Muslims and western society

[wez]

You know, it wasn't too far back in our societies history that women were considered property. Still practiced by many people. Women have come a long ways but not without a fight.

 

Least men had the courtesy, for the most part, not to kill them for not wanting to be under the control of might = right/fear = respect lunitics.

 

 

Black men got the right to vote in 1870.. 15th amendment.

 

Women in 1919.. 19th amendment.

 

Why should the constitution need amending to give equal rights to anyone?

[timesjoke]

I imagine, like the bible, there are many versions of the Quran and different interpertations. People with evil intentions will twist anything to further their agenda. Lots of people twist hate out of the bible too... sick sh t.

 

That article Hugo posted seemed to be an intelligent, rationally thinking, follower of the Quran.

 

I have three seperate english Qurans and there is no real discernable differance between each one.

 

 

But.

 

 

 

Translations and what is said is not as important as what is "pushed" by the religious leaders. There are some very harsh stuff in the old testament and even the new has some things some would feel are hostile but as a general rule, Christians have moved past these things and do not follow them as a standard part of their daily faith.

 

 

Modern Muslims do still find a martyr as being the highest possition of their faith. They do still preach the agressive parts of their religion even to small children. We see even in places like Canada, a Muslim man still feels it is okay to kill his daughter for not wearing her face covering.

 

 

The Quran is broken up into sections like a manual giving instructions for almost any situation. The problem for the world comes when a Muslim feels oppressed. This is why I made the oppressed thread, if a Muslim can "feel" oppressed, then under his faith, he is commanded to strike out at those that are in his mind, oppressing him.

 

"Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah." ~ 8:39

 

 

"Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war." ~ 9:5

 

 

As I understand it, this command to use "every stratagem of war" is what allows and even commands the use of pure terrorist methods of attacking innocents like children of the oppressors.

 

"Believers, what is the matter with you, that when you are asked to go forth and fight in Allah's Cause you cling to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? Unless you go forth, He will afflict and punish you with a painful doom, and put others in your place." ~ 9:38

 

 

"The unbelieving infidels are allies. Unless you (Muslims) aid each other (fighting as one united block to make Allah's religion victorious), there will be confusion and mischief. Those who accepted Islam, left their homes to fight in Allah's Cause (al-Jihad), as well as those who give them asylum, shelter, and aid - these are (all) Believers: for them is pardon and bountiful provision (in Paradise)." ~ 8:73

 

This is why even if a Muslim does not directly get involved in terrorist actions, they still feel pressured to give shelter and aid to those terrorists.

 

 

 

Does this mean every Muslim gives into that pressure?

 

No, but it is very difficult to resist this pressure considering it is such a powerful part of their religion.

 

 

 

You know, it wasn't too far back in our societies history that women were considered property. Still practiced by many people. Women have come a long ways but not without a fight.

 

 

This again goes to my point about what is being preached "now" not what happened in the past.

 

 

Trying to condone current actions based on similar actions done in the past by someone else is simply wrong and only makes the situation worse. Under that logic nobody can take action to stop any injustice because we all have negative things in our past.

 

It was once legal to kill blacks in America, does that mean if you kill one now it is still okay? No, because we have moved past that garbage and while there are still issues here and there, most of the time we all get along until stuff gets stirred up.

 

It is impossible to move foward if your always looking behind you.

[wez]

I have three seperate english Qurans and there is no real discernable differance between each one.

 

 

But.

 

 

 

Translations and what is said is not as important as what is "pushed" by the religious leaders. There are some very harsh stuff in the old testament and even the new has some things some would feel are hostile but as a general rule, Christians have moved past these things and do not follow them as a standard part of their daily faith.

 

 

Modern Muslims do still find a martyr as being the highest possition of their faith. They do still preach the agressive parts of their religion even to small children. We see even in places like Canada, a Muslim man still feels it is okay to kill his daughter for not wearing her face covering.

