The Mohammed Drawings

[Gungadin]

Development in the case that is quite despicable, but something I find completely hilarious all the same.

An Iranian newspaper has now decided to publish a series of cartoons poking fun at the holocaust, with the justification of "Hey, why you criticizing us? We're just exercising our freedom of the press. You should criticize yourself for getting all worked up about some drawings."

[DeepOne]

"It's been going on since the days of Islamic scripture (around 700 A.D.) if you call that modern. Muhammad spent a great deal of time railing against Jews, Christians, and Muslims who wouldn't fight (he called them hypocrites)."

 

Provide quote for this.

There are so many. Much of the Qur'an reads like an endless rant. Here are a few regarding Jews, Christians, and non-Muslims in general that I was able to locate without too much effort:

 

Qur'an 60:4 "There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: "We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah: we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever,- unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone": But not when Abraham said to his father: "I will pray for forgiveness for thee, though I have no power (to get) aught on thy behalf from Allah."

 

Qur'an 5:14 "From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done."

 

Qur'an 5:51 "O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust."

 

Qur'an 9:29-30 "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! "

 

There are a few places where they are not referred to with so much hostility, but I believe those verses were "revealed" very early in the life of Islam. It became progressively more hostile and violent.

 

Here are some verses regarding Muslims who won't toe the Jihad line (i.e. hypocrites):

 

Qur'an 9:38-39 "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For Allah hath power over all things."

 

Qur'an 9:73 "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed."

 

Qur'an 33:60-61: "Truly, if the Hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and those who stir up sedition in the City, desist not, We shall certainly stir thee up against them: Then will they not be able to stay in it as thy neighbours for any length of time: They shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy)."

 

The nicer stuff in the Qur'an is generally directed at other Muslims - not to people in general...

 

Qur'an 48:29 "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other."

 

Of course, they had better stay Muslims if they want any compassion...

 

Bukhari:V4B52N260 "The Prophet said, 'If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.'"

 

If you want to find more quotes of this nature, here and here are good places to start. Some of those quotes seem more relevant than others, and I found a few that were actually a few verses away from where they are referenced to be. So rather than take them at face value, it is a good idea to look them up and read surrounding verses for context (although the Qur'an actually has very little context of its own; the Sunnah provides that). Here is a website which has four translations of the Qur'an shown together.

[Gungadin]

A lot of that is out of context and most of can be interpreted in more than one way, especially the word "fight". The Koran is apparently written in such a way that even native Arab scholars debate what Allah actually MEANT.

Weak arguments, which isn't more than I've come to expect from the PoD people, who're about as objective about Islam as Stormfront are about negroes.

Besides, how is the Koran saying that non-Muslims will burn in hellfire any worse than ANY Christian saying the exact same thing? I personally perceive the Koran to be highly hostile towards Jews, less so against Christians, but I've yet to find verses actually commanding slaughter of them. (I recall one verse ordering heretics to "kill yourselves", which the footnote suggested might also be translated "kill your evil desires.") Most of the verses commanding it are more difficult to interpret.

 

Generally, after talking to an Amdi about interpreting the Koran, I feel that people with little knowledge of the Koran in the original language really aren't really qualified in discussing it. I can kinda see his point. If a Holy Book can be so ambiguous in its written language, imagine what it's like when translated by people, often non-muslims, who may or may not have an agenda themselves.

 

I can's speak for the Sunnah. Never read them.

 

Therefore I feel that if you, a westerner, really want to persecute Islam as a religion, you'd have to pay attention to how it's practiced and preached, something which also needs criticizing, with a lot of middle-eastern preachers acting as if the Prophet (PBUH) was still alive and preaching middle-age norms and practices.

 

For critical reading, I can suggest Ibn Warraq, a fallen Muslim. I leafed through one of his books, he raised decent points without resorting overly to quoting scripture.

 

I can also suggest that you stay the hell away from anything written by Robert Spencer. The man claims that the crusades were waged on the Muslim countries in self-defense and that no atrocity was ever committed by Good Christian Soldiers. His bias is ridiculous.

 

I personally find this entire Jew/Christian/Muslim rivalry to be retarded, since it's the same deity being worshipped in practically the same way. I think we should all team up and wage war on the Buddhists and Hindus instead.

[DeepOne]

A lot of that is out of context and most of can be interpreted in more than one way' date=' especially the word "fight". The Koran is apparently written in such a way that even native Arab scholars debate what Allah actually MEANT. [/quote']

The Qur'an is an absolute mess, yes. But my assertion was that Islamic hatred for non-Muslims comes from Islamic scripture. Even considering your quibblings, it should be obvious that it could very easily (most easily, in fact) be understood in a way that inspires such hatred. As for those quotes being out of context, they are as much in context as they are going to get coming from the Qur'an. As I said previously, the Sunnah is necessary to provide context for the Qur'an. And it is through the Sunnah that you become familiar with the life of Muhammad. If I remember correctly, he led 75 combat raids on villages in a 10-year period. Clearly, "fight" means physical battle as that was his modus operandi. He was absolutely not a man of reasoned philosophical debate.

