Indeed. So if a Jew were to attack a butcher for selling bacon to other Jews he would be behaving in accordance with Jewish law? The law is one thing, the violence is what is up to interpretation, and nothing in "Islamic law" calls for it.
MUSLIM TERRORISTS
- Thread starter Capteddie
- Start date
- Status
Indeed. So if a Jew were to attack a butcher for selling bacon to other Jews he would be behaving in accordance with Jewish law? The law is one thing, the violence is what is up to interpretation, and nothing in "Islamic law" calls for it.
Cosmoline
Member
The real question is why the Orthodox Jews don't ransack non-kosher butchers, while so many Muslims think it's their right to ransack liquor stores. It's because there's a fundamental difference between the two religious laws. Jewish law is for Jews. Islamic Law is intended to be the law of the entire world. Islamic Law certainly approves the use of physical violence and even lethal force to ensure that it is imposed and respected. It's the old notion that you can make fun of Christ as much as you want, but if you disresepect Mohammed his peace loving followers will cut you to pieces.
longeyes
member
I would love to hear their reasoning. I assume they would have no problem then with someone in their democracy who rejected Islam outright? Or do you have to be a Muslim to enjoy the democratic privileges they support?
shootinstudent
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2005
- Messages
- 786
Longeyes,
Here's a good article to start with. The author is a Sheikh of one of the more conservative Sunni schools (Shafi'i).
http://www.meforum.org/article/14
It depends. The author above would say "no problem at all", but then again, he's also a professed Zionist who argues that the Koran provides some basis for religious Muslims to support the state of Israel. The point is that there are many different ideas about Islam within the religion, and so it's wrong to speak of "Islamic law" as if it's only one thing, defined by whoever has the most guns in Saudi Arabia.
Here's a good article to start with. The author is a Sheikh of one of the more conservative Sunni schools (Shafi'i).
http://www.meforum.org/article/14
It depends. The author above would say "no problem at all", but then again, he's also a professed Zionist who argues that the Koran provides some basis for religious Muslims to support the state of Israel. The point is that there are many different ideas about Islam within the religion, and so it's wrong to speak of "Islamic law" as if it's only one thing, defined by whoever has the most guns in Saudi Arabia.
Cousin Mike
Member
one45auto said:
Wow..
Ever heard of the KKK? I'm sure they pretty much fit the definition of the word "terrorist" - And I'm almost positive they consider themselves Christians, and do everything they do using the Bible as justification. What about the IRA in the UK? What about the Christian extremists in Beirut in the '80s? Some of the most horrible things in history have happened in the name of Christianity, and were directly sanctioned by the Pope in MANY cases, including slavery in America. This is not news to anyone who passed the 8th grade.
I had a million comments I could have commented on, but I chose this quote because I believe it reflects the common attitude a lot of Americans have about Muslims. Before I go any further, I will also say many of you surprise me in the knowledge and understanding that these fanatics we're discussing and the views they advocate have nothing to with the religion of Islam. I find that encouraging given the perceptions lots of people have of Muslims nowadays.
I hear phrases like "Islamic" (which is almost NEVER a proper way to refer to anything having to do with Islam or Muslims - it's a genuine media term and reflects the ignorance of the user) this and that, and "Sharia Law", and while I find it amusing people so readily remember the little terms they hear on FOX News, it becomes very obvious that most of these people know nothing about the religion, or even how to speak of it intelligently.
None of these laws people attribute to Islam come from from the Qu'Ran, which is supposed to be the ONLY source of the religion. Unfortunately, books from religious "scholars", Arab culture and regional tradition have left their mark on Islam, just like Western culture has made it's mark on Christianity. The way you practice your religion, the things you believe as an American, will be very different from Christians in the middle east, or Russian Christians, etc.
Anyways - to the point - alcohol and Muslim Law - nothing in the Qu'Ran forbids Muslims to drink. Quite the contrary, the Qu'Ran states that nothing unlawful to Christians or Jews is unlawful to Muslims... And the Bible nor Torah forbid drinking. Religious scholars, books written AFTER the Qu'Ran (called the Hadith and Sunna), and other regional/cultural/social influences invented those "laws" and traditions in attempts to control the masses, and to appear "more pure" than the people of other religions. The Qu'Ran warns of the dangers of intoxicants, but simply does not forbid drinking.
