your people? There are many people who believe exactly as I do on many issues, yet I can't stand to be around them, and also there are those who take my beliefs as sacrilage who I enjoy time with. It's the segregationalist thinking of a national, religious, or idealogic identity as opposed to personal identity as a part of a diverse whole that I was trying to point out.

I in no way label you as a terrorist or anything else, you could be a great person, but your thinking (based on inferances from your posts) still seem to show that you believe yourself and your peers as being different from other people, to the point of separating yourself from them, all because of an idea. Of course there are some ideas that are so digusting to a person that they are forced to get clear of them, but thats on a person by person basis, and should not be a blanket statement over a religion or ethnicity.

So this long winded mess of a post is basically trying to say that I don't see the need for a ruling body based upon one shared idealogy to the exclusion of all others. This is how wars are started - "My ideas are different from yours and I'm going to make you think my way." Just look at Bush and his "American Morality" stance which brought him his re-election and how it effects the rest of the world. Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, and all others will continue to die because of misunderstandings that cannot be contested until a person dies in the first place. You want religious wars to end? Wish for a council of ALL religions (which will likely NEVER happen) and have them bond together for the betterment of the world and its people. Then all people will have to fight about is money...

[daevilempire]

i think its a bad day man

look the fuckin usa isnt the only country that has bombed innocent civilians, if ya think the uk hasnt killed a few innocents then pull ya head from ya butt,

wasnt noone complaining when we went to world war 2 and helped out
wasnt noone complaining during desert storm and shit

but as ppl we tend to look at the negativity in this world and forget what the states will do for them in a positive manner, food, rebuild the city, education,etc etc etc

pull your headfrom ya butts, the us govt is as crooked as any govt in the world but nothing compares to the evil which is the EU

[lotrfan55345]

look the fuckin usa isnt the only country that has bombed innocent civilians, if ya think the uk hasnt killed a few innocents then pull ya head from ya butt,

Yes the UK has tortured innoccent civilians, and there are protests in the UK about that. But to date, I don't think any Dutch/Japanese/French/etc soldiers have had prisoner abuse allegations.



wasnt noone complaining when we went to world war 2 and helped out
wasnt noone complaining during desert storm and shit


Those two conflicts weren't based of (false) assumptions. World War 2... it was obvious that bad stuff was going on... as troops were actually destroying buildings and killing innocent civilians. Same with Desert Storm.

ull your headfrom ya butts, the us govt is as crooked as any govt in the world but nothing compares to the evil which is the EU

What justifies this "evil"?


but as ppl we tend to look at the negativity in this world and forget what the states will do for them in a positive manner, food, rebuild the city, education,etc etc etc

I don't consider rebuilding after what you've damaged "positive". It is more negative (imo) as the people had to deal with the period where the infastructure or whatnot was destroyed.

[substand]

Go back Sam, can you honestly tell me, that if the weapons scare had never existed, that the population would have agreed with Bush to invade?

No, I can't honestly tell you that without the weapons scare there would have been support. I think that all of the ingredients were neccesary, and said so in the post.

there were MANY reasons leading up to war with Iraq, none of which alone would have been enough.


We got their government in the works, lets ease the US troops outta harms way.

I agree. We've always agreed on the fact that we should withdraw troops ASAP. I think we just differ on when it is possible. I think it would be ridiculous to leave right now, before we have rebuilt the infrastructure we destroyed, and before there is some more stability. We cannot simply leave them almost defenseless against terrorists.


So at the time, you woulda walked up and shook his hand... and shot him a smile?

I don't know that *I* would have, but I do know that politics often leads to strange bedfellows, and I can understand why.


American values aren't world wide values, and we are not the world's police.

The only value we are trying to spread to my knowledge is choice. Who doesn't like choice? The only person who dislikes choice is when someone chooses to do something he doesn't like. And let me stop you all before you start- don't go asinine with the 'choice' thing. The problem is that we ARE the world's police. I'd like to change that as much as you. Iraq, though, was not a policing action.


they hate our middle east policy and the fact that we can kill thousands more civilians than died in 9/11, and dismiss it as collateral damage.

well they hate that too. Prior to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, our Middle East policy was to let dictators stand, and at times, prop them up. Now it is the exact opposite, so perhaps they will like this one.


oh gosh so you are "helping" them?? Is that what you call the 100,000 killed and unknown number of meimed iraqies? Shades of 1984 hey?

Don't be foolish. Obviously we lament the loss of innocent life. We are helping the population as a whole, minus the Ba'athists.



And why pray tell the majority of the world deson't think you are helping the Iraqies and is against USA being in Iraq the first place?

Because the rest of the world is apparently stupid. Does the rest of the world decide whether we are helping Iraqis or do Iraqis decide?


I WISH you would put your money where your mouth is and DO help countries such as Sudan and others where civil wars have been killing hundreds of million of citizens for years and years.

Recently, I suppose we went to Haiti to steal the bananas, Bosnia to enslave the muslims, and Liberia to get monkeys for our zoos.


Yet you run to "help" a country that has tons of oil. Whatta coincidence ey? A helpless coubntry weaked by a decade old sanctions,

Its no coincidence that the US does best where its interests meet its values, and its no coincidence that you would choose to waste precious blood and treasure first on things you both beleive in and help you. This is called logic.


I can tell that Sammy is a constitutional scholar right off the bat.

Thanks.. where were we talking about the constitution though?


Besides, it never pays to argue with the reality challenged, they don't know jack, but are always right.

Somehow its looking like you must be talking about yourself... because you certainly can't point to anything I said as unreal... and you just completely looked foolish by assuming pictures of voting lines are unreal, or that because they were on fox news' website, that the person who posted them must be somehow stating his/her opinion on the matter and would be unopen to discussion.



I play the WMD card cause it's the ONLY THING you saw for news in the months leading up to the invasion.

Well, as I always tell you... I never played the WMD card before the war, because I didn't think we needed to, nor did I think it helped. Again, I guess I'm jaded on not remembering "only WMD" because I was pushing without it.

[substand]

French/etc soldiers

Of course they can't be allegedly doing something. Does such a thing exist?

[substand]

occupied people fighting for theyre country are not going to give up. if your demolishing theyre houses, killing theyre children and violating theyre women they are going to bring it!

I beleive it has been estimated that most of the fighting is being done by the ba'athists and foreigners, not by the iraqi population at large.


the american way of life is not the best way of life. if it was then there would be no poor people in the US, there would be no murder in the US, there would be no racism in the US and so on.

You seem to be confusing the "best" way of life with the "perfect" way of life.



so why cant the US leave the world to develop theyre own way of life?

Because sometimes other people developing their own way of life collides with our ability to live ours... just like when I got beat up at school.


hi my name is amin and i am a young muslim from the UK.

Welcome to the boards amin!

[Kohler]

I know most are happy Saddam is gone, but look how it's been replaced. We are now the ones raiding homes, abusing detainees (physically and sexually) and killing civilians at a rate of 1 september 11th (which they had nothing to do with) every few months.



Metal, do you have any links about US forces sexually abusing detainee's (not that I can put much into the media)? That is shocking news to me.

On a sidenote to Bigpheces. You live in staten island? I was up in long island the other day and came home with a big headache from the drive. lol I payed more on tolls (a little over $25) than I do on a full tank of gas. I can see why commutes take trains into the City.

it was stressful... i guess i'm just not used to it

[MetalMilitia]

Sexual tactics used to weaken detainees - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1002923.cms

Torture in Iraq still routine, report says - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6863916/

Shocking images revealed at Britain's 'Abu Ghraib trial' - http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1393637,00.html

The list goes on.

[smile]

i agree with you totally that until people can see beyond theyre different beliefs there will never be everlasting peace.

you say i see myself and my peers as being different from other people and that i want to separate myself from others. thats not wat i was tryin to get at with my post. all i hope for in THIS world is an organisation to fairly represent muslims on the international stage. i can see that this will not happen any time soon. i dont want muslims to close themselves of from the world. i believe the only way to bring about lasting peace is for people to talk and learn about other people. all i want is proper representation for my people.

i dont see muslims as different or more special or important than other people. but i am a muslim and you must understand my wish to better my people.

i dont want muslims to be segragated from the rest of the world but i do want muslims to have better representation on the international stage.

[BigPheces]

Got ya Smile, that makes sense, and hopefully the UN will open their eyes and see that without direct representation of ALL countries (is that even posible really? I'm not sure...) there can always be another "Coalition of the Willing" formed, despite the majority of the globe opposing their actions.

On a side note, the Iraqi elections seem to have gone decently well for all but the Shi'ites, even if most voters didn't know who they voted for or what their agendas were. Hopefully since 60%+ citizens voted, people will start to see the collective will of the Iraqi people to be self-goverened and work together to get foreign troops out of there. Though of course I could be being incredibly naieve and hopeful with my outlook of the "elections"...

[2cool4stats]

the only value we are trying to spread to my knowledge is choice.

That's extremely gullible. Oh well. It must be the "American Freedom" thing kicking in again.

[MacRasta]

Nice MM!

So that means that Bush will have his pipeline... :bondage:

Welcome Smile, Nice seeing your POV, changes things a bit. Hope you stick around!


i agree with you totally that until people can see beyond theyre different beliefs there will never be everlasting peace.

I think well get there, younger generations now are growing up togheter more often. We'll eventually get used to each other, but maybe not in our lifetimes.