 

Besides, how is the Koran saying that non-Muslims will burn in hellfire any worse than ANY Christian saying the exact same thing?

That, in particular, is no different (and that is precisely why I said in my previous post that some of those quotes seem more relevant than others). But there is much more being said than that.

 

Generally, after talking to an Amdi about interpreting the Koran, I feel that people with little knowledge of the Koran in the original language really aren't really qualified in discussing it. I can kinda see his point. If a Holy Book can be so ambiguous in its written language, imagine what it's like when translated by people, often non-muslims, who may or may not have an agenda themselves.

It is not so ambiguous when it is presented in chronological order with the Sunnah providing context. That is the great value of Prophet of Doom. By the way, I did not rely on Prophet of Doom for any of the Qur'an quotes I provided (it only aided me in locating them). I got them from the link I provided which includes four translations of the Qur'an (I used the first one there).

 

Anything that can be understood can be translated (If it cannot be understood, then it is hardly a reasonable basis for a religion; is it?). Insisting that one be able to read it in the original Arabic is a cheap attempt to deflect criticism of its message.

 

I can's speak for the Sunnah. Never read them.

Well, if you really want to understand the nature of Islam, you should do so.

 

For critical reading, I can suggest Ibn Warraq, a fallen Muslim. I leafed through one of his books, he raised decent points without resorting overly to quoting scripture.

Thanks, I hadn't heard of him before. And here is another website I found only a moment ago. It is apparently run by a group of former Muslims.

 

I can also suggest that you stay the hell away from anything written by Robert Spencer. The man claims that the crusades were waged on the Muslim countries in self-defense and that no atrocity was ever committed by Good Christian Soldiers. His bias is ridiculous.

I can't recall ever hearing of Robert Spencer before, but I believe it is true that the crusades were a response to Muslim aggression - not that the crusaders themselves were above reproach by any means (I don't think they were really even Christians as the Catholic Church did not allow them to read The Bible). In any war, at least one side is wrong. It seems that neither side was really in the right in that one.

 

I personally find this entire Jew/Christian/Muslim rivalry to be retarded, since it's the same deity being worshipped in practically the same way.

The latter portion of that statement is utterly and completely wrong (though it does get repeated fairly often). And the "rivalry" was originated and has been perpetuated by Islam.

[Accounting Troll]

I founf the FAQ of the Prophet of Doom website to be very revealing. The author defends a section in the Book of Deuteronomy in which God instructs the faithful to commit genocide against the Caananites because of their religious beliefs. Link.

 

The author argues that the Koran justifies killing people over religion and that Islam is therefore evil. At the same time, he argues that when the Bible justifies killing people over religion, it is perfectly acceptable and shows how good and compassionate God is :mad:

 

Abu Hamza, aka Captain Hook, was recently given a seven year prison sentence for stirring up racial hatred and trying to encourage Muslims to become suicide bombers (note that he failed to lead by example). The author of the Prophet of Doom website is behaving in exactly the same way, and if there is any justice in the universe he will end up becoming Abu Hamza's cellmate

[JellyfishGreen]

Thanks for the links to drawmohammed.com. I'll admit the first one is offensive but the others...not so bad. I wish we could see the results of a poll where a newspaper could ask these rioters "is this cartoon worth killing someone over? How about this one?" In their calmer moments, of course.

 

It's not a rational debate, I think too many people are getting stirred up without knowing the facts, and I find it quite distressing and mad.

 

At least here there's some rational debate. Thanks again.

[Crazy Gringo]

Yes, some rational debate....

 

You can not say the same the people who burned of a cross in front of the danish embassy in Pakistan. Those copycats!

I thought that the KKK had a copyright on burning crosses....

 

Nor can you say the same for the editors of the Icelandic newspaper DV who were brought up on charge for bringing the infamous drawings in their newspaper. One of the editors said in his defence that the drawings where being published to make the people of Iceland know what was going on and to let them make up their own mind and in NO way make fun of, ridicule, offend or harm anyone.

 

And in other news....Denmark is indeed being run by idiots when the foreign minister has been feeding the prime minister and the news media with misinformation about meeting with a muslim delagation back in november....This is not the first time that the control freak of a prime minister Anders 'Fjog' Fogh Rasmussen was on the verge of exploding under the EU summit which was being held in Denmark some years back.

 

I gotta tolerate this lousy goverment for 3 more years.... It does not get any better with nationalist right wingers gaining ground with the voters due to this Mohammedgate.

 

Following this whole thing in the news has left me a bit more angry and disillusioned with this world that we are all living in due to the fact that the world is being run a lot of exhippies who still believes in: Peace, Love and Harmony. And proverbs like: ' Can't we all just get along', ' There is room for all of us', ' Why don't we resolve this peacefully?', 'Let us sit down and smoke this fine weed while settling our differences?"

 

Why do we all have to be intelligent and responable beings who prances around like Didi from Dexter's Lab in an ignorant bliss of the world us (Even If considering Didi intelligent would be an big fat lie)? Some human just ain't capable of going through life like that. They are the kind of people I would call the 10000 year old caveman.

