Peace

It's one thing to want to be americanized, and it's another thing to want to be "americanized". To come to america, immediately convert to Christianity, change your name to Paul, isn't americanization, it's an attempt to conform to some your backgrounds. To come to america, accept liberal values of freedom and democracy, and to be an active and respectful member of the community is what it means to be truely American. I was born in America and I'm still Hindu, my family speaks Tamil, and my mom wears Saris on nice occasions. And btw, on terms of coming to "your" country and taking up "your" culture, my sister recently picked up the Navajo language while doing Americorps. I guess that's really picking up "your" culture.

As a Hindu, I agree with the statements about the age of the universe, the age of the world, and the insignificance of the Human race. To begin with, it

In all honesty, I think the sprinkling of Rose Water and chanting of spells sounds pretty un-Islamic. I'd be surprised if he yelled Allah ho Akbar hai. Of course, I could also see God sitting up there wanting to backhand him for being such an idiot. The only pity is that even though he's a mental patient, he won't be able to get the medical attention he deserves. In third world countries, they still think that you can whip someone back into sanity. =/

As an Asian-american, I've noticed that there is a great instilled idea of ethnocentricism and racism that runs though the South Asian community in the United States. Unlike what most people would think, the racism is directed more strongly against the African American individuals. Common views on other races: Muslim/Arab Americans: Religious fanatics East Asian Americans: Culturally unstable individuals with desperate need to be americanized. Black Americans: Poor and often associated with criminal activities. White americans: Loose values, and lacking refined morality and social skills. Latino Americans: Not intelligent It's a sad fact that these ideas have been transferred over to the first born Indian american generation as well. Most individuals in the desi community will often not make friends with Latino or Black Americans and will at most costs look down on individuals who marry non-"Desis". I believe that at it's essense a lot of this has to do with the views instilled in Indians by the British Culture that propogated a lesser human value on individuals of African Descent or Latin American Descent. Furthermore, I think American media causes South Asians to associate loose morals with White Americans. Unlike racism among Americans of European Descent which involves formation of hate groups that can be easily targeted and be restricted or disbanded by goverment officials, racism in the South Asian community is a deeply instilled cultural norm that doesn't have any legal repercussions. How is it possible to change these values? By what means can the South Asian community learn to accept their neighbors and come to respect them as having "culture".

Actually, as americans...we always need a bad guy. The American public, due to it's long standing relationship with the Classical Hero myth; the Travails of the Cowboy, and the modern Super-man obsession, always needs a bad guy. It's a pity that our nation sees things in such crisp and clear "good guy" and "bad guy" stereotypes. At the end of the day, most of us feel that Saddam deserved death because he was a "bad guy". Great, aren't we a mature bunch of individuals. Hail! Ceasar has been killed, our Hitler is gone! The american media is obsessed with taking any political individual and painting either a halo or horns on their head. And we, the american people, swallow it...sorry to have to turn to vulgar references...but like a whore who got a large tip for the blow job. Saddam was bad, Bush is good, Taliban is bad, Kurds are good. How disgusting that we throw massive generalizations over such complex political, ethnic, and social scenarios. That's why people everywhere are disgusted by us. And now that we don't have that villain crawling in the corner about to attack us...we have to find a new one. Because at the end of the day, if we don't have a villain, then we cease to be heroes.

I never knew there were so many douches in the world.

