muslims PART 2

[Lief Erikson]

Now here is a lout who really should watch his tongue.

Originally Posted by BBC News

The United States threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the stone age" unless it joined the fight against al-Qaeda, President Pervez Musharraf says.

General Musharraf said the warning was delivered by former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage to Pakistan's intelligence director.

"I think it was a very rude remark," Mr Musharraf told CBS television.

Pakistan agreed to side with the US, but Gen Musharraf said it did so based on his country's national interest.

"One has to think and take actions in the interest of the nation, and that's what I did," he said.

Note that with these words, Pakistan distances himself from the US to his followers. A nod to the widespread anti-Western feeling in his country.

Originally Posted by BBC News

Gen Musharraf is due to meet US President George W Bush at the White House on Friday.

The Pakistani president said that, following the attacks of 11 September 2001, the US made some "ludicrous" demands of Pakistan.

"The intelligence director told me that Mr Armitage said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age'," he said.

The US envoy also insisted that Pakistan suppress domestic expression of support for attacks on the United States, he said.

"If somebody's expressing views, we cannot curb the expression of views," Gen Musharraf said.

It's just crazy for Mr. Armitage to say these things. This radical right-wing lunatic is playing right into the Islamic extremists' hands. Protests against his words would be very well justified.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Hang on . . . where does this statistic come from? Because it doesn't jive with a Pentagon memo that said most of the Sunnis and most of the Shi'ites in Iraq still want democracy and peace.

Are you sure you should be sharing Pentagon memos with us?

[hectorberlioz]

The one I told you about IS a pentagon poll. I'm figuring that the Sunni & Shiite one is largely Shiite opinion.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

And most of the Aryans in Germany under Adolf Hitler were not in the army. And the vast majority of the Japanese in Japan during WW2 weren't committing violence either. When protesters espouse extremist positions, they show themselves to be extremists.

Thank You! One paragraph that explains the babblings of my mind...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

The one I told you about IS a pentagon poll. I'm figuring that the Sunni & Shiite one is largely Shiite opinion.

Could you give me a link to it? I'd very much like to see it.

EDIT: Never mind; I just found it.

Originally Posted by hectoerberlioz

Thank You! One paragraph that explains the babblings of my mind...

I think you do make a valid point. But I also think that many of the protesters haven't been backing extremist positions. It isn't really extremist to say, "don't call our religion evil," though it is extremist to say, "death to the pope! Death to the West!" I don't think most of the protesters have been calling for our deaths.

But the fact that all these protesters have made such a leap in logic regarding what the pope actually said, and have automatically believed the worst of him shows me that the tension and distrust between the Muslim and the Western worlds is very extensive and is spread to even largely peaceful Muslim countries like Indonesia. That alone is a very bad sign about the growing influence of extremism.


EDIT: Hmm. Speaking of Indonesia . . .
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5368922.stm
This isn't looking so grand for Muslim/Western relations either.

I don't think anything will. I believe that relations between the East and the West, Muslims and everyone else, are going to keep getting worse and worse and worse.

[Spock]

How about, if every time there is a demonstration, burning of cars, killing of non-muslims; we gather a huge group on non-muslims and do *exactly the same thing to them* saying THEY are intollerant.

.....it could get quite ugly quite soon.....

[Falagar]

An eye for an eye. Sounds like a swell plan.

[The Gaffer]

Well, all I can say is I think the Muslims have got a lot of catching up to do.

[Insidious Rex]

Three now! You guys are going to have to be patient and take a number and have a seat while I work through all this. I only got so much time now for virtual yelling unfortunately. Anyway, back to self important bluster mode…

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

And what is your justification for that?

What Ive heard from him and about him in the past. From my perspective (right or wrong) it doesn’t seem out of character at all.

But he wasn't insinuating it, so it doesn't matter.

It DOES matter because the point wasn’t if hes necessarily being purposefully belittling. But does he need to be careful about what and HOW he says ANYTHING. I vote yes.

He has a responsibility to speak the truth, and to try to do so gently. He does not have the responsibility to avoid ever quoting any source which anyone might find offensive, especially when he disagrees with them.