Please, let's try to remember, that if we're not COMPLETELY SURE of what we are saying, we probably should not say it. Especially in forums, where thousands may possibly read it. "Better to look silly and be quiet, than open your mouth and remove all doubt" - or however that little saying goes.
If you want to read about TRUE Islam, and not the news media's version of it, you could find everything you need at
http://www.submission.org
I am not affiliated with this site in any way, but it is a good site for those who know nothing about the faith to learn anything they want to know.
Cousin Mike
Member
Cosmoline said:
That is absolutely assinine... Muslims have the exact same respect for all of God's prophets, and place no single prophet above another. I was going to leave this thread, but as I posted my reply, there was another wonderful post I felt obligated to comment on. Muslims have the absolute highest respect for Jesus Christ, his miracles and his message. The Qu'Ran has more in it about Jesus than the Holy Bible. And you dont go through 12 years of catholic school without reading both books MANY times. It is obvious that you have never in your life taken a single look at the religion for yourself. The things people say with no knowledge of what they speak will never cease to amaze me.
Cosmoline
Member
So much respect for Christ, in fact, that they issue death fatwahs against anyone who insults him
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/493436.stm
That's lovely. So actually if you make fun of Jesus the MUSLIMS will kill you.
Your comparisons between Muslim terrorists and the IRA and KKK are silly. The IRA was a largely communist, atheistic movement more concerned with Irish political identity than religious. The second KKK purported to be a Protestant organization, but its attacks on blacks had nothing to do with religion or any Protestant Law. You cannot compare the ISLAMIC LAW in effect in half a dozen Muslim nations with the modern western religions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/493436.stm
That's lovely. So actually if you make fun of Jesus the MUSLIMS will kill you.
Your comparisons between Muslim terrorists and the IRA and KKK are silly. The IRA was a largely communist, atheistic movement more concerned with Irish political identity than religious. The second KKK purported to be a Protestant organization, but its attacks on blacks had nothing to do with religion or any Protestant Law. You cannot compare the ISLAMIC LAW in effect in half a dozen Muslim nations with the modern western religions.
gc70
Member
I am certainly not a scholar of the Quran, but I did find an article entitled Intoxicants Strictly Prohibited on the website Cousin Mike recommended. The article is well-written, persuasive, and copiously referenced to the Quran.
Cousin Mike
Member
Cosmoline said:
I think I will actually go as far as to simply accuse you of being a bigot. That was such a LAME response to everything I said, along with others like shootinstudent, that it simply does not dignify a response. If I cared enough, I could do a Yahoo! search, and pull up hateful Christian literature from some minority extremist group in seconds, and you know it. I refuse to go back and forth with you, posting links to hateful websites of ANY religion. So many others already disagree with you. There is no need. The fact is clear and to me has been proven beyond any doubt: You know absolutely NOTHING about what you say, you know NOTHING about religion that you don't see on the news, and I am seriously inclined to believe that you simply hate Muslims. I cant imagine being from Alaska that you've ever even MET a real Muslim... So what is your agenda?
Cosmoline
Member
So we're not allowed to blame Muslim extremism if Muslim extremists do something bad? I see. That would be unfair to Muslim extremists. Are you saying no Islamic death decree was issued as indicated in the BBC?
My agenda, BTW, is to see that any vestige of Muslim extremism in the US is quashed with extreme prejudice. To ignore the danger it poses out of some concern for political correctness is suicidal. Efforts to impose Islamic Law in the US are an extremely dangerous sign. If you want to see where tolerance for these extremists leads, look at the problems Western Europe faces with controversial artists facing Muslim death decrees and the streets of France burning.
I don't believe the Constitution needs to be violated to make this happen, but it will take a combined effort of strong criminal prosecution under existing laws and universal social rejection of the offending individuals. We need to start be agreeing that people who ransack liquor stores in an effort to impose Islamic Law in the streets of Oakland are terrorist scum.