 

 

The Quran is broken up into sections like a manual giving instructions for almost any situation. The problem for the world comes when a Muslim feels oppressed. This is why I made the oppressed thread, if a Muslim can "feel" oppressed, then under his faith, he is commanded to strike out at those that are in his mind, oppressing him.

 

"Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah." ~ 8:39

 

 

"Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war." ~ 9:5

 

 

As I understand it, this command to use "every stratagem of war" is what allows and even commands the use of pure terrorist methods of attacking innocents like children of the oppressors.

 

"Believers, what is the matter with you, that when you are asked to go forth and fight in Allah's Cause you cling to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? Unless you go forth, He will afflict and punish you with a painful doom, and put others in your place." ~ 9:38

 

 

"The unbelieving infidels are allies. Unless you (Muslims) aid each other (fighting as one united block to make Allah's religion victorious), there will be confusion and mischief. Those who accepted Islam, left their homes to fight in Allah's Cause (al-Jihad), as well as those who give them asylum, shelter, and aid - these are (all) Believers: for them is pardon and bountiful provision (in Paradise)." ~ 8:73

 

This is why even if a Muslim does not directly get involved in terrorist actions, they still feel pressured to give shelter and aid to those terrorists.

 

 

 

Does this mean every Muslim gives into that pressure?

 

No, but it is very difficult to resist this pressure considering it is such a powerful part of their religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This again goes to my point about what is being preached "now" not what happened in the past.

 

 

Trying to condone current actions based on similar actions done in the past by someone else is simply wrong and only makes the situation worse. Under that logic nobody can take action to stop any injustice because we all have negative things in our past.

 

It was once legal to kill blacks in America, does that mean if you kill one now it is still okay? No, because we have moved past that garbage and while there are still issues here and there, most of the time we all get along until stuff gets stirred up.

 

It is impossible to move foward if your always looking behind you.

 

 

See TJ. the difference is, we didn't have a nuclear power telling us to change and killing us to prove it. Every person inside themselves know this sh t is wrong. Let nature take it's course. We are not god.

 

 

Individuals will naturally fight oppression in any way they can, no matter the degree. Accept it in any way big and small, pay the price. One must stand on their own 2 feet.

[hugo]

What we have is a war between moderate and fanatical Islam. Our troops in the ME and our unflinching support of Israel gives propaganda material to the fanatics.

[wez]

What we have is a war between moderate and fanatical Islam. Our troops in the ME and our unflinching support of Israel gives propaganda material to the fanatics.

 

Indeed.. Pretty firm religious fanatics on both sides in that part of the world. The ground where it all started and according to revelations, will all end. Sadly, prolly true.

[timesjoke]

See TJ. the difference is, we didn't have a nuclear power telling us to change and killing us to prove it. Every person inside themselves know this sh t is wrong. Let nature take it's course. We are not god.

 

Man has been waging war for far longer then the invention of the nuclear bomb.

 

Telling an unstable Country they are not responsible enough to have a nuke is not unreasonable. I see it similar to telling a young child they are not responsible enough to own a grenade launcher.

 

In your world do you allow any concept of preventative actions?

 

 

 

 

Individuals will naturally fight oppression in any way they can, no matter the degree. Accept it in any way big and small, pay the price. One must stand on their own 2 feet.

 

There you go justifying terrorism again.

 

You are so two faced.

[wez]

Man has been waging war for far longer then the invention of the nuclear bomb.

 

Telling an unstable Country they are not responsible enough to have a nuke is not unreasonable. I see it similar to telling a young child they are not responsible enough to own a grenade launcher.

 

In your world do you allow any concept of preventative actions?

 

 

 

There you go justifying terrorism again.

 

You are so two faced.

 

 

 

You are blind and two faced. You condone terrorism/violence. Not me.

 

 

We don't actually want them to change and progress, otherwise we wouldn't support the Saudi Royal family. They have resources we desire, period, and they aren't stupid. We are harming, not helping them.

[timesjoke]

You are blind and two faced. You condone terrorism/violence. Not me.

 

Individuals will naturally fight oppression in any way they can

 

You just condoned violence right there.