Oh damn we've got a bunch of hippie-haters here. Maybe it's best to state where I am on a personal level. I'm a strict Hindu who does Lakshminarayan Puja every morning before going to classes. This involves doing surya namaskaram at 6 am and then doing Vishnu Sahasranaam (reciting the 1008 names of vishnu) I have never had sex, and am planning on abstaining until marriage. After marriage, I'm planning on not only restricting myself to one individual, but restricting my sexual life to only certain nights of the week that are ordained clean by my religion. I expect my partner to have the same values and same practices as I do. I personally feel that sex is a pleasurable sensation but is primarily meant for producing offspring and second as something to literally cosummate a marriage. To finalize the marriage. And I don't plan on ever breaking that pact. If my partner ever files for divorce, I'll probably never get married afterwards. My culture states that sexual relations were meant to be had with one and only one person. Forever. Finally at the age of 50, I plan on taking the vow of brahmachariya, which means no Sex whatsoever. This is a vow that was taken by many men in my family at that age. Since I feel that after that age, both my spouse and I can't have any more children, than we shouldn't have sex either since there's nothing useful that will arise from sexual interactions. On a personal level, I will never think of committing abortion, divorce, or homosexuality. I also hope to find a partner who agrees with me. And I hope to instill these values in my children. I live by values that would make any self-respecting hippie want to take a gun to my head and shoot me while screaming "FREE LOVE". LOL. So for all those who feel that just brushing off my argument as those of some field-prancing hippy, fuck you. I was not talking to you anyway. My post was directed only to those americans including the guy who started this forum who feels it's appropriate to go fucking sluts at the corner of some sketchy alley while she snorts coke up her nose. For him, I feel that since he can't commit to a one-on-one relationship, I feel an open marriage would be best. If you don't like it, then fuck off and go get married and be happy with that person. I don't feel it's right to force my values of commitment, religious values, and abstaining from sex on those who it's not meant to work for. There are plenty of americans who are going to get into marriages that are not going to work due to their lack of commitment. There are millions of people who are going to get an STD because their partner couldn't keep their pants up or their skirt down. What's wrong with that person just being honest about the fact that they're horny as hell and just get into an open relationship with someone where they can discuss their extra-marital sexual lives and make sure that both partners are only having sex with "safe" partners. I'd rather that then watch some innocent wife or husband die because their spouse couldn't be honest about his/her extramarital relations and because society is unwilling to accept people who can't make the strong commitment that I've made. If you don't like open marriages, then don't have one. Noone's going to take a gun to your head and say you have to let your spouse fuck whoever she/he wants. However, if both individuals in a marriage don't mind that the other partner is getting sexual pleasure from other partners, then what's so wrong with that? I personally don't have any right to go around saying someone's actions are moral or amoral since I'm neither god nor the law and hence have no right to judge someone else's actions. Since both adults are consentually doing this, noone is getting hurt. It also prevents the spread of disease and the occurence of rape and sexual molestations of minors that occur when people become highly sexually frustrated and have to turn to secretive methods of fulfilling their sexual desire. I'm all for bring down sexual crime and ending the spread of STDs.

I never during my previous post did I ever mention that I wanted an open marriage. I just said that it's something that people should start to consider. I agree that relationships aren't about sex. The perfect relationship is one that is based off of mutual understanding, respect, and unconditional love. But sexual drive is something that needs to be understood and respected. To sexually desire someone other than the one you're married to is not unnatural . Considering that most animals have multiple mates, we do have animal instincts that cause us to desire more than one mate. It makes sense in the genetic sense. We're trying to spread out genes as far and wide as we possibly can. From an evolutionary standpoint, it's part of our genes to desire to have as much sex with a variety of individuals. However, we are human too. There are sensations that go beyond the animal instincts. We desire commitment and love. It doesnt' change the fact that a huge percentage of the population commits adultery. And majority of them state after the fact that they still love their committed partner more than the individual they slept with. And it still tears apart many marriages that would have been otherwise healthy. Not all people can make that sexual commitment. For those individuals, sorta like the guy who started this topics, if his partner was open to the idea, an open marriage would be very healthy. Sexual pleasure need not be emotional. It can be purely physical. My post isn't asking for all individuals to have an open marriage. For many people, a one-on-one continuous eternal relationship is a reality. However, for those whose eyes wander. Instead of hiding the situation, why not be honest about it and find someone who can also create an open relationship.

Personally, I'm all up for open marriages as long as both individuals know about the situation and there are reassurances made to prevent the spread of STDs (testing and safe sex). I think it's a great way to bring new sexual excitement to a relationship and hey, it's fun. In america today, majority, and yes majority, of marriages have one of the individuals cheat on the other individual. What to do about it? Why make it cheating? Allow both individuals to sexually explore their world, with honesty, and be able to bring back their discoveries to the bedroom. Further, it allows both people to appreciate the person that they are married to better. Maybe this was a little to "liberating" for most people who read this...