Serious death decrees by Christian Courts went out 600 years ago, but they still get issued all the time by extremist Muslims. Is it inappropriate to point this out? Is it somehow "unfair" to Islam to blame Islamic terrorists for Islamic terrorism?
My agenda, BTW, is to see that any vestige of Muslim extremism in the US is quashed with extreme prejudice. To ignore the danger it poses out of some concern for political correctness is suicidal. Efforts to impose Islamic Law in the US are an extremely dangerous sign. If you want to see where tolerance for these extremists leads, look at the problems Western Europe faces with controversial artists facing Muslim death decrees and the streets of France burning.
I don't believe the Constitution needs to be violated to make this happen, but it will take a combined effort of strong criminal prosecution under existing laws and universal social rejection of the offending individuals. We need to start be agreeing that people who ransack liquor stores in an effort to impose Islamic Law in the streets of Oakland are terrorist scum.
Serious death decrees by Christian Courts went out 600 years ago, but they still get issued all the time by extremist Muslims. Is it inappropriate to point this out? Is it somehow "unfair" to Islam to blame Islamic terrorists for Islamic terrorism?
coylh
Member
They look like petty criminals to me. What definition of "terrorist" are you using?
How much of your concern is for their motivations vs. what they actually did?
Cousin Mike
Member
I agree with you completely Cosmoline
Any type of religious fanaticism needs to be irradicated, and I would also agree with you about the extreme prejudice part. Fundamentalist Islam is a very severe problem in more than a few places in the world... The only thing I want to remind people is that this is not unique to Islam, and ALL fundamentalist interpretations of religion have no place here in America; regardless of what types of extremism we have overcome in our own past as Americans. We should not start demonizing Arab or American Muslims, or the Muslims in Europe, or anyone based on religion, culture or ethnicity. The French situation, by the way, is NOT a situation based on religious extremism, but more on civil rights and economic/educational opportunities for North African immigrants. Denying the KKK (who also targeted Jews and Catholics, not only black people) or IRA (Who were Catholic extremists at war with Protestant extremists in Europe) were terrorist groups to me seems silly. Both used religion to justify violence, both aligned themselves under the banner of Christianity. Both used violence and commited horrible crimes in an attempt to change policy through FEAR... That, in my book, is the definition of a terrorist.
However, as you stated, we agree on the most important thing... Religious law has NO place in American streets. American citizens (in my belief) would never tolerate such a thing, even if the government did, which it wouldn't. I believe the U.S. is the best place for people of ALL religions to live, because we have the right to practice our religion without government interference or mandate, IF one chooses to practice religion at all. To me, it is as simple as this.
There are good people who practice every religion.
There are bad people who practice every religion.
Every religion has extremists, and people who use religion to advocate violence.
It is ALL unacceptable. But so is blaming a whole culture or religion for the appalling actions of a few. You mentioned previously the half-dozen Muslim countries with incredibly oppressive regimes. There are 22 Muslim countries in the Middle East and Central Asia. When you count Africa and South East Asia, the number grows closer to 50. Six countries with serious fundamentalist religious issues, to me, sounds like a small (however vocal) minority. I only hope we can all remember to keep things in perspective while fighting a common enemy.
Any type of religious fanaticism needs to be irradicated, and I would also agree with you about the extreme prejudice part. Fundamentalist Islam is a very severe problem in more than a few places in the world... The only thing I want to remind people is that this is not unique to Islam, and ALL fundamentalist interpretations of religion have no place here in America; regardless of what types of extremism we have overcome in our own past as Americans. We should not start demonizing Arab or American Muslims, or the Muslims in Europe, or anyone based on religion, culture or ethnicity. The French situation, by the way, is NOT a situation based on religious extremism, but more on civil rights and economic/educational opportunities for North African immigrants. Denying the KKK (who also targeted Jews and Catholics, not only black people) or IRA (Who were Catholic extremists at war with Protestant extremists in Europe) were terrorist groups to me seems silly. Both used religion to justify violence, both aligned themselves under the banner of Christianity. Both used violence and commited horrible crimes in an attempt to change policy through FEAR... That, in my book, is the definition of a terrorist.