 

 

 

 

I am capable of seeing reality, reality that sometimes bad people must be dealt with. I do not watch the neighbor beat a child and do nothing, I take action. The same is true with our worldly neighbors, sometimes we must take action to keep bad leaders from causing massive harm to innocents. Iran promises to wipe all Jews off the face of the earth, the problem with that promise is that the Jews are stronger then them so the only way to stand behind that promise is to use a nuke.

 

 

This is just one example, no, it would be impossible for America to help everyone, there are limits to everything, but we do what we can and what will create the most good.

 

 

We don't actually want them to change and progress, otherwise we wouldn't support the Saudi Royal family. They have resources we desire, period, and they aren't stupid. We are harming, not helping them.

 

Stop avoiding questions that are asked you.

 

I ask you again In your world do you allow any concept of preventative actions?

 

Do you understand my example of not allowing a young child to have a grenade launcher?

[wez]

You just condoned violence right there.

 

No, I didn't. Violence is not how to fight oppression. You don't give your oppressor the opportunity to point and say "look", we have to do what we've been doing because they are now us and we will kill them to prove it.

 

 

 

I am capable of seeing reality, reality that sometimes bad people must be dealt with. I do not watch the neighbor beat a child and do nothing, I take action. The same is true with our worldly neighbors, sometimes we must take action to keep bad leaders from causing massive harm to innocents. Iran promises to wipe all Jews off the face of the earth, the problem with that promise is that the Jews are stronger then them so the only way to stand behind that promise is to use a nuke.

 

 

Good, if nukes = right than it'll be a good thing for the Muslims to get as many as possible, just like us.

 

 

This is just one example, no, it would be impossible for America to help everyone, there are limits to everything, but we do what we can and what will create the most good.

 

 

Bullsh t.

 

 

 

 

Stop avoiding questions that are asked you.

 

I ask you again In your world do you allow any concept of preventative actions?

 

Do you understand my example of not allowing a young child to have a grenade launcher?

 

 

No, in my world, it's not ok to kill people for what some individual/s may do bad to someone else at some point in the future.

 

Case in point, should someone kill you because you may someday lose control of your emotions and kill your ex wife? Didn't think so.

 

 

yeah, I understand your example.. you are taking it upon yourself to be all muslims "daddy". Good for you...

 

 

And you'll kill them to prove it, right, weak pacifist? Hahahahahahaha

[timesjoke]

No, I didn't. Violence is not how to fight oppression. You don't give your oppressor the opportunity to point and say "look", we have to do what we've been doing because they are now us and we will kill them to prove it.

 

But you keep saying that their violent actions are for good reasons, make up your mind.

 

Either their attacks on completely innocent and non-military targets are good or bad actions.

 

 

Good, if nukes = right than it'll be a good thing for the Muslims to get as many as possible, just like us.

 

Having or possessing nukes does not make right and nobody ever said that.

 

We have the ability to own and not use nukes, Iran does not.

 

Yes, we have used them before, and that has tought us a lesson that can only be learned through experience. You cannot know the horrible responsibility of using force until you truly use it.

 

My move to teaching defensive tactics was based from my successful defense of myself from 5 attackers who were all armed (not with firearms). I put 4 in the hospital with severe injuries and one died at the scene. The event started and ended in less than 5 minutes. There was no time to call a lawyer and discuss options, no time to run away or to get assistance, it was me or them, and I was determined it was not going to be me.

 

 

People like yourself attempted to disect my actions and say I was to blame or could have avoided killing the one who died, I endured countless hearings and lawsuits but in the end, I rounded off my time to ten years and quit to follow private interests.

 

 

My point of telling you this story is that even though I had no other choice, I still feel the weight of my decision to end that man's life and I will always carry that with me and it will color every choice I make in the future.

 

 

America using nukes in the past gives us the understanding of how much responsibility goes into using them and helps us to understand just how awful they truly are.

 

 

 

 

Bullsh t.

 

There you go with your profanity again, you would think someone going to college would have a wider vocabulary.

 

Do you think Jesus would approve of your use of profanity?