I do also totally agree with you that Bush isn't ever going to win this war, they'll have to "flee" one day. Shame is that a lot of people got killed for a pupeteer up in the White House. If there where oilfields in mid-Europe, France would be the enemy. Everybody knows about their WMD's....

My opinion is that AMERICAns themselves should stand up against the funkerz.

MacR

PS : Shit AT, cuz of you I got that agreeing thing going on..!! :schizo:

[lotrfan55345]

Welcome Smile, Nice seeing your POV, changes things a bit. Hope you stick around!


Yeah, I don't think we have a muslim person on the forum yet and it would be interesting to see things from a muslim's POV. :2thumbs:

[Keeblergiant]

Yeah, I don't think we have a muslim person on the forum yet and it would be interesting to see things from a muslim's POV.

Isn't Godsgifttomankind muslim?

[lotrfan55345]

Isn't Godsgifttomankind muslim?
I though he/she was christian... but IDK. I don't usually go to the religion forum.

[MetalMilitia]

By the way - Thousands Were Turned Away From Polls - http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20050201-1421-iraq.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq – Iraq's interim president said Tuesday that tens of thousands of people may have been unable to vote in the country's historic weekend election because some polling places – including those in Sunni Arab areas – ran out of ballots.

If true, the allegation that many voters were turned away could further alienate minority Sunnis, who already are complaining they have been left out of the political process.

"Tens of thousands were unable to cast their votes because of the lack of ballots in Basra, Baghdad and Najaf," al-Yawer, himself a Sunni Arab, said at a news conference. Najaf is a mostly Shiite city but Basra and Baghdad have substantial Sunni populations.

Why didn't they just fly in DIEBOLD machines? Haha

[dutchie]

Two questions for smile:

Do you think there should be a separation between state and religion in a muslim country, or do you believe in a theocracy, ruled by ayatollahs and / or imams?

Do you think shariah law should be implemented in muslim countries? And if yes, should it apply to all citizens, regardless of the fact that citizen HAS a religion at all, or has another religion, i.e. Christian or Jewish?

Just curious...

[smile]

Two questions for smile:

Do you think there should be a separation between state and religion in a muslim country, or do you believe in a theocracy, ruled by ayatollahs and / or imams?

Do you think shariah law should be implemented in muslim countries? And if yes, should it apply to all citizens, regardless of the fact that citizen HAS a religion at all, or has another religion, i.e. Christian or Jewish?

Just curious...

hi

islam is not just a religion it is a way of life. detailed within its teachings are laws, ways of life and so on. we belive these have been given to us by God. God is all knowing and so we as humans cannot change these laws and teachings.

in a muslim country (a proper muslim country not just a country where the majority of the population is muslim) there can be no separation between religion and state. the leader is an elected leader who is a representative of the people. this is not heridatary and so each leader is chosen by the people (i don't know the exact method or details but this is my understanding of it). the leader may well be an Imam but he may not be.

if a country is a muslim country then shariah law has to apply. this is a system of law given to us by God. if a state wants to classify itself as a muslim state then, in my eyes anyway, the shariah law has to be implemented.

as for this law applying to non-muslims why shouldn't it? the shariah law as far as i am aware doesn't ask for people to convert to islam. i live in England which is a Christian country. the laws have been established and built over time with heavy involvement by the Church, but people of all faiths are bound by them. if a non-muslim wishes to live in a muslim country under the shariah law then he/she must abide by the laws of the land.

the problem in this world is that noone really understands the shariah law. all we in the west here about on the media is how barbaric it is and all that crap. the shariah law is much more than capital punishment of execution and stuff. it governs land ownership, trade, rights of defence, everything.

in short for a muslim country to be a muslim country there cannot be any separation between state and religion. Yes the shariah law must be implemented and it must apply to everyone.

Islam is a complete religion and if you want a muslim state you have to do everything. you cant pick and choose what you like.

[smile]

Yeah, I don't think we have a muslim person on the forum yet and it would be interesting to see things from a muslim's POV. :2thumbs:

i can't speak for all muslims but i can give my own views.

[dutchie]

God is all knowing and so we as humans cannot change these laws and teaching.

in a muslim country (a proper muslim country not just a country where the majority of the population is muslim) there can be no separation between religion and state. the leader is an elected leader who is a representative of the people. this is not heridatary and so each leader is chosen by the people (i don't know the exact method or details but this is my understanding of it). the leader may well be an Imam but he may not be.

if a country is a muslim country then shariah law has to apply. this is a system of law given to us by God. if a state wants to classify itself as a muslim state then, in my eyes anyway, the shariah law has to be implemented.

as for this law applying to non-muslims why shouldn't it? the shariah law as far as i am aware doesn't ask for people to convert to islam. i live in England which is a Christian country. the laws have been established and built over time with heavy involvement by the Church, but people of all faiths are bound by them. if a non-muslim wishes to live in a muslim country under the shariah law then he/she must abide by the laws of the land.
Ah. But there we differ in POV!! In the UK as well as in Holland (and many other countries) the laws might originally be based on christian morality - but not on christian law. Over the centuries much has changed in these laws to come to a stage where just morality is left and the christian principles are left out. There is a clear separation between state and religion, as it should be. I do not believe in Allah, and I do think that stoning women to death as a punishment for going astray or having sex before marriage might be in the Quran, but it's still barbaric and very open to all sorts of abuse (which in fact is rule, not exception).

the problem in this world is that noone really understands the shariah law. all we in the west here about on the media is how barbaric it is and all that crap. the shariah law is much more than capital punishment of execution and stuff. it governs land ownership, trade, rights of defence, everything.So in fact you don't NEED the shariah, because secular laws could govern those just as well...


in short for a muslim country to be a muslim country there cannot be any separation between state and religion. Yes the shariah law must be implemented and it must apply to everyone.

Islam is a complete religion and if you want a muslim state you have to do everything. you cant pick and choose what you like.
This means that there is no tolerance whatsoever in a muslim state towards non-muslims when differences in morality are considered - therefor you contradict your own words about the multicultural society: you want it and enjoy it where you are in the UK, but you reject this same society for a muslim state. That's double standard in my book.

[smile]

Ah. But there we differ in POV!! In the UK as well as in Holland (and many other countries) the laws might originally be based on christian morality - but not on christian law. Over the centuries much has changed in these laws to come to a stage where just morality is left and the christian principles are left out. There is a clear separation between state and religion, as it should be. I do not believe in Allah, and I do think that stoning women to death as a punishment for going astray or having sex before marriage might be in the Quran, but it's still barbaric and very open to all sorts of abuse (which in fact is rule, not exception).
So in fact you don't NEED the shariah, because secular laws could govern those just as well...


This means that there is no tolerance whatsoever in a muslim state towards non-muslims when differences in morality are considered - therefor you contradict your own words about the multicultural society: you want it and enjoy it where you are in the UK, but you reject this same society for a muslim state. That's double standard in my book.

ok time out.

do you know the shariah law? your understanding of it is just as vague as mine. therefore you cant go around dissing it!

what i am saying in my post is that we as muslims believe that God is all-knowing as do Christians and Jews. how then can we change laws laid down by him? if we changed these laws then we might aswell give up our religion because we are saying that we know better than God.

your comments about a multi-cultural society are all messed up! look at the Muslim Empires they included people of all faiths. Islam requires all muslims to respect people of all religions especially those religions that believe in one God. my comments were answers to the questions posed by duthcie. i answered them as best i could. however as ive said i am by no definition of the word an authority on islam or any aspect of it. i am a muslim and i learn new things everyday about my religion. one of the most basic principles of my religion is that everyone should be treated equally and with respect. that is the basis of a multi-cultural society.

im not going to bother commenting on your statement regarding tolerance as it is an opinion and thats all. just because there is no separation of state and religion doesnt mean it is not a tolerant society.

the main point is tht neither i nor you are an authority on Islam or the Shariah Law. Until we have a better understanding of this i would not want to comment on it as it will be opinion based on hearsay and that is all.

i stand by my comments in my original post.

you cannot pick and choose parts of a religion. you have to go the whole way. you cant be a muslim state if you do not have the muslim law. your comments seem to say that you believe a religious state cannot be a multi cultural state. why not? i find your statements slightly repulsive. islam is in essence a religion of peace. i as a muslim can believe an islamic state can be a multi-cultural state. i cant back this up with evidence but it is based on my attitude and the attitudes of most the muslims i know, towards people of different religions and backgrounds.

i think thats all i can say for now... i'm starting to babble...

[dutchie]

I have no understanding of the set of laws that is implemented in Holland.. Do you have profound knowledge of all of the laws in the UK?

The punishments I have seen being carried out in the name of the shariah are plain barbaric. Cutting off hands, stoning. I have seen footage of a young boy beaten to death with a stick, just for blasphemy... I don't need an understanding of the law to see that these punishments are basically wrong, medieval and barbaric.

Don't weasel out of a discussion, just because the arguments which are used aren't to your liking. I did not try to offend you in any way - to fundy christians I am usually much less lenient...

[smile]

I have no understanding of the set of laws that is implemented in Holland.. Do you have profound knowledge of all of the laws in the UK?

The punishments I have seen being carried out in the name of the shariah are plain barbaric. Cutting off hands, stoning. I have seen footage of a young boy beaten to death with a stick, just for blasphemy... I don't need an understanding of the law to see that these punishments are basically wrong, medieval and barbaric.