Do you think, Gwaimir, if he had quoted Hitler in regards to the character of Jews that it would have been a good idea? I mean I will accept up front that he vehemently disagrees with Hitler’s philosophy toward the Jews despite the bluster about his past. I don’t think for a second that he has ANY sympathy for Hitler or Nazism as some have implied. NEVERTHELESS do you think its perfectly ok to do that? Or would you have felt a compulsion to say at least something to him if you were his advisor and had seen the text of the speech?

There is a difference between religion and the Church, IR.

Of course. But remember from my perspective its all Christianity. Slightly ignorant I know but I let you guys fuss over the details. Frankly I don’t see any one branch of Christianity as superior or better then any other. I may see Catholicism as somewhat more conservative (for lack of a better term) but its all looking at fish in a pond to me. Im not in the pond to really take notice of the differences.

I find to be nothing else towards the latter. Or am I mistaken, and can you point to places where you have spoken positively of the Catholic Church? Maybe it's just a case of "insults stick more", but I don't recall anything positive.

Well I cant remember ever really defending Catholicism at the Moot here per se. Like I said you guys seem to have that covered so why the heck would I randomly trumpet the cause myself when Im ambivalent at best. But as far as insulting it all the time I don’t see myself doing that either. I think this is a consequence of being at a board where I feel pointing things out that go against the common feeling of most Christians is more necessary then a board where the atheists are the loud mouths. And this makes me seem more like an anti Christian person just by comparison.

There's a difference between 'being antagonizing', and people getting offended because of something you say.

This doesn’t take away from the fact that one needs to be careful WHAT they say when people can so easily be offended by ANYTHING they say.

Don't forget the Antichrist, to the Protestants. And in other circles, 'senile celibate authoritarian geriatric'. He's more than a symbol to a lot of non-Catholics.

Yeah but again that’s all in the family.

Christ had no trouble outright condemning people, or whipping them out of the temple; it's foolish to think it un-Christian for his vicar to accidentally offend people.

So noted but of course the Pope is not Christ. Weve all seen the movie. Christ’s actions established the religion in the first place. It was all necessary.

That is hardly what Benedict does.

No I was speaking of other Christians (Baptists basically) there as a comparison to how some Christians think they are supposed to act and that theres probably better ways.

But isn't it clear it would be impossible to think Catholicism true and agnosticism flawless?

I think there is a way to approach it that doesn’t involve making the non catholic feel belittled and defensive right off the bat. If someone offers me a gift in all sincerity because they TRULY believe it would be to my benefit to have it and they do it out of the kindness of their heart and concern for my well being I appreciate that gesture tremendously EVEN THOUGH I may not agree with their notion that I need that gift to be a decent fellow or to save my eternal soul. I don’t feel the current Pope thinks this way.

So essentially, you are offended because the Pope is not agnostic?

Not at all. Im offended that he seems to look with superiority over me for my way of thinking rather then embrace me in genuine earnest concern.

I don't find it insulting that you think Catholicism to be wrong. It's silly to be insulted because someone disagrees with you.

Delivery dear boy. Delivery.

But seriously, I strongly oppose a double standard like that. Double standard is the definition of "hypocrisy"; saying one thing, and doing another, and condemning someone for doing what you yourself do. Give all the reasons you want, but what it comes down to is "Double Standard".

Ive already admitted it was a double standard and you can think less of me for holding it but to the point it is irrelevant because it IS a truth that I do not hold nearly the sway of the Pope and my diatribes wont antagonize much of anybody (maybe a few people here on the Moot but Ill hold out hope you don’t go out shooting Agnostics after you get done reading my replies).

When did I condemn all Muslims? In fact, I frickin' explicitly stated in the other thread that the response of Muslims of the Western world is much milder. Why do you delight in trying to pidgeonhole everyone who disagrees with you? I am not anti-Muslim; I disagree with most of what I read conservatives say about Muslims (yes, that means you too, hector). I very much believe that they are wrong. I think Spock saying "There are not enough items like this to sustain the theory that there are non-violent muslims" is absurd. Most of what conservatives say about Muslims is I think just plain silly.

Glad to hear it. Note that I was simply asking the question not condemning you. Ill certainly take this particular thinking of yours into account in future discussions.