 

It is not bull, it is fact, long before 9/11, America supplied more then 60% of the food eaten in Afganistan. We had no political favor to gain there, but our kindness for that food and our earlier support that made Afganistan's fight against Russia possible was to plan and commit 9/11, I guess the old saying "No good deed goes unpunnished" was right.

 

 

 

 

 

No, in my world, it's not ok to kill people for what some individual/s may do bad to someone else at some point in the future.

Nobody said anything about specific measures taken, just if you allow the concept of preventative actions in your little world.

 

While we have at times attacked Countries like Iraq, most of the time we only use political pressure and sanctions to get people to behave themselves. The concept is if we have reason to believe bad things are happening or will happen, then we have a responsibility to take action to prevent it or stop it.

 

Case in point, should someone kill you because you may someday lose control of your emotions and kill your ex wife? Didn't think so.

 

Not from a vaccume without anything to support your claim but lets say I just killed four other people and I was just heard to say I was on my way to kill my ex-wife, now there is reason to believe I will follow through with my threat and to protect my ex-wife from my believable threat.

 

 

You see, every decision a leader must make is based on many factors. This is true in government and business. We must look at the credibility of information to make our decisions. If a nobody tells you 9/11 was an inside job and Bush was behind it all, you know that the information is useless and should be ignored, but if you hear from the leader of Iran say he wants to kill all Jews, remove them from the face of the earth, you can reasonably conclude that he is being honest about his intent.

[snafu]

It was the inevitable that the atom bomb and then nukes were to be developed. And using the bomb at the time proved to save countless lives by stopping the war. But we don?t need an Armageddon so we need to curb the amount of nations that have this technology. Now your example of killing TJ because he might go out in kill his ex is absurd. If he threatened his wife there?s laws against that. When you have a leader of a entire country calling for the deaths of millions of people, thats a big big difference.

[wez]

It was the inevitable that the atom bomb and then nukes were to be developed. And using the bomb at the time proved to save countless lives by stopping the war. But we don’t need an Armageddon so we need to curb the amount of nations that have this technology. Now your example of killing TJ because he might go out in kill his ex is absurd. If he threatened his wife there’s laws against that. When you have a leader of a entire country calling for the deaths of millions of people, thats a big big difference.

 

 

Not absurd to the killed... And we ourselves have a leader/s calling for deaths of a lot of people and killing them to prove it.. quite scarey. And we have nukes... Good not to be "them", eh?

[wez]

So, basically what you guys are saying, is from an Elite Republican Guard perspective, the smart thing would have been to pre emptively, pre emt our pre emption?

 

 

 

Too bad they didn't have nukes... They coulda protected their and their neighbors precious private property just like Hero Joe. Bet Joes nieghbor didn't own vast oil fields...

[wez]

So TJ, tell me more about this attack. What were the circumstances? Where and how did it happen? Rounded what to 10 years? Prison?

 

 

And let me also get this straight.. we, out of everyone in the world, truly understand the horror of atomic weapons via using them. Based upon this information, we decide to improve them and build a sh tload more over the next 50 years? Please explain...

[timesjoke]

I will take Wez's dogding of the points I gave as him giving up again and still trying to make everything an anti-American, anti-government discussion.

 

 

 

But, as yet, he still has never commented on topic in the thread.

 

 

So I will again attempt to direct him to the topic.

 

 

Why is it western society must completely change to allow Muslims to live with us?

 

 

Why is Muslim prayer being given a pass by groups like the ACLU in public schools for example? They attack any whisper of Christian involvement in schools but refuse to say anythign against Muslim prayer.

[wez]

Hahahahaha.. I'm diverting and dodging?

 

Then the question should be, why do you want to make muslims just like you, big daddy? This is America...

 

Who are "they" that attack christian prayer? Muslims? I don't think so... That's like attacking Iraq for being Hijacked on 9/11 by Saudis... That makes sense, I guess.

[snafu]

Islam won't work in America because of separation of church and state. Muslims believe Islam is law. Therefore it can't work. A religion should never be law.