Don't weasel out of a discussion, just because the arguments which are used aren't to your liking. I did not try to offend you in any way - to fundy christians I am usually much less lenient...

im not weasling out of discussion.

i am merely pointing out that we do not have knowledge of the shariah laws. our impression of them is formed almost completely by what we see and read in the western media. this is a totally biassed media.

all that we hear about here in the west is wat you speak off. have you heard about any of the other applications of these laws? are the countries who are carrying out these laws using them in the way they were intended? have certain aspects of the law been taken and used to build a different set of laws?

I cant answer these questions and neither can you.

how can people who profess that they believe in theyre Lord the all knowing then change his word? it is a basic belief that the Qu'raan and the basic beliefs of Islam including the Shariah are given to us by our lord and that we cannot change these in any way.

i answered your first questions the way, in my eyes any muslim would. your second set off points i couldnt reply to as i dont have the knowledge to do this.

wat i did say is that without a proper understanding of the islamic laws there is no way you or i can make comments like "This means that there is no tolerance whatsoever in a muslim state towards non-muslims when differences in morality are considered". in order to make these statements you need to know what the Shariah law says about these.

we both have a greater understanding of the laws of our respective countries than either one of us does about the Shariah Law. we can both comment on these laws as we livunder them and they affect our everyday life.
e
i'm not trying to dodge a discussion but im not willing to discuss something of which i have no real understanding in the depth that you wish to discuss it.

[Strife]

Hopefully this may settle things between you two Dutch and smile.

http://muslim-canada.org/Islam_myths.htm

I haven't finished reading it myself, but it seems to hold some possibilities in filling the gaps in your knowledge of Islam.

[smile]

Hopefully this may settle things between you two Dutch and smile.

http://muslim-canada.org/Islam_myths.htm

I haven't finished reading it myself, but it seems to hold some possibilities in filling the gaps in your knowledge of Islam.

thanks for the link strife.

dutchie i think this article answers most of your questions and provides some reasoning.

regarding multiculturism:

There are over 1.2 billion Muslims today world-wide, over 20% of the world's population. "By the year 2000, one out of every four persons on the planet will be a Muslim," Rittat Hassan estimated in 1990. There are 35 nations with population over 50% Muslim, and there are another 21 nations that have significant Muslim populations. There are 19 nations which have declared Islam in their respective constitutions. The Muslim religion is a global one and is rapidly expanding. The sheer number of Muslims living today makes the idea of putting Islamic Law into a footnote in contemporary writings inappropriate.

Islam is a multi-cultural religion! culture and religion are two different things though they are heavily influenced by one another. but with the great number of muslims in the world from all points of the globe there are a great many cultures within the Ummah.

this article just highlights our ignorance of the Shariah Laws. i admitted my ignorance and you went on a rant saying "The punishments I have seen being carried out in the name of the shariah are plain barbaric. Cutting off hands, stoning. I have seen footage of a young boy beaten to death with a stick, just for blasphemy... I don't need an understanding of the law to see that these punishments are basically wrong, medieval and barbaric.".
the article says that Muslim Judges have a great deal of flexibility in what punishments should be used for the lesser crimes with set penalties and punishments only for the worst crimes. the most common punishments for least serious crimes are "counselling, fines, public or private censure, family and clan pressure and support, seizure of property, confinement in the home or place of detention, and flogging. "
these punishments are not barbaric OR medieval.

your thoughts?

[DarkAce]

Apparently you haven't been following cases in recent months in Iran or other predominately muslim countries in which the extremist versions of islam are enforced. *Cough* the Taliban?
I think you need to read up on your history if you think Islam is a peaceful religion. Perhaps it started out as one, but it sure hasn't seen that light in ages. Equality? Heh.
It seems you're desperatly trying to defend your faith without properly understanding what it actully is that people are opposed to and critiquing, while you turn a blind eye to history and many documented cases which say quite the contrary to what you believe.

I'm just going on from what I've read from the last couple of posts, but I'll continue on if the above isn't suffice enough for your skewed views.

[stewey]

This was a war on terror. Saddam paid every Palestinian suicide bomber's family $10,000. That is supporting terrorism.

[DarkAce]

If you're trying to use that as justification, then there are a whole lot of other countries that would/will be invaded including the US by those terms. But they won't because that really wasn't one of or possibly even a concern for going in when they initially said they were.

That reason has to be a notch above the one I've heard that
mUsLimZ aRe tEh sux0rzzz!!

...for worst justification for the Iraq war.

[smile]

Apparently you haven't been following cases in recent months in Iran or other predominately muslim countries in which the extremist versions of islam are enforced. *Cough* the Taliban?
I think you need to read up on your history if you think Islam is a peaceful religion. Perhaps it started out as one, but it sure hasn't seen that light in ages. Equality? Heh.
It seems you're desperatly trying to defend your faith without properly understanding what it actully is that people are opposed to and critiquing, while you turn a blind eye to history and many documented cases which say quite the contrary to what you believe.

I'm just going on from what I've read from the last couple of posts, but I'll continue on if the above isn't suffice enough for your skewed views.

i dont feel the need to "desperatly" defend my religion.

please provide links for the acts you are referring to and the history you are referring to. then i might provide an answer for you.

i am not denying that many things have been done in the name of Islam however similar acts have been carried out in the name of other faiths.

Bush has used religion to get the support of the hicks in america calling people who decide to defend theyre land "evil" and "wrongdoers". he claims that God is on his side. therefore his actions in making war on Afghanistan and Iraq and threatening the world with "your either with us or against us" can be seen as another crusade and another religious war.

i know wat i believe. i believe in being nice to people whoever they are and what ever theyre background. if you visited a muslim country you would be welcome very warmly (as a friend of mine found on visiting Pakistan). i believe in telling the truth and not being cruel. in addition to this i try to pray five times a day and one day hope to make a pilgrimage to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. i live off what i earn and do not accept money i have not worked for. i am a muslim in my heart and try my best to be a good person.

as i said i dont feel the need to justify or defend my religion. and i'm not going to.

turning to iraq and justification for war, stewie have a look at this site:
http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/library/wonderful/index.php (http://)

dont you think there should be a "coalition of the willing" landing on the beaches of florida? surely if providing money to "terrorists" is illegal then the US deserves to be punished :grin

[dutchie]

http://www.geocities.com/saudhouse_p/prince2l.htm


Misha'il was the granddaughter of Prince Mohammed ibn Abdul Aziz, the same Prince Mohammed who had been passed over for the crown because of his father's ruling that the ferocious behavior of a warrior
had no place on a throne.

While I did not have a close friendship with Misha'il, I had met her at various royal functions. She was known in the family as a rather wild girl. I thought perhaps her unhappy temperament was related to her
marriage to an old man who failed to satisfy her. Whatever it was, she was miserable and became romantically involved with Khalid Muhalhal, who happened to be the nephew of the special Saudi Arabian envoy to Lebanon.

Their love affair was hot and filled with the tension caused by the impossible social climate of Saudi Arabia. Many members of the royal family had heard of their illicit relationship, and when the young couple were on the brink of discovery, they made a fatal decision to run off together.

My oldest sister, Nura, was in Jeddah at the time and heard the story firsthand from a member of Misha'il's immediate family. Misha'il, fearing the wrath of her family, attempted to stage her own death. She told her family that she was going for a swim at their private beach on the Red Sea. Misha'il piled her clothes on the shore, then dressed herself as a Saudi man and tried to flee the country.

Unfortunately for Misha'il, her grandfather, Prince Mohammed, was one of the shrewdest and most powerful men in the country. He did not believe she had drowned. Officials manning all exits from the country were alerted to search for the granddaughter of Prince Mohammed. Misha'il was caught-intercepted trying to catch a flight from the airport in Jeddah.

Telephones were ringing all over the kingdom, with each royal professing to know more than the next. There was a rumor a minute. I heard that Misha'il had been set free and allowed to leave the kingdom with her lover. Then I was told a divorce would be granted. Later, a hysterical cousin called and claimed that Misha'il had been beheaded, and that it had taken three blows to separate her head from her body. Not only that, Misha'il's lips had moved and had called out her lover's name, causing the executioner to run from the scene! Can you imagine, my excited cousin asked, words from a bodiless head!

Finally, the very real and ugly truth was made known. Prince Mohammed, in a fit of anger, said that his granddaughter was an adulterer and that an adulterer should submit to Islamic law. Misha'il and her lover were going to be executed.

King Khalid, who was our ruler during this time of tragedy, was known for his indulgent nature. He recommended that Prince Mohammed show mercy, but mercy was not an agreeable emotion for that fierce Bedouin.

On the day of the execution, I waited with my siblings for news. My sisters and I hoped for a last-minute reprieve. Ah, not surpnsingly, expressed the opinion that adulterous women should submit to the laws of Islam and prepare themselves for death.

On that hot day in July of 1977, my cousin Misha'il was blindfolded and forced to kneel before a pile of dirt. She was shot by a firing squad. Her lover was forced to watch her die. He was then beheaded with a sword.
This is the execution that was seen on Saudi television and later on through the entire world. A mere child was shot and her lover beheaded. Shariah law at work.

