Muhammadanism WEBSITE...

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd love to hear some opinions on this.

[/ QUOTE ]
No thanks. I like 2+2 and I don't want to be banned.
This is the politics forum. NOT THE FREE SPEECH FORUM. If I were to express my honest opinions about Islam the mods would ban me in a nano-second. Nevermind my opinions on Islam are backed by historical factual accounts.

Expressing unpleasants FACTS about other religions is what some mods call "hate speech" or they call it "racist" speech (even though muslims are not a 'race', but these people don't let facts stand in the way of expressing their politically correct beliefs). Be careful what you say here...

[govman6767]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OP why do you assume that the guy who made this site is the central authority on all things muslim?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you deny what he says ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would, and that is based on the title of the website. There is no such thing as mohammadanism because any MUSLIM would know that this would be naming the religion after a "prophet" which is different from Christianity which is based on Christ.

The other statements are mostly nonsense and are approaching things from a very narrow point of view. Even the wiki paints a more accurate picture than that website. You may as well go to alquaida's website to get an interpretation depending on the results you are looking for.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know what I've seen and heard over hear. Prayer music blaring from the city's I think they take it pretty seriously.

5 pillars of Islam cannot be argued

Horrible treatment of women cannot be argued.

Do you think muslims should get special treatment in the USA ??? over our own laws ??

[AzDesertRat]

[ QUOTE ]
Horrible treatment of women cannot be argued.

Do you think muslims should get special treatment in the USA ??? over our own laws ??

[/ QUOTE ]

However, it can be argue that the mistreatment of women has been taken to a level above what the bl religion intended. No place does it say that woman have to wear a veil--basically they have to cover all parts of their body except for their face, hands and feet--the veils, burkas whatever were an extension of tribal traditions and not a direct extension of religious doctrine. Ironically enough, the laws were initially put in place to protect women, or at least give them a vote/share--which is now outdated. And ftr, there is nothing to prevent women from obtaining jobs or an eduction except for the men that surround them. Taliban <> true muslims.

And for the second point, absolutely not. If they want to form their own "sunday (actually friday) schools", that's fine--but they have to keep in mind that they are the ones who have to adjust to the laws of their adopted nation--if they don't like it, get the [censored] out (or get enough people in their to vote in their own laws much like the religious south).

Oh yeah, calls to prayer are only taken seriously by religious people or religious police--people will respect it, but otherwise not hold any special place for it.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Horrible treatment of women cannot be argued.

Do you think muslims should get special treatment in the USA ??? over our own laws ??

[/ QUOTE ]

However, it can be argue that the mistreatment of women has been taken to a level above what the bl religion intended. No place does it say that woman have to wear a veil--basically they have to cover all parts of their body except for their face, hands and feet--the veils, burkas whatever were an extension of tribal traditions and not a direct extension of religious doctrine. Ironically enough, the laws were initially put in place to protect women, or at least give them a vote/share--which is now outdated. And ftr, there is nothing to prevent women from obtaining jobs or an eduction except for the men that surround them. Taliban <> true muslims.

And for the second point, absolutely not. If they want to form their own "sunday (actually friday) schools", that's fine--but they have to keep in mind that they are the ones who have to adjust to the laws of their adopted nation--if they don't like it, get the [censored] out (or get enough people in their to vote in their own laws much like the religious south).

Oh yeah, calls to prayer are only taken seriously by religious people or religious police--people will respect it, but otherwise not hold any special place for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many non-Muslim residents have complained about the loudspeaker-broadcast calls for prayer as being unwelcome noise and disturbing. I think the town had to pass a special variance in order to get around the noise level restrictions or bylaws.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
An even more basic step..prove that they "decisevly" dont support the terrorists.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you consider Americans "decisively" against terrorism, then so are Muslims: (excerpt)

[ QUOTE ]
only 46 percent of Americans think that "bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified," while 24 percent believe these attacks are "often or sometimes justified."

Contrast those numbers with 2006 polling results from the world's most-populous Muslim countries – Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria. Terror Free Tomorrow, the organization I lead, found that 74 percent of respondents in Indonesia agreed that terrorist attacks are "never justified"; in Pakistan, that figure was 86 percent; in Bangladesh, 81 percent.

Do these findings mean that Americans are closet terrorist sympathizers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Survey article.

So much for pedantic interpretations of the Five Pillars.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An even more basic step..prove that they "decisevly" dont support the terrorists.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you consider Americans "decisively" against terrorism, then so are Muslims: (excerpt)

[ QUOTE ]
only 46 percent of Americans think that "bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified," while 24 percent believe these attacks are "often or sometimes justified."