Laden is sorta like the cookie monster. LOL The only point of my last post was my reaction against a post by Mohammad_Rots_in_Hell. Sadaam Hussein = Adolf Hitler Bin Laden = Heinrich Himmler Taliban = Gestapo Islamic Fundamentalists = The SS I guess I can sort of see that. Islam = The Nazi Part Muslim = Nazi And this is where MIRH comes up with generalizing statements as he always does. Ironically, in the arguments that I've had with him before, he's consistently told me that he has nothing against most Muslims, but it's the philosophy of Islam itself that he dislikes. Which is odd, because he quickly associated all Muslims with Nazis in that last post. So why my post? I was just trying to show that anyone can go and easily make comparisons with two contrasting ideas and even go as far to write proofs surrounding them. Yes, I think my arguments are ridiculous. I really don't honestly think that Adolph Hitler has anything to do with a small red puppet that giggles when you squeeze its belly. But look, I can write out a proof for it. Hey, I could have kept on going. Anyone can go as far to pull a random assortment of facts to prove that two ideas are related, if they put their mind to it. However, it doesn’t mean that the two actually are similar ideas. It just shows that one can debate in a convincing manner. And hey, if it's easy to write a proof about these comparisons, it’s even easier to go onto a forum and write generalizing statements like Islam is to the Nazi party and Muslims are to Nazis without any explanation. But I'm just saying that even if I requested an explanation, I'm pretty sure that someone could pull out some obscure statistic that Islam has always supported a terrorist campaign and that all 1.2 billion Muslims are just as ruthless as a party that had campaigned against the Jews, Homosexuals, and Gypsies. But if in reality, if we were to compare these concepts, we'd see they were apples to oranges. One of the fundamental concepts behind Nazism was the belief in a superior race. Other races were biologically inferior and could no way ever choose to hold themselves comparable to the superior race. Islam considers Muslims to not be superior but in a way the ultimate inferior. As Islam means "to submit", in terms of submission to god, the Muslim is the ultimate "submitter". Just as a side note: A lot of individuals feel that "submission" is harsh and feudalist term, but seen in the historical context, it makes sense. Similar to the use of the term, Lord, in the bible, as to describe God. Also, Muslims don't consider non-Muslims to be more inferior or following an incorrect fold, as Nazis did to the “non-Aryans”. Actually, Muslims have a term for Christians and Jews (and themselves) called Ahl Al-Kitthab which means People of the Book. It just means a general acceptance that their scriptures and beliefs are valid. Nazis had never ever felt that different races were on the same platform as them. They saw the world as a hierarchy with themselves being the ultimate. In the end of the day, all I'm saying is that not only was the Islam = Nazism argument faulty, but this need to consistently turn to comparisons to Adolf Hitler and Nazism to assert one's point is also a faulty method of debate. I think we've all heard Godwin's theory. That whenever a debate occurs, the longer the debate extends, the probability of a reference towards Hitler or the Nazi party becomes 1, or definite. At that point, the debate ends, and the one who mentions Hitler, automatically wins. Because of course, they have immediately mentioned that any denial of this comparison is similar to the denial of the massacre of the Jews. Hence, they create a "hey If you don't support our idea, then you're against us...and hence evil" theory. Ironically, Hitler was the biggest supporter of this theory. ...and also the guy to ask when it comes to comparing a group of people to evil...

Elmo = Adolf Hitler You might wonder why? Think about this, a highly beloved public figure. Often considered to be very loving of children. However, creates a new and perfect world which places individuals of contradicting opinions (other Sesame Street characters) outside where they're limited in their moving space to "concentration camp" worthy sections of the show. In other words, elmo is trying to push the other sesame street characters, out of his show, and out of mind. A forced disappearance of a group of individuals. McDonalds = Gestapo A highly systematic and organized heirachy that uses modern tactics to slowly, but surely kill off a part of society. However, under the bright and shiny uniforms and the cold smiles, their intentions remain hidden. The Trix Kids = Nazi Yes, Depriving a person of their natural rights. Whether that may be the right to live in peace, a right to live with dignity, or the right to live eating Trix, they divide society into two groups: Those who are worthy of these rights, and those who are unworthy. They're displayed on television in bright and exciting colors, with messages that strike fervor into any respectable citizens hearts, while still spreading messages of hate. We need to do something about this...