[dutchie]

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/saudi/justice.html


JUSTICE IN SAUDI ARABIA

Human Rights Concerns
International organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have investigated claims about the harsh justice system in Saudi Arabia. They've interviewed scores of detainees, both nationals and foreign workers. There are many serious concerns and activists have written reports such as Saudi Arabia: End Secrecy, End Suffering to shed light on this highly secretive justice system.

The Shariah
Criminal cases in Saudi Arabia are heard by the General Sharia (or Islamic court). The last stage of judical review is by the Supreme Judical Council. This 11-member body reviews judgements handed down in major cases. In cases of captial punishment the sentence needs to be approved by the Royal court. These courts interpret the Shariah or Islamic law. The Shariah is known as 'the word of God' and is based upon the Koran.

Many of the laws are vaguely worded which means individuals can be arrested and imprisoned on religious or political grounds. Once arrested detainees are held incommunicado and are denied any contact with family members or lawyers.

Reports of Frequent Torture
Prisoners have stated that they were forced to sign false confessions. Methods of getting prisoners to sign include electric shock, cigarette burns, nail-pulling, beatings and threats to family members. There are reports that some prisoners have died as a result.

Secret Court Hearings
The prisoners frequently know nothing about their cases, do not attend their trials and often aren't even informed when they have been convicted. This adds to unnecessary suffering because many have no idea why or how long they will be in jail or whether they face execution.

Court hearings are held in secret which means that the families of the defendants as well as the general public are denied the right to be present. The hearings last between five minutes and two hours - even for the most serious cases.

No guaranteed legal defense
Defendants have no right to a lawyer and have little opportunity to mount a defense. Many are denied the right to call witnesses and evidence that may have been gathered during the investigation is hidden from the defendant. The judge acts as the defendant's lawyer and questions the prosecution.

Acccording to Amnesty International while some laws in Saudi Arabia refer to detainees having lawyers, it is rare.

Defendants can be convicted solely on the basis of confessions which may have been extracted by torture. Many people are suffering in Saudi prisons because they were forced to sign these 'false' confessions.

Corporal Punishment
Flogging and amputation of limbs are used extensively as judicial punishments. They can be applied to many offences ranging from alcohol and sexual offenses to theft. Men, women and children are flogged in prisons and in public squares around the country. There is no upper limit on the number of lashes judges can order. The most lashes ever recorded was 4,000 given to an Egyptian national who was convicted of robbery.

Death by Beheading
Saudi Arabia also has one of the highest rates of executions in the world. This sentence can be applied to a wide range of offenses including 'witchcraft' and 'sexual crimes' both considered 'corruption on earth'.

The death sentence - by beheading - is often carried out in public in what's know to locals as 'Chop-Chop' Square in Riyadh. Saudi ambassador designate to Britain claims that "We do not consider the punishment of beheading as either abhorrent or against human rights." The punishment for death is beheading under the law of the Shariah.

Prisoners often receive no warning that they are about to be executed. They are taken to a public square, blindfolded and forced to kneel and are beheaded. Most prisoners are not allowed to visit with family before they are executed, in fact, most families are notified only after the prisoner is dead.
Remember, we're talking Saudi Arabia, the very heart of Islam.

[dutchie]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sampson/interview1.html

William Sampson: This is death by beheading. There is an extreme sanction called al-Had where your head is partially severed and you are fixed to an X planted in the ground, and allowed to expire that way. That's the most extreme sanction allowed under law, which is what I was ultimately sentenced to. But at the time this was going on, what they were stating I was guilty of was a crime that would result in my being beheaded, and I was terrified.

[Bigsky770]

. . .Happens commonly with applied Islamic law, I recall Micky having posted months ago on this forum another news story from Iran, where a teenage girl was executed for unruly behavior. :bncry: Good examples as to why "Extremist Religous Fundamentalists" of ANY religion need to be eradicated.

Joe (Bigsky770)

[substand]

How about the daughter who was killed by her mother because she refused to kill herself after her brothers raped her?

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1103/honor_killing.php3 is just one source that mentions this disgusting lady.

[MetalMilitia]

This was a war on terror. Saddam paid every Palestinian suicide bomber's family $10,000. That is supporting terrorism.If you are referring to the Palestinian / Israeli conflict, you should do a little research on the # of killed and wounded on each side - you might be suprised to see how lopsided the numbers are.


Remember, we're talking Saudi Arabia, the very heart of Islam.And a good 'friend' of the US.
Good examples as to why "Extremist Religous Fundamentalists" of ANY religion need to be eradicated.Would that include Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell? Would that include Bush who uses his own religious beliefs to push his agenda?

EDIT : To those who were wondering why I included Bush ;)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050204-123546-6730r.htm

[smile]

its obvious to me now that the people in this forum who have commented on the Sharia Law are only out to bash Islam. i have said all i can about the law. the law itself is fair and just it is the implementation in countries today that is at fault. all these countries have adapted the law to suit the rulers and the elite in these countries.

was the law applied properly in the cases you have mentioned? what evidence was given at the trial? was there a trial? these questions need to be answered before you can make a judgement on the Sharia Law.

[substand]

its obvious to me now that the people in this forum who have commented on the Sharia Law are only out to bash Islam. i have said all i can about the law. the law itself is fair and just it is the implementation in countries today that is at fault. all these countries have adapted the law to suit the rulers and the elite in these countries.

was the law applied properly in the cases you have mentioned? what evidence was given at the trial? was there a trial? these questions need to be answered before you can make a judgement on the Sharia Law.

Amin, smile, if you will =) ... I beg you to stay and educate us. With all my heart, I want you to stay here and tell us your views. With all my heart I want you to help explain to everyone the true nature of Islam. With all my heart I want to beleive Islam is a religion of peace. I want to beleive Islam allows for self-determination and
free-will. It is very dear to me. Over half my family is Muslim. However, my dad is often stubborn and I cannot talk to him about these issues without inflaming our relationship.

I know that the members of my family are not murderous traitorous fools. I know they would not kill anyone randomly, given the chance. I know they would not kill me for my speaking against God, nor would they kill my sister for not wearing a veil in public. I also assume they would kill me if I raped my sister.... or at least I hope they would.

I want to beleive Islam allows all these things. But it is hard. And I hope to explain to you why it is.

"Was the law applied properly," you ask? Perhaps not. Was there a trial even? Probably not. And I don't think these are the true "problems" people have with the Sharia. For instance, we have morons claiming they are the true "muslims" while they bomb innocents who go to nightclubs or grocery stores in Israel. We have morons who claim they are true "muslims" when they fly planes into the WTC. We have morons who claim they are true "muslims" when they murder thier daughter because thier sons raped her. We have morons who claim they are true "muslims" in Iran, where there is no popular choice (http://www.constitutionallychallenged.com/home/slar-120403.cfm). Even in the MOST "islamic" government in the world, where there is no DOUBT that the Ayatolla Khomeni (not the pres, but the vali) based the entire law off of the Sharia, they instituted "temporary" 1 or 2 night marriages so that people could be promiscuous. They called them marriages so they wouldn't break the Sharia. Is that in the true spirit of things?

Accordingly, I don't think that many people's problem is with the Sharia (though I don't know it well). I know its not against Islam in particular. Well, let me take that back, I don't think the religion that inspires law is people's problem. In most cases on this board, I have learned that most people are not religious. I am. But I still hold hope for Islam, in its people and governments that are spawnded from it. But you seem to be explaining Sharia as it "was meant to be." Not as it has turned out to be.

You say that God teaches us these rules. They are immutable. How can we change them, seeing as how they are God's rules?

My problem is not often with "what God teaches." It is with how we implement His teachings. God may never be wrong, but man is. The girl i posted about before- who was raped by two of her brothers. Her family asked her to kill herself. She refused. So her mom killed her. Her mom got off with next to nothing, as it was an honor killing.

I don't know that this is in the Sharia or not. But it is definitely practiced in the world of Islam, as it is a quite common occurence.

Islam, IMO, is in need of an "Enlightenment," just as Chistianity went through several hundred years ago.

Perhaps everyone is against what you have to say... but as I said, I want to beleive the best, and I would appreciate someone who can help me in that aspect. So I appreciate you.

Thanks Amin,

Sammy ibn Khaled al-Arbi

[smile]

substand i appreciate the sentiment expressed in your last post i really do.

there is a great deal of free will within Islam. the sharia law however is a law that encompases moral issues of society within it. the case you spoke of regarding a young girl who was killed after her brother raped her is not a case of the sharia law. very often people mistake a culture of a country for the religion of a country. i dont know where this case took place, but where i originate from in pakistan tribal law takes precedent over all other law. issues are resolved within the family without involving the proper authorities. the case you speak of says the mother asks her daughter to kill herself. i am convinced that this is not islamic law. in order for it to be islamic law it would have to be taken in front of a judge. it doesnt sound like this case did that.

the penalty for rape as i understand it is 100 lashes for the rapist if unmarried, or death by stoning if married,as it would then constitute adultery.

honour killings are a cultural thing not an islamic thing. in islamic law as i understand it, if a man murders someone he is liable for the death penalty (as in many other countries, the us included) however the ultimate penalty is decided by the family. they can expect "blood money" as a way of resolving the issue, they can ask for the death penalty to be imposed or they can forgive the man.

honour kilings are practiced in the islamic world however they also extend into many of the other countries in the asia, africa and south america. it is not entirely a phenomonen that occurs in muslim countries.

you talk of people doing things in the name of islam. these people do not represent all muslims. they area minority. i do not agree with nor do i support the attacks on the US on 9/11. no sane person would. the pentagon is a legitimate military target but the WTC is not.
just a thought though, on 9/11 3000 people were killed, how many muslims have died since?

as for palestine. i cant say i agree with the attacks on civilians. i can however understand the actions taken by people who see theyre homes destroyed, families and friends killed, land stolen. the jews have suffered greatly over time, however they now inflict that same suffering on the palestinian people.

i have great sympathies for the palestinian people.

the palestinians have a right to self defence just as the israelies do. they have no other means of defence. dialogue doesnt work because the leaders of both countries are not willing to try this.

as for iran again it is the implementation of the Sharia Law in these times that is at fault. as i said in my previous posts the sharia law has been interpreted in such a way that it benefits the elite of these countries. laws in practically all countries are created by the rich to favour the rich. in the UK they are proposing to take incapacity benefit away and introduce more stringent testing of illnessess. incapacity benefit is a very small sum of money and the justification for this is an attempt by the labour government to appear to be on the side of middle class conservatives.

please forgive the rambling nature of this post ive run out of time and cant read through it to make it make more sense. i think ive said most of wat i wanted to say though.