Call me a 10000 years old caveman because I consider heaven to be a boring place and would much rather go to hell.

[Gungadin]

You assume too much DeepOne and are clearly biased against Islam as a religion. I'm sorry, but you completely lost me with your "crusades were defensive wars" statement. But go ahead, read "The Politically Incorrect Gude to Islam" by Robert Spencer for his take on it. I found it lolleriffic. I like how branding your own work as "Politically Incorrect" is somehow a badge of honour and an excuse for faulty research.

 

In other news, I dislike Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She lets her hatred for the religion cloud her judgement enough to directly contradict herself.

 

Paraphrased from her: "In order to defend Freedom of Speech, it is imperative that Muslim clerics shut the hell up."

 

Also aruges that the end of Islam is night. Barring the apocalypse happening soon, I find it hard to see how a religion with 1.4 billion people in it can suddenly disappear.

 

Unfortunately, she gets more attention than she really should, since she's brown, which is a shame, since there are far better critics of Islamic practice than her.

 

I was a little disappointed that the Imam troublemakers couldn't be exiled from the country by some obscure law. I'm real tired of listening to them by now, and most Muslims see that the anger against the Imams will get redirected against all other Muslims. Local "Burn the heathen sand-niggers" political party just got a 30% increase in votes. I sure hope your people will thank you for making everybody hate them Mr. Laban.

 

The cross-burning was hilarious. Danes are just about the most non-religious people on the planet, and the Muslims choose to burn crosses?

 

I think the PM messed up by defending the cartoons. He should, IMO, just have kept a VERY low profile and let people fight it out amongst themselvs. But noooo, he thought he could reason with another people whom he had no way of understanding and slick his way out of it, thus harming Danish exports even more.

 

The Americans also messed up. It went like this:

 

Yanks: "We, as Americans, keep on invading Muslim countries, but we're still VERY offended by these drawings that are highly disrespectful towards Islam and condemn them. Love us now and stop revolting now, please."

Danes: "The hell? We supported your last two retarded wars and had people killed for it. This is how you repay us?"

Yanks: "Oops, sorry, our bad, we did of course mean that we support everything Denmark does and enjoy eating Danish Pastries as well. Please love us."

Muslims: "See? The Great Satan supports the Tiny Satan and his drawings! Death to America"

 

Net result: Both Danes and Muslims angry at the US.

 

Seriously clumsy diplomacy there.

[Gox]

An interesting debate indeed, but you guys strayed too much into history. What happened ten centuries ago is not an issue here: the Crusaders indeed were extremly barbaric and vile in the Arab countries, the Moslems did their fare share of attrocities in Europe (the Turks were at the gates of Viena), but that was then and let's leave it there. We are living in a different world now.

 

This is a question of tollerance.

 

Do you really think that the boys burning Dannish flags in Peshevar know a thing about freedom of the press, religious tollerance, other's concepts of life, personal freedoms, even the position of Denmark on the world's ma'? No, they just see a cross on the flag and that's it. This is venting out the hatred towards the West, plain and simple.

 

When I was in Egypt on a summer holliday, I was not offended because they asked me to took my shoes of when neccesary. I was not offended because I had to listen to the prayers from the loudspakers, didn't try to rip of any of the scarfs from the woman's heads, and I had no intentions of raising a street protest for the lack of the pork chops that I like. Their land, their customs. But I was raised in Europe, in the "live and let live" atmosphere.

 

The Moslems must understand that we who are not Moslems are IN NO WAY obliged to adhere to their believes.

[DeepOne]

You assume too much DeepOne and are clearly biased against Islam as a religion. I'm sorry, but you completely lost me with your "crusades were defensive wars" statement.

I think you were lost long before that, and that's not what I said. I said they were a "response to Muslim aggression", and I said more than that.

 

I certainly do have a negative opinion of Islam as a religion, but that opinion is based on knowledge of its scriptures. You seem to be forming your opinions primarily by reading other people's opinions; therefore, you have little real foundation for what you think you know about Islam.

 

I just found an article regarding the Crusades by Robert Spencer (the first thing I had ever read from him) at www.faithfreedom.org. I agree with what he says in that article, and he certainly does not skew it (not there, anyway) as you earlier said he does. If you would read the Sunnah, you would understand that violent world conquest is fundamental to Islam. Even The History Channel, in its recent very-biased-in-favor-of-Islam documentary on the Crusades, acknowledged the fact that Muslims had been taking cities by force before The Crusades began to take them back (although they greatly underemphasized this - you had to be paying close attention to catch it).

 

The Moslems must understand that we who are not Moslems are IN NO WAY obliged to adhere to their believes.

If they would do that, then we wouldn't be having problems with them. The problems stem from the fact that their scriptures teach them to be intolerant (and violently so) of non-Muslims.

[Bomb Bloke]

In order to follow a religion, you must accept it as the truth. If you are uncertain, then you can't call yourself a follower.

 

Unless your religion does not contradict another religion, you should not accept that other religion over your own - or else you denounce your faith.