For one, I'm not running through fields of roses screaming peace. I feel that war is a necessity in many situations; ie/ self-defence, protection, and maintaining of stability. However, I'm not about to jump onto your boat and run around killing muslims either. Maybe it's because I'd lose many good friends and family members in the process. You call me a pansy? Let me ask you "skaterdude" when was the last time you experienced a riot? Hmm? Have you ever seen people killed? When I was only eight years old, my school teachers gathered up all the students and ran to the Air India complex in Mumbai. From there, I heard thousands being butchered. And you know what? I was no f ing hero. I covered my ears and prayed and cried, because when you experience the kind of hatred that mankind has, there is nothing more that you can do. Needless to say, third grade was my first and last year of schooling in India. In a moment, I feared the "muslims" with my whole mind and body. But I realized something...not then but many years later...Not all 1 billion members of the religion are out to get me...F That!...my very own F ing teacher who had saved all our lives, was Ms. Begum...a muslim. Thousands of my friends sit here without understanding the world. They pickup the newspaper and read about a couple hundred muslims rioting. While they sip their tea and sit in their f ing sofa, they don't realize what it means to die or to kill. I have never once ever ever denied that what the angry protesting muslims have done is good. If anything, my only goal is to prevent something like that every happening again...whether by muslims, or to muslims. You say fie upon those muslims who have butchered dozens of individuals, but praise those who have retaliated against the muslims. Do you really feel that those who are committing the revenge, are attacking the rioters? Have you no remorse for the fact that there are fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, friends, classmates in that crowd of people. Muslim is merely a title, it doesn't place a value on a person's life. Some of my closest friends have been muslim. I met a girl in college, who is now studying in college in Pakistan. I can't convince you that she's a sweet person. However, if you were to meet this girl, you'd be so amazed. You know, she's a person like any other. She has crushes, she cries, tells jokes, sings, drinks, studies, etc. But for the mere fact that she decides to profess a religion, I could never ever even joke of putting a gun to her head. I have never once supported terrorism in my arguments, but if you people feel that saying to kill all 1 billion muslims...including children, women, elderly, young, lovers, scholars, mothers, fathers...is not terrorism but some form of defense...then may god have mercy on your souls. Peace, Shanti, Salaam

My question is...what do you have to actually say about the proof I presented?

"The game was utter bullshit. seattles 12th man wears blue and green, pittsburghs wear black and white stripes. seattle 10, refs 21 and fuck peace with islam. you cannot reason with the unreasonable. the "good" in them wont come out from more interactions only more blown up market places will result. followers of this false belief of islam deserve the death which they preach through their actions. your views of accepting them is the same as inviting your enemy to slit your throat while you sleep. their cult needs to be stomped out" For one-The superbowl game example was meant only to give an example of a situation where people cause violence out of a deep feeling of passion and a "gang mentality". Who won didn't really matter. Obviously, you didn't see the actual point of the argument and only focused on the matter that was lying at the surface level. Also, to counter my arguments that many protests were peaceful...you didn't counter at all. Your argument was dry and empty of any solid proof. You've studied Islam, eh? Then you've probably heard quotes like "There should be no compulsion in religion." (2:256) "Whosoever killed a person - unless it be for killing a person for creating disorder in the land - it shall be as if he killed all mankind." (Al Maidah, Ch5: v.33) Allah said "O ye who believe! be steadfast in the cause of Allah, bearing witness in equity; and let not a people's enmity incite you to act otherwise than with justice. Be always just, that is nearer to righteousness." Sura Al-Mai'dah - Ch. 5:V.9) or that Jihad was seen as a spiritual battle..."O messenger of God, what jihad could be greater than struggling against the unbelievers with the sword? He replied: "Struggling against the enemy in your own breast." Even prisoners of War commended Muslims. "Thus the prisoners taken after the Battle of Badr themselves admitted that: By God! The Muslims walked on foot while we were made to ride, they remained hungry themselves whist they fed us, they remained thirsty while they gave us water" (Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Daud) or you probably already know that Islam is one of the first religions to give the woman the rights of inheritance and divorce. You probably also know that the sons always get a slightly larger share of the inheritance, because they are the providers of the family, while a woman's inheritance is meant only for her own personal security and must not be spent on her husband. that Islamic regions were the first to claim that both the male and the female in the act of adultery deserve equal punishment. That in the Abassid court, slaves were allowed to speak for themselves and marry non-slaves. Even Islamic leaders have shut down violence: " He who abandons kindness abandons religion. The Holy Qur'an teaches that whosoever kills a person without justifiable cause will be as if he killed the whole world. In the same way, I say that if someone is now kind unto hisbrother, it is like he has been unkind to the whole world." -Al Hakm Vol. 9 No. 15 dated 30 April 1905 p.2 Commentary by the Promised Messiah, Vol.2 p.405 You probably also know that during the 15th and 16th centuries that thousands to millions of jews left Spain for the Ottomon Empire, an Islamic Empire, where they were not persecuted, because of persecution in their homeland. You probably also know that one of the five major pillars of Islam states that 2-10+% of a person's income should be spent towards charity. For all who don't know, I'm Hindu. I have no reason to defend this faith and it's people other than the sole fact that I believe that all humans are humane and have a natural and innate desire to be good to others. I also believe that religion, a product of humans, also is good until corrupted. Hindus have long since been persecuted by Muslims, and the vice versa is true as well. I know that at times, like in December 1992 when the city of Bombay literally burned, I too had anti-muslim feelings. During that time, I remember how frightened we were to even speak to our Muslim friends and employees. However, it doesn't change the fact that in the aftermath, we met with them and realized that they too had been afraid of us. This fear of harm had led to the deaths of thousands of both faiths throughout India. My only hope is that that kind of bloodshed needs not be witnessed by any other human being. The only way that can occur, is if we realize that there are faults to all faiths and to all people and that among any religious group of people there are going to be a group of extremists who will utilize religion and corrupt it as a means to gain power. To believe that steps towards peace with the Islamic World will lead to our own demise is foolish. Obviously, military steps and rude gestures towards the Islamic World haven't solved any of our problems. It's time we try the other path. Peace, Shanthi, Salaam