[DontBeAfraid]

Who should th US hold responsible for the "military" attack on the pentagon? Which foriegn body?

[dutchie]

Don't get me wrong, smile - I hold no grudge against you, muslims or the Islam in general. It's EXACTLY like substand says: we have no problem with what islam was intended to be, we have a problem with what is has turned out to be in an overwhelming nr of cases and countries.

Are you happy with the way any country in the world where Islam is part of the governmental system handles things, and I name the judicial system just as a (important) part of those things?? Please name such a country!! Where people, man AND women are FREE to do as they please, to ventilate opinions FREELY, to be an active member of an opposition FREELY, to be a free member of a modern world...

I don't just want to point a finger at Islam ALONE... There is the great example of the USA, where clearly Christian religion is constantly being mixed into populist speeching to capture the approval of that community (the size of it should in no way be underestimated..) and to generate the feeling that the almighty is on America's side, no matter what plans it (the USA that is) has for the world...

In conclusion: I am for a clear and undebated division between church/religion and state, since no good can come of a system that could abuse these to suit their purposes - and I make no exception for Islam or Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism or whatever. The point I made is clear: there is NO country in the world where a theocracy really WORKS - if you think otherwise, name me at least ONE.

[substand]

if you think otherwise, name me at least ONE.

not that I think otherwise, but does Vatican City count? =)

[dutchie]

:Llol: ...do you really think a theocracy works over there, like I pictured it? No way.... Try to open a condom shop there... LOL!!

[substand]

...do you really think a theocracy works over there, like I pictured it? No way.... Try to open a condom shop there... LOL!!

Yeah, I might have to smuggle them in and sell them from my trenchcoat! To whom, I'm not sure. Maybe some forward thinking young Catholic lad whose mind is still open for molding.

[smile]

[QUOTE=dutchie] we have no problem with what islam was intended to be, we have a problem with what is has turned out to be in an overwhelming nr of cases and countries.[QUOTE]

you guys make me laugh! you have no problem with what Islam was intended to be?! i have the distinct feeling that even if Islam and its Laws was fully implemented you would still have serious issues against it. you deeply resent the idea of state and religion mixing together and cannot see beyond your prejudices. Islam and its Laws are one and if implemented properly there would be no separation between state and religion.

what you want is for Islam to be adapted to make it more acceptable to the west. this is not acceptable.

[dutchie]

Then Islam creates its own problems, smile. Refusal to go along with the flow of general development of the world will keep islamic countries in the dark ages for all time. Mixing of church and state will ALWAYS lead to abuse of either and oppression of citizens.

BTW, you failed to name even ONE country where this system has been leading to a general state of freedom for all its inhabitants. I know enough.

[substand]

Some interesting quotes from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/campaigns/iran/casey.xml

about Iran and some of the ideas behind it being governed by the Sharia


The Twelfth and last Imam is said to have disappeared into a cave in the ninth century. But he is not dead - simply "in occultation". He is called the Mahdi, and will one day reappear when, along with Jesus Christ, he will initiate a reign of peace and justice upon earth - what we would call the New Jerusalem. Only his reign will be a truly legitimate government - all present governments are at best shadows, more often hideous perversions - of what is to come. So Shia Islam - like English Puritanism - has powerful utopian, Messianic elements, and is viscerally suspicious of secular rulers.

And the secular rulers whom it has encountered have always been the shahs. This was behind everything the Ayatollah said. I returned to the question: "But I still don't understand whether you think this Islamic republic is the will of God. Suppose a settled majority of the population, say in a referendum, voted to return to a secular state - would you accept it?"

Again he was frank: "It is not the people whose votes we should respect - but only the religious people. Ours was not just any sort of revolution - it was an Islamic revolution." Next day, Dr Habib got in touch with me.

....

"Islam gives us the principles of human government. It is not we, the clergy, who devised the Islamic republic - it is inherent within Islam, and within Shi'ism itself."

...

Again, I brought up the question of the Islamic Republic: "There was a famous English historian, called Lord Acton, who said: 'All power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Why should that not be true of your clerical government?"

"That is indeed the temptation. We teachers are loved by our students - when we are loved - for our humility and simplicity. That is why we teach sitting on the ground - it is a sign of humility. So power is a danger for us."

...

"Yes - of course. If this government is corrupt, the people will hate the ayatollahs, they will hate Islam, and they will do so for years and years. But whatever our current difficulties, we cannot give up our ancient hope. The Islamic Republic has revived our ancient Shia dream of a just society obedient to the laws of God.''

...

I put to him Ayatollah Tabatai's view that what mattered was not the votes of the people, but of "the religious people" - with the assumption that this meant that the Islamic Republic could not be ended by a mere democratic procedure.

"No - if the people vote for secularism, we are obliged to accept that decision. Any government not acceptable to the people is contrary to Islam - Khomeini thought that, too."

...



I've always found it interesting how the Shia beleif that no government is legitimate unless it is ruled by the Mahdi is reconciled with "forcing people to live under Sharia" is reconciled with "Any government not acceptable to the people is contrary to Islam" is reconciled with the obvious distaste of the regime by most of the Iranian people.

Is there no room in Islam for free will? I understand that it commands one to live by the rules, just as any religion commands of its followers. And that if you beleive that God knows best, then you must inherently beleive the rules are right (unless you note that they were written by and are interpreted by fallible man). However, I don't see where it commands that there can be no free will. That government must enforce God's rules, as if there were no God to do his own enforcing (presumably in the afterlife, if we agree that man has free will).

[substand]

BTW, you failed to name even ONE country where this system has been leading to a general state of freedom for all its inhabitants. I know enough.

I think the problem with coming up with "one country where this system has been leading to a general state of freedom" is that there is only one country really where the sharia is the law of the land, which is Iran. Saudi Arabia is very conservative, but I don't think it can be said that it is ruled in accordance with the Sharia.

[smile]

i didnt name a country where the sharia law has been implemented properly because as i have said in my previous posts there is no such country today. several countries have imposed parts of the laws in order to satisfy the muslim majorities within their countries but none have implemented the law properly.

any man or woman who is given power in any position be it in government or in some corporation has the ability to abuse that power. you speak of a general state of freedom for all the people, where in the world is this true? the post 9/11 west has turned into a paranoid beast that is intent on monitoring and restricting the movements and activities of its own citizens. while people like yourselves go around touting your free speech and values they are slowly being ripped away right under your noses.

have any of you asked people in majority muslim countries whether sharia law should be implemented? i truly believe that if a survey was to be done a significant majority of people would say yes we want the sharia law.

as for free will in Islam.

all muslims have free will. we have five pillars of islam the declaration of faith,prayer, fasting in the month of ramadan, zakaat (charity) and the pilgrimage. once you have made the declaration of faith you are a muslim. the prayers, fasts and zakaat are compulsory if you are able. the hajj is only for those who can afford it.

all muslims have the choice to carry out these duties or not. you can be a practicing muslim or not. practicing muslims are promised reward in the afterlife. the Prophet (pbuh) has said that all Muslims will enter paradise at some point.

yes islam does ask for perfect behaviour but we are not perfect we are only human. we all make errors and if we do something that is against our religion we will be punished for it. it is the same in every other religion.

what separates man from the animals is free will. Allah "writes down" everything that could possibly happen to every person on the planet. He predicts every choice that a person could possibly make. it is up to the individual to choose an option. that is free will.

the laws of God have been given to us to live by. the elected leaders of a muslim state are there to enforce these laws. your comments regarding this are ludicrous! would you suggest the leaders dont punish those who have committed a crime because we know they will be punished in the afterlife?

[dutchie]

any man or woman who is given power in any position be it in government or in some corporation has the ability to abuse that power. you speak of a general state of freedom for all the people, where in the world is this true? the post 9/11 west has turned into a paranoid beast that is intent on monitoring and restricting the movements and activities of its own citizens. while people like yourselves go around touting your free speech and values they are slowly being ripped away right under your noses.
Not true. I live in Holland, a country reknown for tolerance and absolute freedom of speech. It was PRECISELY that freedom of speech that got moviemaker Theo van Gogh shot six times, a knife in his belly and his throat slit. By a muslim. Clever action. Works wonders on our tolerance.