Contrast those numbers with 2006 polling results from the world's most-populous Muslim countries – Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria. Terror Free Tomorrow, the organization I lead, found that 74 percent of respondents in Indonesia agreed that terrorist attacks are "never justified"; in Pakistan, that figure was 86 percent; in Bangladesh, 81 percent.

Do these findings mean that Americans are closet terrorist sympathizers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Survey article.

So much for pedantic interpretations of the Five Pillars.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didnt ask for proof that any group of non-Muslims are decisively against terrorsim, I asked for proof that the majority of Muslims are.

Decisively is a critical word here, and I submit that it is obvious that the majority of Muslims are not [b]decisively[/] against terrorism.

[Copernicus]

Do you know which UM PIPA survey this refers to. I don't find it readily on the PIPA site.

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OP why do you assume that the guy who made this site is the central authority on all things muslim?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you deny what he says ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would, and that is based on the title of the website. There is no such thing as mohammadanism because any MUSLIM would know that this would be naming the religion after a "prophet" which is different from Christianity which is based on Christ.

The other statements are mostly nonsense and are approaching things from a very narrow point of view. Even the wiki paints a more accurate picture than that website. You may as well go to alquaida's website to get an interpretation depending on the results you are looking for.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just because it isnt named mohamadism means nothing, mohamad is the central character, and speaks for god in the koran, essentialy he is a christ-like figure. You say that wiki paints a more accurate picture...well, how do you know if you have never read the koran or at least books on it?


edit: I thought you said you have never read it, but got you confused w/ someoen else, so if Im wrong pls say so.


Have you read the koran? I have, and books to clarify it, basically "cliff notes" and in depth explorations (it was for a term paper). A lot of the koran is a handbook for war and fear mongering. A lot like the old testament was though, its just that christian extremists in the year 2007 are much much more benign than muslim extremists. Most muslims imo, are at a crossroads, do I believe that they really want to see people of other faiths slaughtered? no. do I think they have an irrational fear that if they dont support or do what the koran says they wont go to "heaven"? yes.

[AzDesertRat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OP why do you assume that the guy who made this site is the central authority on all things muslim?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you deny what he says ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would, and that is based on the title of the website. There is no such thing as mohammadanism because any MUSLIM would know that this would be naming the religion after a "prophet" which is different from Christianity which is based on Christ.

The other statements are mostly nonsense and are approaching things from a very narrow point of view. Even the wiki paints a more accurate picture than that website. You may as well go to alquaida's website to get an interpretation depending on the results you are looking for.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just because it isnt named mohamadism means nothing, mohamad is the central character, and speaks for god in the koran, essentialy he is a christ-like figure. You say that wiki paints a more accurate picture...well, how do you know if you have never read the koran or at least books on it?


edit: I thought you said you have never read it, but got you confused w/ someoen else, so if Im wrong pls say so.


Have you read the koran? I have, and books to clarify it, basically "cliff notes" and in depth explorations (it was for a term paper). A lot of the koran is a handbook for war and fear mongering. A lot like the old testament was though, its just that christian extremists in the year 2007 are much much more benign than muslim extremists. Most muslims imo, are at a crossroads, do I believe that they really want to see people of other faiths slaughtered? no. do I think they have an irrational fear that if they dont support or do what the koran says they wont go to "heaven"? yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was born a muslim but no longer consider myself one now (practice buddhism now and folks aren't happy and it's been a few years). I am familiar with lots of it and was turned off to what I saw as the politicization of it. One thing that turns me off on ANY religion is when it tries to get involved in politics--NO EXCEPTIONS.

As for your interpretation, you can take sections of the bible and see the war mongering that goes on in there--it is all a matter of taking the book LITERALLY vs FIGURATIVELY. Look at what happened during the crusades, the spanish inquisition and other sections of christian history--the people at the time somehow believed what they did was ordained by god--is this any different? It should also be noted that much of the problems in the history of christianity occurred 1300-1500 years after the death of christ--currently, islam is ~ 1400 years after the death of mohammed so it could be argued that this religion is going through its own "dark ages' where it tries to reconcile its beliefs with the modern world.

As the saying goes--more people have been killed in the name of religion than all other causes throughout the history of mankind--people just don't [censored] learn the lessons of history.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
I asked for proof that the majority of Muslims [oppose terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

74-86% in the most populous Muslim nations oppose attacks on civilians. Why isn't that sufficient evidence?

Care to try and prove most favor terrorism?