However, as you stated, we agree on the most important thing... Religious law has NO place in American streets. American citizens (in my belief) would never tolerate such a thing, even if the government did, which it wouldn't. I believe the U.S. is the best place for people of ALL religions to live, because we have the right to practice our religion without government interference or mandate, IF one chooses to practice religion at all. To me, it is as simple as this.
There are good people who practice every religion.
There are bad people who practice every religion.
Every religion has extremists, and people who use religion to advocate violence.
It is ALL unacceptable. But so is blaming a whole culture or religion for the appalling actions of a few. You mentioned previously the half-dozen Muslim countries with incredibly oppressive regimes. There are 22 Muslim countries in the Middle East and Central Asia. When you count Africa and South East Asia, the number grows closer to 50. Six countries with serious fundamentalist religious issues, to me, sounds like a small (however vocal) minority. I only hope we can all remember to keep things in perspective while fighting a common enemy.
longeyes
member
How often are we going to hear the present compared to the past, often the rather distant past?
I know of no other fundamentalist religious groups on this planet, RIGHT NOW, who are using violence to get their way under the color of their faith and for the advancement of their faith.
As for the situation in France having nothing to do with religion, please read the L.A. Times article previously cited in this thread.
Cosmoline
Member
coylh said:
The imposition of Islamic Law in Oakland through spreading terror among liquor store owners pretty much qualifies as Islamic Terrorism in my book. It's the same tactic Muslim extremists use from Indonesia to the Netherlands. Their goal is to impose their religious law here and across the globe.
coylh
Member
Cosmoline, I appreciate the answer. I hope you don't mind me pointing out that you used a circular definition.
I guess I'm trying to discover what makes these people terrorists in your view.
Also, perhaps someone can name the legal concept (I'm not a lawyer) which identifies the kind of harm that a crime causes beyond the normal damage associated with the crime (re cross burning). Maybe this is that sort of crime. So, how much are you concerned with the crime itself (smashing bottles of beer) vs the extra harm (intimidating liquor stores)?
I guess I'm trying to discover what makes these people terrorists in your view.
Also, perhaps someone can name the legal concept (I'm not a lawyer) which identifies the kind of harm that a crime causes beyond the normal damage associated with the crime (re cross burning). Maybe this is that sort of crime. So, how much are you concerned with the crime itself (smashing bottles of beer) vs the extra harm (intimidating liquor stores)?
Cousin Mike
Member
longeyes said:
As I recall, the situation in France was sparked over the accidental death of 2 teenagers and the serious injury of a 3rd, whose parents are North African Muslim immigrants - and the riots ensued as a race/nationality/class issue. Claims of not being treated equally in French society. Nothing to do with religion. Just because the people involved may be of one religion or another doesnt make it a religious issue, especially when so many other issues are involved. I don't know who is jumping on what "cause" bandwagon now, but I will read the article.
The American past I refer to is only from as soon as 40 years ago in a lot of cases... I don't consider that to be so incredibly distant. American culture today is largely defined by past and present race relations - I think any educated person would have a hard time denying that. This web site says there are almost 800 active hate groups in the United Stated right now, like the Christian Identity - clearly a hate group under the banner of a religion.
www.tolerance.org/maps/hate/
Some Jewish extremist groups, like the Kahanists in Israel also exist, and are more actively violent than groups in the states. Look them up. Zionism is a fundamentalist view. Look up the true definition. Here's a little something on Jewish fundamentalism. There's lots of other stuff to read on the topic - do a search of your own or two
http://web.mit.edu/cis/www/mitejmes/issues/200105/br_massad.htm
Last post for me - but I'll say it one last time. To say extremism is unique to Islam is simply untrue, and I stick by that statement. Muslim extremism is what's hot right now - in a way, that has allowed other hate groups to enjoy a sort of virtual anonymity. To say no other religious group preaches hate in the world is untrue, and at best an irresponsible assumption, IMHO.
longeyes
member
Well, when you're hot you're hot, no doubt about that.
- Status