[hugo]

Dems: Amen to Ramadan, but forget about Christmas

9 House members praise Islamic faith, won't recognize Christian observance

 

 

By Bob Unruh

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

? 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

 

 

U.S. Rep Diana DeGette, D-Colo.

 

Only weeks after voting for a resolution that "recognizes the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world," nine Democrats in the U.S. House refused to vote for a Christmas resolution that condemns the worldwide persecution of Christians.

 

U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., was on the list of those who endorsed the statement recognizing Islam but refused to support the Christmas resolution that noted the holiday "is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and around the world."

 

The Christmas resolution, like the Ramadan resolution, decried the violence that targets religion around the world.

 

A spokesman for DeGette told WND her vote was because the Ramadan resolution, which she endorsed, was about "rejecting religious extremism and promoting of religious tolerance."

 

The spokesman, Chris Aaron, however, said DeGette is a "strong supporter of separation of church and state and her view was that Congress should not favor one religion over another.

 

"She felt this resolution (recognizing Christmas and condemning persecution of Christians) promoted Christianity over other religions," he told WND.

 

Other Democrats who supported the acknowledgment of Islam's Ramadan but refused a similar recognition for Christianity's Christmas included Gary Ackerman and Yvette Clarke of N.Y., Alcee Hastings, Fla., Barbara Lee, Fortney Stark and Lynn Woolsey, Calif., Jim McDermott, Wash., and Robert Scott, Va.

 

Both resolutions, carrying similar wording, ultimately were approved. But the American Family Association of Pennsylvania also raised the issue of representatives supporting Ramadan, but refusing to offer the same support for Christmas.

 

"We are very pleased that 17 of our 19 congressmen voted to recognize the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith. Congressman John Murtha was one of 40 who did not vote and unfortunately Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz decided to simply vote 'present' rather than take a stand on such a controversial issue as Christmas," said Diane Gramley, president.

 

She noted on Oct. 2, Schwartz "did not hesitate" to vote for a resolution to support the religion "of the 19 hijackers of 9/11 who brought down the World Trade Center, flew their airliner/missile into the Pentagon, and caused the death of the crew and passengers of Flight 93 as it crashed into a field outside Shanksville, Pa."

 

"I believe there are more Christians in her district than Muslims and they deserve an explanation for her vote last night," Gramley said.

 

According to Liberty Counsel, the Christmas resolution was approved with nine "no" votes. Ten others voted "present" and 40 refused to vote at all.

 

"Amazingly, all but two of the representatives who answered "present" or voted against the Christmas resolution voted in favor of a resolution recognizing Ramadan, even though much of the language was similar," the group said.

 

The Ramadan resolution began:

 

 

Whereas Ramadan is the holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal for Muslims worldwide, and is the 9th month of the Muslim calendar year; and Whereas the observance of the Islamic holy month of Ramandan commenced at dusk on September 13, 2007, and continues for one lunar month: …"

The Christmas resolution started:

 

 

Whereas Christmas, a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and the world... Whereas on December 25 of each calendar year, American Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of their savior, Jesus Christ...Whereas many Christians and non-Christians throughout the United States and the rest of the world, celebrate Christmas as a time to serve others:"

The Ramadan resolution then acknowledged "the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world," expressed "friendship and support for Muslims," noted "the onset of Ramadan," and rejected "hatred, bigotry, and violence directed against Muslims." It also "commends Muslims … who have privately and publicly rejected interpretations and movements of Islam that justify and encourage hatred."

 

The Christmas resolution continued to acknowledge "the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world," expressed "continued support for Christians," noted the historical importance of Christmas, the role "played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States," and rejected "bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide."

 

"Notice that the Christmas resolution uses similar language. It is astonishing that those who supported the Ramadan Resolution would vote against the Christmas Resolution," Liberty Counsel said.

 

The group suggested voters check the lists for votes by their representatives. "If they voted against Christmas and in favor of Ramadan, respectfully point out their hypocrisy," the group said.