 

For a true follower, religious teachings aren't just something you're supposed to believe in, they are the way things are.

 

This is why you can convince someone to strap a bomb to him or her self and send them off to kill people. As far as they are concerned, that is what they are supposed to do.

 

In the same way, as far as I'm concerned, it's not. In the same way that Muslims think I should follow their rules, I think they should follow mine.

 

Technically speaking, there's nothing wrong with an extremist. An extremist stands up for what he believes in. Therefore, the problem lies with what he believes in.

 

Only an athiest could therefore denounce all forms of extremism. For a religious person to do so it to denounce the following of his own beliefs.

 

Now, in most societies, people don't really take their faith seriously. They don't need much of an arguement (if any) to break their own rules. But to convince an "extremist" to change their ways, you have to convince them that the basis for their actions - their religion - is incorrect.

 

This is why no matter how far you beat an Islamic terrorist organisation back, they'll keep fighting. Missionaries might be more effective, but I doubt Bush will ever send in a legion of those (however religious he claims to be). Aireal bombers and infantry are much more fun.

 

This is why people die over something as trivial as cartoons. As far as the Muslims are concerned, the authors should be killed. No amount of "democracy" and "free speech" stuff is going to change that; world opinion doesn't change their scriptures.

 

We're not used to religions that act that way. For example, the Catholic church no longer publically executes people (even if they haven't changed the dogma concerning those practises). But, odd as this might sound, a religion shouldn't be followed that way - you either follow it, or you don't, and if following it means you kill people then either you kill people or you denounce that religion. A "grey" stances leaves you as nothing other then a hypocrit, or possibly an agnostic (ei An atheist who thinks he can get away with it).

 

Most people don't even bother finding out what following their religion really entails. It's usally these people who say "I'm a such-and-such-follower but I don't like extremists."

[Gox]

Wow! What a stand! Such determination and logic to it, almost like a mathematical formula. I feel I have to make some comments, because how we are talking about a more subtle matter.

 

In order to follow a religion, you must accept it as the truth. If you are uncertain, then you can't call yourself a follower.

 

This might seem like a semantic issue, but here lies the root of all the problems we have: one thing is to be a follower, the other is to be a believer.

 

If you are a follower, you follow someone who claims he knows best (at least better than you). If you believe, you believe in the core of your religion. Being born and raised as a Christian, I've spent my entire life looking for the essence of Christ's teachings, and those, basically, are love and tolerance. "Love your fellow man as yourself", "the other cheek" etc. (I'm not a native English speaker, so forgive my incorrect quotes). I will try not to follow but to BELIEVE in that, and to perform accordingly. And you are right about one thing - that's the way the things are.

 

Those buggars who strap themselves with explosives are no believers, they are just stupid and ignorant followers of their equaly stupid and ignorant - and vicious religious leaders. I haven't read the Couran, but my Moslem friends are telling me that there's no secret order against the Christians in there. I't just a matter od interpretation. If you are a vile person, you will find an excuse for your savagery.

 

I simply refuse to believe that we are created to kill one another over some lines in some books (or over some cartoons, as well). The life we have is too precious to be wasted like that (unles you are a Budist - in that case you have a continuous just-give-me-one-more-chance situation, which puts them in great advantage over the rest of us one-timers. When I come to think about that, THEY would be the ideal suicide bombers). We are here to make some sense of our lives, and to leave the world a better place than we found it.

 

Speaking of extremism, that's a dead-end. In the end, it inevitably leads to "us or them" situation, and that's something we saw throughout the history. You simply can not perform "the final solution to the Moslem question" or "the Christian question". I will leave the Jews out of this, they know first hand how it's like.

 

What will be next? To grab swords and impose our believes with steel and fire? Let them plant bombs all over the West, the cassualities would be relatively light because they are not technicaly sophisticated as us. We do have nukes, they don't, so let's put a big one over Mecca during the Hadj? Now that's a retaliation.

 

Now it's Europe's move. IMO, we should take a firm stand - we are not obliged to adhere to your religion, we are not imposing anything on you, so please you do the same. Your house, your rules. Our house, our rules. And if you are offended by the cartoons, just think how we can be offended by, let's say, the way you treat women. Or the way you do your personal hygiene in the toilet. You go ahead and rave on, but we will stick to our values. And if you want to live together, and you do because the prosperity of your nations lies in the ties with the West, you gotta learn to be tolerant.

 

In time, they will learn too.

[DeepOne]

That was a good post, Bomb Bloke. I could have written many of the same things myself. One point of contention, however...

This is why no matter how far you beat an Islamic terrorist organisation back, they'll keep fighting. Missionaries might be more effective, but I doubt Bush will ever send in a legion of those (however religious he claims to be). Aireal bombers and infantry are much more fun.

Missionaries sent to an Islamic nation would most likely be killed by the Muslims. The best hope for a peaceful solution is for them to become educated about their own religion by becoming familiar with its scriptures (both Qur'an and Sunnah). It is difficult to imagine that many people could read the Sunnah and still believe that Muhammad was a prophet (although there have apparently been censored or "sanitized" versions of the Sunnah published to make him more palatable). A Muslim in jihad mode has already accepted the idea of killing the infidels, so it seems unlikely that there would be any solution for such a person other than death or imprisonment. Bombers and infantry are not used because they are "fun"; when people are determined to kill you, war may be the only recourse.