Hi everyone, I'm back! I haven't really had a computer for awhile. So checking out this forum hasn't been really possible. But now I return. Anyway. To begin with, fie on violent protesters. It doesn't prove a religion is peaceful, if protesters are killing people. But let's speak with honesty. The article above showed evidence that muslims want to kill us. And this forum has proven that we want to kill them. Need I really choose sides in who is the "bad one"? We're both calling for the murder of people. I really don't think that your argument is any more convincing to them as there argument is for you. Are people being peaceful? To some extent yes, 10,000 people (I would expect at least 95% of these individuals to be muslims...there's a huge south asian population in london)...enough to qualify in the United States as a seperate city protested in London...enough to create a mass chaotic violent protest with burning shops, burning offices, and hundreds dead, raped, and injured...remained calm and peaceful. This estimate is conservative...up to 40,000 people might have been there. Vancouver, New York, Toronto, places across the western hemisphere, asia, africa, and australia experienced similar large and peaceful protests. The Muslim Canadian Congress even called for the end of peaceful protests as they were causing tension worldwide. Why protest? For one, it is the right of individuals of a nation to congregate for peaceful protest against an action that is seen as immoral by the people. Why immoral: Muslims feel it (a) offensive to create an image of the prophet and (b) to further disgrace the image by adding bombs and etc to the image. In honesty, I send my regrets to all those who lost loved ones in the violent protests. However, I'm forced to wonder what the honest reason behind the rioting was. As a citizen of Pittsburgh, I had the glory to watch my Steelers win the Superbowl. As a student here, I watched the aftermath. Cars were overturned, people were hurt, shops were damaged. And these were college students...Obviously, Victory doesn't lend itself to violence and damage of public property...But that's what occurred. The murder of individuals and the violent rioting, I think, has it's source also in the economic and political feeling in the region. While economically stable regions like the US and the UK had peaceful protests, economically poor regions experienced violence. Leaders are able to manipulate a group of people who are disadvantaged into believing that the source of their problems is a certain group of people. That's why the actions of the terrorists have made little sense. There were attacks on McDonalds and Churches. These american and christian targets are by far distant from the original source of the problem...the danish newspapers. Plus, the leaders do it for their own personal political power cravings. Why attack these places? People are disadvantaged, they are angry. A leader says "Kill". They let their emotions go wild. This is what happend during the crusades. This is what happened during the India-Pakistan partition. This is what is happening now. Let's not forget that the police that are counteracting the riots in these countries are for the most part muslim as well. Let's not forget that the riots have also been comparatively small for the number of muslims in the area...confirmiing that most muslims don't want to hurt us. Let's not forget that the murder of 45 people can not be washed with the blood of a billion individuals Let's not forget that the solution to this problem isn't a billion bullets but billions of encounters between these two different cultures where both sides respect the other's wishes, dreams, and goals If we are to decry the muslim clerics for instigating the murder of dozens of innocent individuals...let's not be the leaders that instigage the counter attack. Blood is blood. Neither runs thicker or thinner. Peace, Shanti, Salaam