But as regard the sign-carriers, read the signs. They are threatening. Sending a threatening message isn't that far from carrying out the threat.

Im not sure. I agree that we in the west find that kind of behavior disturbing. But if every protester that had a threatening sign actually went out and acted on it you would have a lot more then one person dead wouldn’t you. So you have to think to yourself is this actually meant to instruct people as to what to do or is it simply the way they protest and the way they express their anger?

But, ****, you are insidious.

You’ve just now noticed? I didn’t get that nick name randomly…

You will make me anti-muslim before you're done. If the hole doesn't fit the pidgeon, as it were, make the pidgeon fit the hole.

I think we are all guilty of this kind of approach. Its human nature to make clean delineations and blanket assumptions about people as so many here do with Muslims. So, as to support my argument against that kind of knee jerk uninformed reactionary thinking, I offer myself up as a perfect example and humbly apologize for this common human fallibility. Whos next?

[Spock]

I still say, no other group has demonstrated, destroyed and decapitated others, in recent years, more than muslims and for the simple reason that those beheaded weren't.!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

What Ive heard from him and about him in the past. From my perspective (right or wrong) it doesn’t seem out of character at all.

In other words, from your prejudice against him.

It DOES matter because the point wasn’t if hes necessarily being purposefully belittling. But does he need to be careful about what and HOW he says ANYTHING.

That's part of the point; we keep going back and forth. You implied above that he was.

Anyway, your words were "But theres SUCH better ways to deliver that message without insinuating"; but he wasn't insinuating the above, so that comment is irrelevant.

I vote yes.

Your vote doesn't count. But seriously, why do you think you get a vote on this matter? Not meaning to belittle, but you really know very little of the intricacies of the matter, what is involved, etc., just as I would know very little if it were a matter of, say, the Dalai Lama.

Do you think, Gwaimir, if he had quoted Hitler in regards to the character of Jews that it would have been a good idea?

Nothing was said of the character of Muslims, but of what Mohammed brought new into the world. He was talking about ideas, not people.

Of course. But remember from my perspective its all Christianity.

Hmm? But there are many non-Christian religions. Not quite sure what you mean...

I may see Catholicism as somewhat more conservative (for lack of a better term) but its all looking at fish in a pond to me. Im not in the pond to really take notice of the differences.

But isn't that a bad thing?

But as far as insulting it all the time I don’t see myself doing that either.

I didn't say that, either.

And this makes me seem more like an anti Christian person just by comparison.

That's fair.

This doesn’t take away from the fact that one needs to be careful WHAT they say when people can so easily be offended by ANYTHING they say.

Why is it that whenever I respond to a specific point of yours, you just bring up the sweeping issue again? I just don't understand.

Yeah but again that’s all in the family.

Not the latter. SCAG is just as likely to be heard from secular liberals as from Christian ones.

So noted but of course the Pope is not Christ. Weve all seen the movie. Christ’s actions established the religion in the first place. It was all necessary.

The Pope is His vicar, is my point.

No I was speaking of other Christians (Baptists basically) there as a comparison to how some Christians think they are supposed to act and that theres probably better ways.

Gotcha.

Sorry, don't have time to respond to the rest; maybe I will later.

[Nurvingiel]

I picked up a brochure about Islam from the UBC Muslim Students' Society today. Does anyone want me to type it out in here for them?

It explains some basics about Islam.

[Butterbeer]

not really.

wotcha Nurv!

[Nurvingiel]

Haha!!

Well, that answers that then!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I picked up a brochure about Islam from the UBC Muslim Students' Society today. Does anyone want me to type it out in here for them?

It explains some basics about Islam.

I wouldn't mind hearing it. It would fill in some of the gaps in my knowledge .

[Butterbeer]

.. she can't type for ever ya know!

(j/k) BB

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Quote:
Originally Posted by hectorberlioz
The one I told you about IS a pentagon poll. I'm figuring that the Sunni & Shiite one is largely Shiite opinion.


Could you give me a link to it? I'd very much like to see it.

Never mind; I just found it.

[Nurvingiel]

Discover Islam: The Reader

Islam simply means to achieve peace - peace with God, peace with oneself, and peace with the creations of God - through wholly giving oneself to God and accepting His guidance.