 

I also agreed with what Gox was saying - at first. I started to disagree at this point...

Those buggars who strap themselves with explosives are no believers, they are just stupid and ignorant followers of their equaly stupid and ignorant - and vicious religious leaders. I haven't read the Couran, but my Moslem friends are telling me that there's no secret order against the Christians in there. I't just a matter od interpretation. If you are a vile person, you will find an excuse for your savagery.

By itself, the Qur'an doesn't really make sense - largely because it lacks chronology and context. To understand it, you need to be familiar with the Sunnah. With knowledge of the Sunnah, the "matters of interpretation" are not so ambiguous anymore. But as Bomb Bloke said, "Most people don't even bother finding out what following their religion really entails." The trouble is that (in Muslim nations especially) the ignorant followers are helping to prop up the hardcore believers both financially (due to the obligatory zakat tax) and in other ways.

 

Knowledge of Islam (for both Muslims and non-Muslims) is of paramount importance if any solution is to be found. Non-Muslims need to understand the threat; otherwise, we will all be blindsided one day by people among us who political correctness (and even President Bush) tell us are peaceful and honorable. Muslims need to understand Islam in order to make an informed choice (although Islam isn't really a choice in an Islamic nation). Either they accept the hate-filled dogma which their scriptures contain and wage jihad against infidels worldwide, or they reject Islam. As Muhammad would have told them, they are hypocrites if they claim to be Muslims but won't fight or at least help those who do (if they are unable to fight). Islamic governments can be incredibly dangerous as they not only provide a base of operations for the jihadists but they may also have the resources to provide them with extremely effective weapons. My hope (although not my expectation) is that a democratic government in Iraq could help undermine the stranglehold that Islam has on the governments in that part of the world. If that were to happen, then fundamental Islam could become marginalized as Nazism has been, and it would no longer represent a serious threat to the rest of the world.

[Crazy Gringo]

I read the links you posted, Deepone. Some interesting reading even if it is only one side of the story written by people who know both sides of the story.

So the worlds politicians are just wasting time 'talking' with the Islamic leaders because the Islamic leaders 'know' that it is a waste of time. Do they amuse themselves with the infidels trying to be civilized?

It looks like one big stalling tactic to me. But what are they stalling for?

Just one question....What happens when Islam is the one religion remaining?

[Gungadin]

You do presumably mean "Missionaries sent to an islamic theocratic nation"? Because I know some people who went to Egypt and Turkey to preach Jesus. They all got home in one piece, although I doubt they were very succesful. They would most likely have been exiled at the very least had tried doing that in Iran, but it's important to distinguish between states like Iran and states like Turkey.

 

Deepone, you seem to be identifying the common Muslim with the people rioting, burning flags and calling for extinction of Jews. I must ask you however: Do you believe that the common Muslim, be he living in Turkey, Sweden, Indonesia or Iran, is a more violent and nasty invidual than anybody living in a Christian country? I know that this looks like a strawman, but if you'd care to answer I'll say no more about it.

 

I do stand by my point that what the various holy books of the world say is largely unimportant and can mainly be used to win discussions about the religion. What IS important is how these words are interpreted by their followers and thus practiced, and what already existing cultural customs are then integrated into these practices, such as circumsision of women in Northern Africa having been attributed to Islam, despite there not really being texts supporting it. (If you know of any, I'd like to read it.)

 

All of this will most likely seem like soppy socialist apologism to you, but it just seems to me that you and those like you are being overly hostile towards followers of a largely peaceful religion based on the actions of the few and that rhetoric like that used by both websites like PoD and hugely influential European parties aren't really helping the situation any and are only widening the divide between Christians and Muslims. The amount of untruth regarding the recent west vs Islam war being told in the Muslim community is already appaling and will only get worse, since more and more Muslims are inclined to believe it every time some stupid little thing like Abu Ghraib comes up, and the same goes for the Christian communities. Such levels of ignorant hatred on both sides can only lead to trouble in the long run.

 

My point is: Why add to the hatred? Why stand up boldly and declare Islam a religion of terror and hatred? This will cause nothing good and will only serve to antagonize moderate Muslims, pushing them further to the extremes, as can be clearly seen in countries like Denmark, where hate-speech against Muslims is getting ridiculous. (You can take my word for this, by the way. Notable politicians speak of Muslims in a way that would make Goebbels blush. I'm not kidding - "Black cancerous cells" being one of the phrases used about Muslims. Another prominent politician claims that the Koran and Mein Kampf are essentially the same book.)

 

Somebody's got to act classy for Islam/western relations to improve, and it sure as hell isn't going to be the Danish Muslim community, which is too divided culturally, ethnically and philosophically to really pull together as well as too proud to admit being in the wrong. The burden must then fall on the west.