 

Concerned Women for America said the true message of Christmas is under assault in the U.S. Shari Rendall, director of the group's legislation and public policy divisions, noted Congress earlier approved not only the endorsement of Ramadan but also another resolution concern the Hindu religion.

 

"It astounds me that any member of Congress would oppose legislation that recognizes the important of Christmas in our country, particularly in light of the fact that earlier this year Congress passed two separate resolutions honoring the Hindu and Islamic religions…"

[wez]

Another excellent article teach.. And this just in the last couple days.

 

 

See TJ, your beef is with Congress and your buddies, the government, not muslims..

 

 

Crazy business happening in Congress, must just be the guilt talking.

[timesjoke]

Hahahahaha.. I'm diverting and dodging?

 

Yep, but I am used to your inability to stick to topics when they are not going your way by now. You either turn to personal attacks or changing the subject.

 

 

Then the question should be, why do you want to make muslims just like you, big daddy? This is America...

 

Who are "they" that attack christian prayer? Muslims? I don't think so... That's like attacking Iraq for being Hijacked on 9/11 by Saudis... That makes sense, I guess.

 

 

The idea of America is the "melting pot" a blend of different ideas and religions.

 

 

The Mulsims do not want to blend in, they want to change America to suit them and the wackos at the ACLU and politicians are frozen into inaction from their need to maintain the PC appearance.

[hugo]

From my conversations with a Muslim friend of mine (he has only tried to behead me once) about 30% of Muslims in the West lean toward radicalism. That is a pretty significant minority. Western Europe is seeing great problems from Muslim migration. We have had the fortune of being able to choose our Islamic immigrants. Most victims of Muslim atrocities are other Muslims. We need sensible policies that aid moderate Muslims to defeat the radical Muslims in the war of ideas.

 

The Amish do not wish to blend in. We have few problems with them.

[timesjoke]

From my conversations with a Muslim friend of mine (he has only tried to behead me once) about 30% of Muslims in the West lean toward radicalism. That is a pretty significant minority. Western Europe is seeing great problems from Muslim migration. We have had the fortune of being able to choose our Islamic immigrants. Most victims of Muslim atrocities are other Muslims. We need sensible policies that aid moderate Muslims to defeat the radical Muslims in the war of ideas.

 

 

I have several muslim friends, mostly Kurds but a couple others. Sect does play a big part in their attitudes but many other factors do as well. Most of the private schools and "camps" run by muslims in North America and Europe have very strong ties to the Wahhabis structure, Google it.

 

 

The Amish do not wish to blend in. We have few problems with them.

 

How many amish are planning terrorist attacks on us?

 

 

 

But they do blend in in certain ways, look at the lights on their carriages for an example.

[hugo]

 

 

 

How many amish are planning terrorist attacks on us?

 

 

 

 

You are much more likely to be killed by a black, hispanic or white man than a Muslim. Our Muslims are pretty much integrated. They fled the Mideast for a reason. This does not mean Muslim immigration should not be strictly controlled. It means a rational evaluation of the dangers of certain elements of the Muslim community is needed.

[snafu]

200 years of black oppression ain't got nothin on Muslims. This stuff just chafes my ass.

 

King pardons rape victim - CNN.com

[timesjoke]

You are much more likely to be killed by a black, hispanic or white man than a Muslim. Our Muslims are pretty much integrated. They fled the Mideast for a reason. This does not mean Muslim immigration should not be strictly controlled. It means a rational evaluation of the dangers of certain elements of the Muslim community is needed.

 

I am sure all the families of the 9/11 attack would have a very vocal opposition to this comment.

 

 

 

Most Balcks are killed by Blacks, this is fact, but from the point of view for people blending in, how many Americans kill their children for refusing to wear a face covering?

 

 

 

The start of this topic has been about how Muslims refuse to blend into our established society, how even now it is still considered customary for some Muslims to kill a daughter/sister if she refuses to cover her face.

 

 

How the ACLU fights to remove Christian prayer and eny referance to God but completely ignores anything about Muslims.