[MacRasta]

What about the Maldives? I know they are 100% Muslim, but I dunno if they have anything to do with that sharia law.

You can't bring alcohol over there, no religious symbols of whatsoever, all Maldive men do only the household jobs, with Indian and Sri Lankan people working behind the bars.

MacSlim

[substand]

the laws of God have been given to us to live by. the elected leaders of a muslim state are there to enforce these laws. your comments regarding this are ludicrous! would you suggest the leaders dont punish those who have committed a crime because we know they will be punished in the afterlife?

It depends on the crime. If the crime is committed solely against oneself (or solely against oneself and God) then absolutely I would allow them to go free and be punished in the afterlife. If the crime is committed against another person, however, then I would punish the perpetrator in this life.

[dutchie]

Of course criminals should be punished. ...but (partial) beheadings? ...lashing?

And why is it that (some, mind you, not all..) muslims see it as their prerogative to "punish" people outside their own country? I feel I have a right to abide to the rules set by my own judicial system - I do not feel the need to shut TF up, because muslims don't like what I am saying, or because I do "crimes" (not regarded as such under my own system) that are punishable by death under shariah law. I don't want to be a muslim and I don't want to be a christian. I don't want to abide to any rules set by any religion. I want my freedom. Which doesn't mean my own sense of decency, taught to me by society, prevents me from doing crime. I don't need to know the law by heart to have a good sense of what can be done and what not.

Laws are there to PROTECT a society from wrongdoers. NOT as a tool for oppression - to give a government a way to keep their citizens under their thumb.

[smile]

Of course criminals should be punished. ...but (partial) beheadings? ...lashing?

And why is it that (some, mind you, not all..) muslims see it as their prerogative to "punish" people outside their own country? I feel I have a right to abide to the rules set by my own judicial system - I do not feel the need to shut TF up, because muslims don't like what I am saying, or because I do "crimes" (not regarded as such under my own system) that are punishable by death under shariah law. I don't want to be a muslim and I don't want to be a christian. I don't want to abide to any rules set by any religion. I want my freedom. Which doesn't mean my own sense of decency, taught to me by society, prevents me from doing crime. I don't need to know the law by heart to have a good sense of what can be done and what not.

Laws are there to PROTECT a society from wrongdoers. NOT as a tool for oppression - to give a government a way to keep their citizens under their thumb.

wat the hell are you talking about?!!

some muslims seek to punish people outsode theyre own homelands who? bin laden? he is fighting because he doesnt like the presence of american forces in his homeland. i dont agree with him but tht is why he is fighting. he is not fighting for islam or freedom of muslims or anything.

ill turn your question back on you why is that some christinians and jews seek to punish people outside their borders? why do these people see it as theyre prerogative to"punish" people outside their borders? please get your head out of your arse and smell the air.

where in the world are muslims punishing people for transgressions of the Sharia Law outside their borders?

and i thought we had established that shariah law has two courts. one for the trial of muslims under laws that only apply to them and one that is applicable to all muslims. the shariah laws do not extend beyond borders. if you were living in a muslim country you would be expected to live by the laws of the land. i personally couldnt care less what you say. you can say what you want but it is only decent and polite not to insult people. i wouldnt make any derogative comments about anybodies most personally held beliefs and i wouldnt expect you to.

i like your last comments. maybe you should let the americans know this.

substand what is a person against oneself and a crime against another person?

[dutchie]

wat the hell are you talking about?!!

some muslims seek to punish people outsode theyre own homelands who?

the shariah laws do not extend beyond borders.
Remember Khomeini's fatwah against Salman Rushdie?


When Ayatollah Khomeini called on all zealous Muslims to execute the writer and the publishers of the book, Rushdie was forced into hiding. Also an aide to Khomeini offered a million-dollar reward for Rushdie's death. In 1993 Rushdie's Norwegian publisher William Nygaard was wounded in an attack outside his house. In 1997 the reward was doubled, and the next year the highest Iranian state prosecutor Morteza Moqtadale renewed the death sentence. During this period of fatwa violent protest in India, Pakistan, and Egypt caused several deaths. In 1990 Rushdie published an essay In Good Faith to appease his critics and issued an apology in which he reaffirmed his respect for Islam. However, Iranian clerics did not repudiate their death threat.

Since the religious decree, Rushdie has shunned publicity, hiding from assassins, but he has continued to write and publish books. However, on September 1998 the Iranian government announced that the state is not going to put into effect the fatwa or encourage anybody to do so. According to interviews, Rushdie has decided to end his hiding. On February 1999 Ayatollah Hassan Sanei promised a 2,8 million dollar reward for killing the author.

Why are you getting upset? You have a right not to give a damn about my opinion. I never insulted you in any way. Why are you so hot headed?

[smile]

Remember Khomeini's fatwah against Salman Rushdie?

Why are you getting upset? You have a right not to give a damn about my opinion. I never insulted you in any way. Why are you so hot headed?

salman rushdie insulted islam and believe he deserves everything he got.
check this link out: http://victorian.fortunecity.com/coldwater/439/rushdie.htm

it is an article entitled Salman Rushdie and the Misrepresentation of Islam.

bearing in mind that he is/was a muslim as far as i know.

another thing to think about is that the fatwah made by khomeini is not really valid as such. only someone who is leader of all muslims and is accepted as such by all or most muslims can make a fatwa.

debate and criticism of islam in my eyes is ok. its just the manner in which rushdie did this that deeply hurt and angered the global muslim community. he describes the companions of the prophet as a "bunch of riff-raff", "goons" and "f**king clowns". he describes a brothel opposite the great mosque in Mecca and there are 12 whores who bear the names of the 12 wives of the prophet. he mocks the rituals of the Hajj.

it is the way in which he made these comments that insulted and angered the muslim community. his words were insensitive and he deserved what he got.

other than mr rushdie who else? bearing in mind that bin laden cannot make a fatwa. he is not a religious authority and can't make a fatwa.

[DontBeAfraid]

So when you offend me with WORDS YOU FUCKING FRUIT; You beleive that I should murder you? When you express an opinion that offends me you deserve to be murdered?

Guess what you are a fucking clown. The companians of the prophet were a bunch of fucking clowns. Your mother and the prophets wives were whores.

Are you offended? Will you now murder me?

Shut your fucking mouth before you say something somebody doesnt like.

[substand]

substand what is a person against oneself and a crime against another person?

a crime against oneself- drinking alcohol, for instance. taking drugs. disbeleif in God, etc.

a crime against another person- murder, theft, rape, fraud, etc.

[dutchie]

salman rushdie insulted islam and believe he deserves everything he got.Sorry for my belated response - I was down with the flu. Did you intentionally twist your sentence around by not including the word "I" between "and" and "believe"?
Does a simple insult - however grave YOU feel it to be (and remember, beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder...) constitute enough reason to actually KILL a person?!? Is that your idea of tolerance? Freedom of speech?

another thing to think about is that the fatwah made by khomeini is not really valid as such. only someone who is leader of all muslims and is accepted as such by all or most muslims can make a fatwa.That's all theory and you know it. 1.: there is no such person 2.: look what really happened to the poor sod...


debate and criticism of islam in my eyes is ok. its just the manner in which rushdie did this that deeply hurt and angered the global muslim community. he describes the companions of the prophet as a "bunch of riff-raff", "goons" and "f**king clowns". he describes a brothel opposite the great mosque in Mecca and there are 12 whores who bear the names of the 12 wives of the prophet. he mocks the rituals of the Hajj.

it is the way in which he made these comments that insulted and angered the muslim community. his words were insensitive and he deserved what he got.
So? Is plain anger over an insult enough reason to kill? I (hardly ever but sometimes) use insensitive words to my wife; is that enough reason for her to terminate me?

other than mr rushdie who else? bearing in mind that bin laden cannot make a fatwa. he is not a religious authority and can't make a fatwa.
To be honest, I don't give a hoot about the technicalities of Islam. What I do care about is the intolerance towards other religions, the oppression of muslims in muslim countries, the violations of basically ALL human rights and the total disrespect for women. You can talk all you want about the theoretical beauty of islam, to me action speaks louder than words.

[smile]

Sorry for my belated response - I was down with the flu. Did you intentionally twist your sentence around by not including the word "I" between "and" and "believe"?
Does a simple insult - however grave YOU feel it to be (and remember, beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder...) constitute enough reason to actually KILL a person?!? Is that your idea of tolerance? Freedom of speech?
That's all theory and you know it. 1.: there is no such person 2.: look what really happened to the poor sod...


So? Is plain anger over an insult enough reason to kill? I (hardly ever but sometimes) use insensitive words to my wife; is that enough reason for her to terminate me?