As for western culture being superior to Islam: If this is truly so, Islamic nations will realize this sooner or later and convert to secular free-market capitalism. Anti-Islamic propaganda won't help in this matter as it's a fight the progressive Muslims must fight and win within their own states. It's getting some momentum here, with pro-western Muslims finally banding together and taking a stand against Abu Laban and his ilk.

 

You say I base my opinons on what I read. Mainly, I base my opinons on the people I speak to. I used to think that I knew no Muslims. It did then occur to me that I know a number of Muslims personally, but that I just never thought of them as Muslims, since I grew up with them, played ball with them and had schoolyard fights with them. Most of these people are no more violent than anybody else and are pretty unconcerned with holy warfare. The ones I know that ARE violent aren't devout Muslims at all. They just get a kick out of boozing, fornicating and beating up various people for no good reason, behaviour which I have yet to meet a sensible, faithful Muslim that defends and certainly have a hard time recalling any scripture that defends such behaviour.

 

I really can't shake the feeling that, somewhere, there's a message board entirely in Arabic, where Christianity is being decried as the harbinger of all evil on earth, with people making educated posts peppered with their own brand of propaganda and seasoned with Old Testament verses, taken out of context, of course, describing the unholy slaughter perpetuated by Jews and Christians against everybody.

 

We need understanding. Not divisive propaganda by either side.

 

I'd like to close this first with a quote from Ibn Warraq, critic of Islam:

 

"People tried reforming Islam; it never worked. Again and again, Islam was mortgaged in the hands of killer leadership, while the rest of the Muslim world only said "this is not real Islam"

 

Meaning that Muslims who truly believe in peace will have to see through the hatefulness that is being fed to them and actually practice Islam as they say it is - A religion of peace

 

I like this website, by the way: https://www.secularislam.org

 

It doesn't claim that Islam is inherently evil and destructive, but rather that Islamic countries should be secular and abandon their primitive. That is a hundred times more constructive than anything PoD could ever say IMO.

[DeepOne]

Deepone' date=' you seem to be identifying the common Muslim with the people rioting, burning flags and calling for extinction of Jews. I must ask you however: Do you believe that the common Muslim, be he living in Turkey, Sweden, Indonesia or Iran, is a more violent and nasty invidual than anybody living in a Christian country? I know that this looks like a strawman, but if you'd care to answer I'll say no more about it. [/quote']

I am critical of Islam itself and those who follow it closely. If you've been reading carefully, you should have noticed that I agreed when Bomb Bloke said "Most people don't even bother finding out what following their religion really entails", and I said that understanding Islam was extremely important for both Muslims and non-Muslims. Clearly, I don't think that most people who call themselves Muslims really understand the nature of the religion they profess to believe (this seems to be a problem with many - if not all - religions). This is a good thing in that not all of them are determined to kill non-Muslims, but it is also a bad thing in that the ignorant followers are helping to empower the hardcore believers (whether they know it or not) and are helping to perpetuate the reverence of Islamic scripture which will undoubtedly inspire more and more jihadists for as long as it is revered.

 

I do stand by my point that what the various holy books of the world say is largely unimportant and can mainly be used to win discussions about the religion. What IS important is how these words are interpreted by their followers and thus practiced, and what already existing cultural customs are then integrated into these practices, such as circumsision of women in Northern Africa having been attributed to Islam, despite there not really being texts supporting it. (If you know of any, I'd like to read it.)

I strongly disagree with you there. A religion with "holy scriptures" is fundamentally defined by those scriptures. If one believes these books are the literal or inspired word of his deity, it would be hypocritical of him to not believe them and place great importance on them. One reason why knowledge of scripture is important is that it allows you to know whether someone is actually following the teachings of that religion or whether they have been making things up (or ignoring things). That is precisely why I decided that, in light of 9/11 and other world events, it was important to me to learn about Islamic scripture. While it is true that some people will interpret some things differently than others, there are many things that are not really subject to different interpretations.

 

As far as female circumcision is concerned, I know little about it. I found at least one reference to it in the Sunnah. You can find it mentioned in Chapter 17 of Prophet of Doom. Clearly, it was being done in Mecca in the times of Islamic scripture, but the reference there doesn't actually teach that it should or shouldn't be done.

 

All of this will most likely seem like soppy socialist apologism to you, but it just seems to me that you and those like you are being overly hostile towards followers of a largely peaceful religion based on the actions of the few and that rhetoric like that used by both websites like PoD and hugely influential European parties aren't really helping the situation any and are only widening the divide between Christians and Muslims.

The divide can hardly widen when Islamic scriptures already teach them to kill (and/or enslave) non-Muslims. The religion is absolutely not "largely peaceful" even if many of those who claim to follow it are so. And, yes, a lot of this does seem like "soppy socialist apologism", but you are being unusually civilized about it.

 

Such levels of ignorant hatred on both sides can only lead to trouble in the long run.

Ignorance on both sides is a big problem. From the Islamic point of view, however, the hatred can easily come from being well informed on Islamic scripture (I provided some examples earlier). Christians, at least, don't hate Muslims, but I think that any Christian (or any rational person) with knowledge of Islamic scripture would hate Islam.