Islam is not a new faith. Muslims believe that it is the same truth that God revealed through all His prophets to every people. For a fifth of the world's population, Islam is not just a personal religion, but a complete way of life.


Who are Muslims?

Muslims come from all races, nationalities, and cultures across the globe. They have varied customs, languages, foods, and dress; even the way they practice Islam may differ. Yet they all consider themselves to be Muslim.

Less than 15% of Muslims live in the Arab world; a fifth are found in Sub-Saharan Africa; and the world's largest Muslim community is in Indonesia. Substantial parts of Asia, and almost all the Central Asian republics, are Muslim. Significant Muslim minorities are found in China, India, Russia, Europe, the United States, Canada, and South America.


Muslim Beliefs

Muslims believe in the One, Unique, Incomparable, Merciful God - the Sole Creator, Master, Sustainer, and Cherisher of the Universe; in the Angels created by Him; in the prophets through whom His revelations were brought to humankind; in the Day of Judgement, and in individual accountability for actions; in God's complete authority over destiny, be it good or bad; and in life after death. Muslims believe that God sent His messengers and prophets to all people. God's final message to humanity was revealed to the last prophet, Muhammad, through the Archangel Gabriel.


Muhammad, the Last Messenger

Muhammad (peace be upon him) was born in Makkah in the year 570, during the period of history Europeans call the Middle Ages. He was a direct descendant of Ishmael, the eldest son of Abraham.

Muhammad was orphaned at a young age, and was a shepherd in his youth. As he grew up, he grew known for his truthfulness, generosity and sincerity; earning the title al-Amin, the trustworthy one.

At age 25, Muhammad married Khadijah, an honourable and successful businesswoman. They were blessed with two boys and four girls. It was an ideal marriage, and they lived a happy family life.

Muhammad was of a contemplative nature and had long detested the decadence and cruelty of his society. It became his habit to meditate from time to time in the cave of Hira' near the summit of Jahal an-Nur, the "Mountain of Light," on the outskirts of Makkah.

At the age of 40, while engaged in a meditative retreat, Muhammad received his first revelation from God through the Angel Gabriel. This revelation for twenty-three years and is known as the Qur'an.

Muhammad began to share the revelations he received from God with the people of Makkah. They were idol worshippers, and rejected Muhammad’s call to worship the only One God. They opposed Muhammad and his followers in every way. These early Muslims suffered bitter persecution.

In 622, God gave the Muslim community the command to emigrate. This event, the hijrah or migration, in which they left Makkah for the city of Madinah, marks the beginning of the Muslim calendar.

Madinah provided Muhammad and the Muslims a safe and nurturing haven in which the Muslim community grew.

After several years, the Prophet and his followers returned to Makkah and forgave their enemies. Then, turning their attention to the Ka’bah (the sanctuary that Abraham built), they removed the idols and redecorated it to the worship of the One God.

Before the Prophet died at the age of 63, most of the people of Arabia had embraced his message. In less than a century, Islam had spread to Spain in the west, and as far east as China.

[Lief Erikson]

Thanks for posting that, Nurvi . It is somewhat enlightening. I didn't really learn anything from it (except the population figures), but as I was reading their statements about peace, it became more clear to me why some Muslims nowadays think that Islam is the most peaceful religion in the world. That was interesting.

The last two paragraphs from the Reader are absolutely terrible in their inaccuracies and swiftness to skip over unpleasant but important facts, but the rest is better. I can well understand the writers' desire to completely skip over and in one place change the historical facts in the last two paragraphs, for they want to portray Islam as a peaceful religion. They don't want to admit to a highly violent history to an audience that already is in part being turned against Islam by the actions of the Muslim extremists.

I'm very glad that they correctly translated the meaning of Islam. Many people incorrectly translate it as meaning "peace," when it actually means "peace through submission." They make the true meaning clear in their first paragraph.

[Nurvingiel]

Well, it is just an overview of Islam. It's not going to go into the complex history of the religion in an 8 page booklet.

What you said made me finally understand what people mean by submission. It's giving oneself to God, in this case.

What's innacurate about the last two paragraphs? I have no evidence to support those paragraphs, except I thought the Moors were Muslim, and they went to Spain. It's not impossible that Muslims went to China.