To be honest, I don't give a hoot about the technicalities of Islam. What I do care about is the intolerance towards other religions, the oppression of muslims in muslim countries, the violations of basically ALL human rights and the total disrespect for women. You can talk all you want about the theoretical beauty of islam, to me action speaks louder than words.


ive just been lookin through my previous post and saw this sentence "please get your head out of your arse and smell the air." i apologise for that. it wasnt supposed to be there wrong screen, wrong conversation.

neway.

no i didnt twist my sentence to leave out the "i", its just the way it came out as i typed it. i hardly ever plan wat im typing in forums like this, i just ramble on until i think ive answered all the points or stop making any sense.

however i do believe he got what he deserved. i've never been very good at arguing much but i know what i believe. when i try to put my thoughts across in words sharp people like yourselves always pick something out.

i feel no sympathy for salman rushdie and wouldnt call him a poor sod. and what i said regarding a fatwa is the truth according to islam. the only legal fatwa according to islam is one that is declared by a leader of all muslims who is elected from them.

i do believe there are some things in this world that go beyond "simple" insults. to what extent do you allow freedom of speech at the expense of decency and respect?

with regard to your last paragraph are you saying that the civilisation in the west is perfect? women are whored in all forms of the media, alcohol and drug abuse has led to massive social problems that are destroying the fabric of society, there are massive problems with regards to poverty.

to be honest with you its all fair an good having a society that allows you to do what you want to your body but there should be limits. something like alcohol and drugs do more than damage your own body. alcohol and drug ab/use has wider social implications. the state has to support people when/if they become ill as a result of these actions. and then theres the criminal implications of alcohol and drug ab/use.

you could go on to say that drug abuse in the west has global implications on the economies of some "third world" countries and the population of them. but thats just a side thought.

as for total disrespect for women - ask my mother and sisters if they are disrespected. they are not. a muslim woman is more respected than women in most western cultures. the Prophet (pbuh) has said that "heavan lies at your mothers feet". the popular interpretation of this is that to keep your mother happy and to look after her is a basic duty of a muslim. as for the general respect for women i have been raised to respect women and the majority of muslims i know respect women. when i was in Pakistan a little while back i didnt see any glaring evidence of disrespect for women. however it must be noted that a large number of cases in the "third world" of abuse of womens rights are a result of tribal laws which are cultural and not religious.

you can hold whatever opinion you wish though your last paragraph seems to make sweeping generalisations that are not true of islam.

just as a side thought ive rephrased dutchies last paragraph:

Intolerance towards other religions (Bush's Crusade and the demonising of Islam since its birth), the oppression of muslims in muslim countries(The US in Iraq & the Jews in Palestine) , the violations of basically ALL human rights (Palestine, Guantanamo Bay & Iraq) and the total disrespect for women (bushs legions havent had much respect for anyone be they man or woman). :D

but be that as it may im not sure but i think ive answered the points raised by dutchie and substand. now onto dontbeafraid.

your a turd. enough said. you are the lowest form of life known to man. would you voice these opinions in public? or would you be aware of the pain and hurt they would cause? would this deter you from saying these things in public? or are you a totally insensitive worthless thing?

[dutchie]

I can't blame you for defending your religion - let that be clear. I agree with all you said when comparing the wrongdoings of the USA and others in response to the points you made. But that is besides the point. In a clever way your avoiding the main issue between us here (as off topic as it has become, but never mind...) which is:

Has the Islam grown to become a religion of love and tolerance, or is reality quite different from its theoretic basics and Islam has become the main haven of intolerance and oppression? Has Islam become something entirely different from what it initially was intended to be? To what extent could the Islam blame itself for what is happening on a global scale when using the word terror(ism)?

Of course you could place the same questions with any other religion, but let's not take that evasive path again - let's now concentrate on these questions and answer them with some thought and intelligence, not placing the blame on someone else straight away. Honest introspection and self criticism never hurt anyone.

Now remember: answering these questions could take two entirely different routes. I'll let you decide which one it will be.

BTW: apology accepted. I never intended any insult or offense - I still don't.

[dutchie]

your a turd. enough said. you are the lowest form of life known to man. would you voice these opinions in public? or would you be aware of the pain and hurt they would cause? would this deter you from saying these things in public? or are you a totally insensitive worthless thing?
Don't you recognize irony or sarcasm, even when it's grinning you right in the face?!? Lighten up, man.

[DontBeAfraid]

Would you kill me for my opinion? You would certainly wish me dead. You are the lowest form of life. If words cause you "pain and hurt" you need to grow the fuck up.

I got an idea. Why dont we go to war because I think your mother is a whore and dare to say it?

Free Speech is Free Speech. Opinions, no matter how insensitive, should not be met with murder. If you dont want to hear them then dont listen.

Dutchies last paragraph and his "generalizations" are only confirmed by your attitude.

[smile]

Has the Islam grown to become a religion of love and tolerance, or is reality quite different from its theoretic basics and Islam has become the main haven of intolerance and oppression? Has Islam become something entirely different from what it initially was intended to be? To what extent could the Islam blame itself for what is happening on a global scale when using the word terror(ism)?

Now remember: answering these questions could take two entirely different routes. I'll let you decide which one it will be.



ive never intentionally been evasive or clever for that matter!

i accept that islam is not implemented properly in terms of leadership, however islam as with every other religion is more about the people who follow it than theyre leaders.

the majority of muslims world wide are peaceful people who are very tolerant. if you were to visit pakistan i can gaurantee that you would be treated like royalty.

Islam is not entirely different from what it was intended to be. the people who follow the religion will testify to that.

islam is practiced differently in different parts of the world - however this has more to do with culture than anything else. the main muslim countries are steeped in history and so this interaction is inevitable. it is hard for people to ditch long established traditions.

with regard to terrorism i dont see the link between terrorism and islam. there is a very fine distinction with what is described as terrorism and freedom or resistance fighting. with regard to islam and terrorism the link is determined by its coverage and use in the western media. the constant demonising of islam has created "islamophobia". with regard to the Palestinian conflict it has been proven the western media is totally biassed towards Israel. Palestinians are said to attack and terrorise and the israels are said to defend.

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=6988

i remember before 9/11 US relations with Russia were pretty sour. during this period the Chechnyan rebels were known as freedom fighters. after 9/11 Russia became a friend and it was long before the rebels became ruthless terrorists.
i believe the struggles of the Palestinians and the Chechnyans as examples are true causes undertaken by a oppressed people. some of theyre methods are not very nice however in view of what they face and what they have to fight with i cant say i blame them.

what i am trying to get at is that as far as i can see there is nothing for the west to fear from the muslim world. all that is needed is some equality in representation in the world. this is not only for Muslims but also for the worlds poor in general. the reason that people fight is they are hungry or they feel they have been treated unjustly. in order to tackle this we in the western or more developed world have to consider what they really need. do we really need all these luxuries? what can we give up?

you'll probably accuse me of evading the question again if i go on so in answer to your questions no.

No islam is not a haven for intolerance and oppression. i am a muslim i am not oppressed and am very tolerant of other faiths and belief systems. this has been taught to me by my parents as part of my faith. i have visited a country that is predominatly muslim and have found it to be a fairly tolerant country and none of my female relatives there seemed to be oppressed. in fact they were happy. my parents speak of theyre youth in pakistan with fond memories. my mother was not oppressed and led a happy life with her family - then again she has three older brothers who would beat the crap out of anyone who says anything to her!

No islam is not entirely different from what it was intended to be. that is to say it is not unrecognisable as the system that was revealed. different interpretations and interactions with different cultures has resulted in some ambiguity with regard to what is islam and what is culture (arranged marriages for example).

No Islam is not to blame for "terrorism". it is more to do with the global injustices faced by the worlds poorest people.

i dont understand what you mean by your last comments! is that a threat? :D

dontbeafraid what i am trying to say is there is a difference between saying things over the internet and saying things to a persons face. everything that i have said on this forum i would say to your face were we to meet. would you say these insenstive and offensive things to a muslim?

[dutchie]

i accept that islam is not implemented properly in terms of leadership, however islam as with every other religion is more about the people who follow it than theyre leaders.Were that only true!! The world would be a far better place!!


the majority of muslims world wide are peaceful people who are very tolerant. if you were to visit pakistan i can gaurantee that you would be treated like royalty.I do not doubt your word on that. I have met many muslims whom I found to be very friendly and hospitable. I hold no grudge against muslims. I do not hate their religion. I thought I had made that clear enough by now...


Islam is not entirely different from what it was intended to be. the people who follow the religion will testify to that.
islam is practiced differently in different parts of the world - however this has more to do with culture than anything else. the main muslim countries are steeped in history and so this interaction is inevitable. it is hard for people to ditch long established traditions.Is it not true that it's precisely the other way around?!? There is such a thing as islamic culture.. The differences in behavior between islamic nations IMO stem more from the external influences than from their cultures..


with regard to terrorism i dont see the link between terrorism and islam. there is a very fine distinction with what is described as terrorism and freedom or resistance fighting. with regard to islam and terrorism the link is determined by its coverage and use in the western media. the constant demonising of islam has created "islamophobia". with regard to the Palestinian conflict it has been proven the western media is totally biassed towards Israel. Palestinians are said to attack and terrorise and the israels are said to defend.I can understand that you say this, and you do have a point. However - the main bulk of international terrorism now comes from factions that label themselves as islamic. Why do you think that is so? And precisely NOW??

i remember before 9/11 US relations with Russia were pretty sour. during this period the Chechnyan rebels were known as freedom fighters. after 9/11 Russia became a friend and it was long before the rebels became ruthless terrorists.
i believe the struggles of the Palestinians and the Chechnyans as examples are true causes undertaken by a oppressed people. some of theyre methods are not very nice however in view of what they face and what they have to fight with i cant say i blame them.Getting 10 year old kids to blow themselves up doesn't fit my idea of legitimate freedom fighting...


what i am trying to get at is that as far as i can see there is nothing for the west to fear from the muslim world. all that is needed is some equality in representation in the world. this is not only for Muslims but also for the worlds poor in general. the reason that people fight is they are hungry or they feel they have been treated unjustly. in order to tackle this we in the western or more developed world have to consider what they really need. do we really need all these luxuries? what can we give up?While this is true for some countries (most of them in Africa), most islamic countries are rolling in money: the oil states are just an example. Most of the wealth never reaches their peoples though - the governments are just too corrupted.