 

Why stand up boldly and declare Islam a religion of terror and hatred?

Because it is, and because it is important for people to understand that. Trying to ignore it certainly will not make it go away; it will only make us more vulnerable to it. It's a bit like finding an odd lump on your body. You can ignore it and hope that it's not cancerous. But if it is cancerous, ignoring it is the worst thing you can do (assuming you are concerned about your health).

 

Another prominent politician claims that the Koran and Mein Kampf are essentially the same book.

There certainly are some similarities. Prophet of Doom devotes a chapter to this topic. If I remember correctly, I thought some of the comparisons there are a bit of a stretch, but others are not.

 

You say I base my opinons on what I read. Mainly, I base my opinons on the people I speak to.

I said, "You seem to be forming your opinions primarily by reading other people's opinions". Whether the opinions are spoken or read, they are still opinions. Islam is fundamentally defined by its scriptures, and knowledge of those is the only way you can be sure you understand the nature of Islam. Talking to people who may or may not understand it is not a reliable way to form an opinion of Islam. All you'll really get that way is an opinion of their opinions.

 

I used to think that I knew no Muslims. It did then occur to me that I know a number of Muslims personally, but that I just never thought of them as Muslims, since I grew up with them, played ball with them and had schoolyard fights with them. Most of these people are no more violent than anybody else and are pretty unconcerned with holy warfare. The ones I know that ARE violent aren't devout Muslims at all. They just get a kick out of boozing, fornicating and beating up various people for no good reason, behaviour which I have yet to meet a sensible, faithful Muslim that defends and certainly have a hard time recalling any scripture that defends such behaviour.

I have known a number of so-called Muslims myself, and they seemed like (relatively) normal people. Apparently, they, as well as the people you describe, do not closely follow (or even understand much about) the religion they profess to believe, and I'm glad that they do not follow it closely. However, they need to understand that which they profess to believe and either accept or reject it as it really is. What if they said they were Nazis? Would you then say that Nazism must not be so bad because I've known a number of them and they seemed like nice normal people? You would probably know enough about Nazism to know that they aren't truly Nazis, and you might even try to inform them that Nazism is not really an acceptable ideology.

 

I really can't shake the feeling that, somewhere, there's a message board entirely in Arabic, where Christianity is being decried as the harbinger of all evil on earth, with people making educated posts peppered with their own brand of propaganda and seasoned with Old Testament verses, taken out of context, of course, describing the unholy slaughter perpetuated by Jews and Christians against everybody.

I agree that this is probably happening. Some of their propaganda that makes the news is astonishingly ridiculous. By the way, there aren't really any Christians in the Old Testament.

 

It is true that some things in The Bible can be made to look bad by taking them out of context. When it comes to Islamic scripture, however, taking it out of context is usually the only way that it can not be made to look bad.

 

I'd like to close this first with a quote from Ibn Warraq, critic of Islam:

 

"People tried reforming Islam; it never worked. Again and again, Islam was mortgaged in the hands of killer leadership, while the rest of the Muslim world only said "this is not real Islam"

 

Meaning that Muslims who truly believe in peace will have to see through the hatefulness that is being fed to them and actually practice Islam as they say it is - A religion of peace

From the quote you provided, it is not clear whether "the rest of the Muslim world" is saying that the reforms are not real Islam or that the killer leadership is not real Islam. I suspect it's the former. Islamic scripture is believed to be the literal (Qur'an) or inspired (Sunnah) word of Allah. It can be accepted or rejected, but there is really no way to "reform" it.

[Bomb Bloke]

I'd like to close this first with a quote from Ibn Warraq, critic of Islam:

 

"People tried reforming Islam; it never worked. Again and again, Islam was mortgaged in the hands of killer leadership, while the rest of the Muslim world only said "this is not real Islam"

 

Meaning that Muslims who truly believe in peace will have to see through the hatefulness that is being fed to them and actually practice Islam as they say it is - A religion of peace

 

Erm, no, a Muslim who truly believes in peace won't practise Islam at all.

 

I mean, sure, they could try to "practice Islam as they say it is", but then they wouldn't be practicing Islam... So why bother?

 

I've already made this point, but I figure ignorance is a major issue in any debate, so I'll draw it out. Bear with me, it's been ages since I've had a good post-midnight ramble, so I'll just type and try to stay as coherant and relevant as I can.

 

Consider the Catholic religion. This, much to my regret, is synonymous with the Christian religion in most peoples minds, but differs greatly - mostly concerning it's core teachings.

 

If you read through the gospels, Christ points out that no one can work his way into heaven. Sinner or saint, no matter what you do or don't do, the only way in is through Him.

 

Now, ask your average professed Christian how they think they can get into heaven. Most of them will say the same thing - "If you live a good life, and the good outweighs the bad, you'll go to heaven". Half of them won't even mention Christ, and will even go as far as to say that a non-Christian could get in.

 

I took this up on another forum in an arguement against Catholicism (the dogma of which contradicts the Bible on many counts, for example, by claiming that the Pope can deny or allow people into heaven).