No islam is not a haven for intolerance and oppression. i am a muslim i am not oppressed and am very tolerant of other faiths and belief systems. this has been taught to me by my parents as part of my faith. i have visited a country that is predominatly muslim and have found it to be a fairly tolerant country and none of my female relatives there seemed to be oppressed. in fact they were happy. my parents speak of theyre youth in pakistan with fond memories. my mother was not oppressed and led a happy life with her family - then again she has three older brothers who would beat the crap out of anyone who says anything to her!That's the kind of freedom I mean! Why would they do that? Isn't she entitled of having a life? Of communicating with whoever she wants? Of having friends?


No islam is not entirely different from what it was intended to be. that is to say it is not unrecognisable as the system that was revealed. different interpretations and interactions with different cultures has resulted in some ambiguity with regard to what is islam and what is culture (arranged marriages for example).Just as "calvinistic" culture can't be detached from day to day life in Holland, Islam can't be detached from the culture customs.

No Islam is not to blame for "terrorism". it is more to do with the global injustices faced by the worlds poorest people.The inuits are poor. Do they have terrorist groups? The Mongolians are poor. Seen any Mongol suicide bombers lately? The Ghanese people are so poor, they're selling their children. Any Ghanese pilotes flying into tall buildings?
Terrorism is not about poverty. Bin Laden is stinking rich. Terrorism is about POWER, about HATRED, about FEAR. But it needs a soil to grow on...


i dont understand what you mean by your last comments! is that a threat? :DIt is clear you don't. I meant this: you can either choose to defend (again) or you can opt to do some introspection. Which one do you think you chose?!?

[smile]

Were that only true!! The world would be a far better place!!

I do not doubt your word on that. I have met many muslims whom I found to be very friendly and hospitable. I hold no grudge against muslims. I do not hate their religion. I thought I had made that clear enough by now...

Is it not true that it's precisely the other way around?!? There is such a thing as islamic culture.. The differences in behavior between islamic nations IMO stem more from the external influences than from their cultures..

I can understand that you say this, and you do have a point. However - the main bulk of international terrorism now comes from factions that label themselves as islamic. Why do you think that is so? And precisely NOW??
Getting 10 year old kids to blow themselves up doesn't fit my idea of legitimate freedom fighting...

While this is true for some countries (most of them in Africa), most islamic countries are rolling in money: the oil states are just an example. Most of the wealth never reaches their peoples though - the governments are just too corrupted.
That's the kind of freedom I mean! Why would they do that? Isn't she entitled of having a life? Of communicating with whoever she wants? Of having friends?

Just as "calvinistic" culture can't be detached from day to day life in Holland, Islam can't be detached from the culture customs.
The inuits are poor. Do they have terrorist groups? The Mongolians are poor. Seen any Mongol suicide bombers lately? The Ghanese people are so poor, they're selling their children. Any Ghanese pilotes flying into tall buildings?
Terrorism is not about poverty. Bin Laden is stinking rich. Terrorism is about POWER, about HATRED, about FEAR. But it needs a soil to grow on...

It is clear you don't. I meant this: you can either choose to defend (again) or you can opt to do some introspection. Which one do you think you chose?!?

ok im gonna make a list of things so i cover your main points
1. Islam is not more than the leaders
2. You do not hate Islam
3. Islam and interaction with culture
4. Islam and terrorism
5. Chechnya and Palestine
6. Poverty as a reason for war and definition of terrorism
7. My mother is oppressed :D
8. defence and introspection

ok we have a list lets start to answer your points

1. Islam is more than its leaders seeing as many muslim countries today have theyre leaders installed by western governments and are kept in power by them. and it is not only muslim countries - there is an extensive history of manipulation of governments by western powers. anyway how can you say that islam isnt more than the leaders when the majority of the people are not the leaders?! do you think all americans and brits would want to be judged by the actions of their leaders? i dont think they would.

2. i accept that you do not hate islam but you do hold some very deep prejudices towards it.

3. yes there is such a thing as islamic culture but there is also a thing as pakistani culture and within pakistan, for example, there are different "castes" of people who have their own little traditions that are then intermixed with islamic culture. the caste system itself is not islamic but the people of the subcontinent did not give up this aspect of the hindu culture. in addition to this several other things were retained for example ways of celebrating religious festivals, marriage rituals and so on. this is the case around the world. the opposite of these positive influences are examples of tribal violence, forced marriage and so on. that is what i was trying to get at.

4. Islam and terrorism - labelling yourself islamic does not make you islamic i could call myself a jew but it wouldnt make me a jew.

at this point ill jumble the poverty question in with terrorism and palestine and chechnya. they all seem to be linked to me.

islam permits people to defend themselves. muslims are not to start wars. if we are attacked we are permitted to fight. 10 year old suicide bombers may be an awful reality to be faced with however what do you think drives a family to allow their child to do such a thing? how much would you have to suffer to make a decision like that? im talking about all suicide bombers now. how much would a person have to suffer to do something like this? it is a bad habit of people in the west to think of people in the poorer areas of the world as less than human. you cant take this view. you have to think about the situation by placing yourself in the same situation. these people are the same as you and me.

legitimate freedom fighting? after all that has been documented about the oppression of the Palestinians and the Chechnyans you would question the legitmacy of their cause?! they have seen their families killed, their women abused, their houses demolished, their land stolen wat more would their oppressors have to do in order for their cause to be legitimate? i have every sympathy for their cause and i truly believe that they shouldnt have to make the sacrifices they do make. however the reality of this world is that the poor and the powerless will suffer. with the worlds lone superpower vetoing every attempt by people to stop the israelis from treating the Palestinians in such a barbaric manner and noone paying any attention to the Chechnyans other than when some russian soldier dies what do you expect them to do?

that is what i mean by proper representation. people like them need people who can get something done representing them. then they can stop sacrificing theyre children.

moving on to wealth - the governments are rich but the money never reaches the people because their leaders are too corrupt - who put these governments in power? who keeps them there? you can relate this point back to my earlier point on governments not relating to the people and islam being more than theyre leaders.

just as a couple of links:
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/russia/chechnya/
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/10/18/isrlpa9507.htm
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/new_web/palestinian_killed.htm
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/new_web/release_officer_shot_iman.htm

now onto point number 7.

so my mother is oppressed. my comment about her brothers was a joke. any big brother would seek to protect his sisters i know i would.
my mother has loads of friends she is not oppressed. she comes from a small village where she lived on a farm. in this area there were very little educational facilities but she learned how to read. in pakistan these days there are eqaul opportunities for everybody in all but the most rural areas. several of female cousins are better educated than most young girls in the west.

believe me when i say that my mother is not oppressed and i truly believe her parents offered her all the opportunities she wanted. i have a feeling my mother was actually spoilt as a child as she was the only daughter and the youngest child in a family of four children.

with regard to point 8 i just write what i believe and tht can be interpreted however you wish. i am getting the impression that we are goin around in circles though!

theres a saying "live and let live" i suggest we do that otherwise we could be arguing for ages and to be honest i dont have the time - im stuck wrkin 7 days a week

[MacRasta]

i am not denying that many things have been done in the name of Islam however similar acts have been carried out in the name of other faiths.


Don't get me wrong, smile - I hold no grudge against you, muslims or the Islam in general. It's EXACTLY like substand says: we have no problem with what islam was intended to be, we have a problem with what is has turned out to be in an overwhelming nr of cases and countries.

I think it's up to the common people to drop all sects, that'll take care of a lot of problems, especialy in politics.

The use of "rules" of all sects are easily twisted for any convenient solution to any nuance in interpretation to every brainwashed "tribe"... in all ages...we are in a new dark age, no choice but to let pass a few generations before we can get along better, and respect each other. But(t) before we can do that, the popoulus must drop all sects...

That's my opinion anyway.....

MacBorg

[DontBeAfraid]

My point is that it doesnt matter WHAT I WOULD SAY TO YOU. You would have ZERO justification to kill me for words. If I knew you and knew that words could upset you like they do I would certainly call your mother a whore. Do you not understand that sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me?

The more you get upset by words the more I beleive them to be true. You would murder a person for stating that the prphets wives were all whores? It must be true.

[substand]

i believe the struggles of the Palestinians and the Chechnyans as examples are true causes undertaken by a oppressed people. some of theyre methods are not very nice however in view of what they face and what they have to fight with i cant say i blame them.

This may need to be in another topic area, but i'll post it here cuz it sort of fits as well. I was pondering this question the other day (about if it is ok to target innocents because you have no way else to fight), and as it turns out, it occurred to me that terrorists have done thier best to defeat traditional armies in cities. Take Mogadishu or Grozniy (for the Russians) for instance. Now, I'm not saying that Israel is likely to pick up its army and move it some place far, far, away because it has a couple of dead soldiers, but one might plausibly conclude that if terrorists can win against armies in cities (because the "moral" countries whose armies are dying cannot stomach all the killing), they might attempt to target armies in cities. But they are still attacking innocents.