 

It was all news to them. They hardly had a clue about the religion they were trying support with their own arguements.

 

But, here's the catch - showing them their own scriptures didn't change their beliefs. The bit about "all who don't hold themselves subject to the Pope are anathema" (damned to hell) didn't change their "If you live a good life, and the good outweighs the bad, you'll go to heaven" line.

 

Now, I'm not trying to make any religious arguements here (or else this post would be a lot longer), I'm aiming to show how stubborn your average human is. Even though I got them to deny that they would ever follow or accept many of their scriptures - the basis of their Catholic religion - these people still call themselves Catholics!

 

But, I know that people are stubborn, and tend to ignore that which they don't want to hear (take the whole global warming issue, for example). For someone to denounce their religion is a major thing. It can mean lifestyle changes, rifts among friends and family... All those things mean more to people then whatever group it is they think they should follow. It's easier for them to just keep right on as they've been doing, then look closely at the issue.

 

I've never argued points of the Qur'an, but I'm willing to bet that those Muslims who say "this is not real Islam" don't know what real Islam is. I'm also willing to bet that if you showed them, they still wouldn't change their tune. They'll still denounce the extremists, just as a Catholic will denounce the dogma, even though to do so is to denounce their own faith. And they'll still say that's their religion.

 

And so little hypocrisies add up, and before you know it people are rioting when some guys draw some cartoons of Mohammed, and others are kissing statues of Mary. It's so ironic that the two "major" religions of the world, those that everyone would consider to be opposing forces, are practised in much the same way - by people who don't understand the basis for their actions, or even if their religion supports them. They just do whatever the mainstream considers acceptable, and think no more about it.

 

And suddenly people think the mainstream way of doing things is how it should have been done all along. It is truly, truly sad that people are more prepared to kill each other over what they think is right, rather then sit down and find out what IS right. They'd rather die for a conviction then change it.

 

But your average Joe just follows the "If you live a good life, and the good outweighs the bad, you'll go to heaven" line and wonders what everyone else is fussing about.

 

So, yeah, I know missionaries wouldn't work. I just hate the fact that it's true, especially when soldiers won't work either. I doubt even if folks did read the Qur'an/Sunnah that it would make a lick of differance.

 

It's like mob mentality on a world wide scale. Take any given person, he wants to be the good guy. Stick him in a group and he just doesn't care, he just wants to do whatever anyone else is doing.

[Crazy Gringo]

As I wrote in an former post in this topic I saw Mohammedgate as one big stalling tactic and I asked the question: What are the muslims waiting for?

One answer to that question I saw in the news today....More and more young danish people are getting and interest in Islam and are approaching the danish Imams about converting to Islam.

Why you might ask....Which religion is and has been the most talked about in the news ever since you can remember....Islam. And any form of media exposure and attention about Islam drags more 'faith seekers' into it's grasp.

All this media attention about Íslam has created a sort of romantized view on Islam (The land of milk and honey varity) that draws the 'faith seekers' in. And any kind of romantized view tends to be blinding to the realities of life.

Any human is free to believe in what they want even if it limits their free will. It is a question of how much the human will allow it's free will to be limited.

[Slaughter]

Did anyone post this one yet?

[Crazy Gringo]

Now that is telling the Muslims something the rest of the world have been trying to tell them for years now. If she was a man she would have some major shiny brass cajones.

[Bomb Bloke]

An idiot is what she is.

 

Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don't throw them at me. You are free to worship whoever you want, but other people's beliefs are not your concern, whether they believe that the Messiah is God, son of Mary, or that Satan is God, son of Mary. Let people have their beliefs.

 

Yeah, just don't let them follow them. Ibrahim doesn't believe in stones, he believes in throwing them. She can't pick and choose.

[Accounting Troll]

I suspect that she has placed her life in great danger. The twisted version of Islam preached by bin Laden and his cronies is extremely intolerent of the slightest critism; a right wing Dutch film maker was murdered for producing a film that claimed that muslims are intolerant, which raises one or two disturbing philosophical questions.

 

Additionally, the radical muslims have some deeply misogynistic attitudes which will count against her. When the Taleban ruled Afghanistan, women were forced to wear burkhas regardless of their personal feelings. Education was also forbidden to women - a woman who tried to educate other women could expect to be educated if she was caught.

 

The destruction of the giant buddha statues that had been carved into the living rock of the mountains of Afghanistan centuries ago shows just how sick the Taleban are. One of the great wonders of the world destroyed because it reminded people of Afghanistan's pre-Islamic culture. Now, the empty spaces where the statues once stood are a testament to the pettiness and intolerance of humanity.

[Bomb Bloke]

Education was also forbidden to women - a woman who tried to educate other women could expect to be educated if she was caught.

 

But isn't the punishment just as illegal as the crime?

[Accounting Troll]

Ooops. I meant executed. Although I suppose if the Taleban were feeling really nasty, they could ship her to an English boarding school There is a girls boarding school in Monmouthshire whose school motto is "serve and obey", which definatly sounds rather Orwellian...