Anything, that endangers or stifles human life and basic freedoms is absolutely wrong.

 

It is not a question of being justified or not justified, it is a question of whether, the religion Islam itself treats its followers ethically. I don't think it does. Look at Muslim women,

 

any Islamic, or part Islamic Country. Islam and Muslims, are the problem not Jihad.

 

 

 

Jihad is a byproduct of Islam. People may say that "oh only a minority of Muslims are radical" but of the rest 99% who are not fundamentalists, they do not condone their actions, most of them even support them.

 

 

 

Tell me why is it, that wherever Islam shares a border with a country there is war.

 

Jihadism is not the problem, it is but one branch of the tree of a bigoted and ignorant religion.

 

 

 

Why should anyone in a free country, "have special rights".

 

For example, in Australia, the "Burka" ( or muslim ninja women facemask), allow women to wear it. Thats fine in your home, but certain people deem it offensive, there are obvious reasons why wearing the Burka should not be allowed. (banks, post offices etc...)

 

 

 

Other such crazies, include, muslims not having to pay taxes, claiming that the goverment ( Britain and france) is vindicating them.

I think radicalism from any religion is just unnecessary. I'm Catholic and I think that any Christian radicals, fundamentalists, etc are ridiculous and a disgrace to the rest of the religion. Islam is a perfectly fine religion. A lot of their beliefs are similar to my own. I have many Muslim friends, my parents lived in a Muslim country until they came to America. But the Muslim radicals are ruining the rest of the religion. For quite a while after 9/11, many uneducated Americans feared anyone in a turban with a beard or with a Middle Eastern accent. Even today, there continues the "random" security checks at airports.

 

 

 

It's unfortunate a large minority of Muslims are [bleep] up in the head.

 

 

 

As yes, the typical stereotype of a person who's developed their opinion on what they saw on the news. Can you even count the amount of Muslims you know on one hand?

 

 

 

He did say large minority. I think we can agree that there's too many psychopathic Muslims, even if they are a minority.

 

 

 

How so? Just because they're the only Muslims seen in the news? The media thrives on stereotypes and feed off the fears of radicalism. Thats what makes people watch the news: to rationalize and/or clarify their fears. From what the media portrays, it seems like every religious crime involves Islam.

Last time I checked, the KKK's goal was to create a White Christian conservative American nation. Pretty sure that it's arguably based on religion then to a certain degree. Do remember for a brief period they also targeted Catholics as well.

 

Baptist. I live in Texas. I can drive to a local "fort" of sorts owned by the KKK. Nowadays the white supremacists and neo-Nazis are far worse.

Last time I checked, the KKK's goal was to create a White Christian conservative American nation. Pretty sure that it's arguably based on religion then to a certain degree. Do remember for a brief period they also targeted Catholics as well.

 

Baptist. I live in Texas. I can drive to a local "fort" of sorts owned by the KKK. Nowadays the white supremacists and neo-Nazis are far worse.

 

 

 

Yes the White supremacists and neos are much worse, the infamous groups like the Aryan brotherhood and the Nazi lowriders but they don't commonly associate themselves with religion, I mentioned the KKK as they associate themselves with religion.

 

 

 

Edit: Didn't link to a bad site, it's just their name. The name for the race Hitler wanted to create.

As yes, the typical stereotype of a person who's developed their opinion on what they saw on the news. Can you even count the amount of Muslims you know on one hand?

 

 

 

Maybe you should read clearer sometimes. I know the majority of Muslims are not radical. But there's enough (which you'll of course deny) to ruin the rest.

It's unfortunate a large minority of Muslims are [bleep] up in the head.

 

 

 

As yes, the typical stereotype of a person who's developed their opinion on what they saw on the news. Can you even count the amount of Muslims you know on one hand?

 

 

 

He did say large minority. I think we can agree that there's too many psychopathic Muslims, even if they are a minority.

 

 

 

How so? Just because they're the only Muslims seen in the news? The media thrives on stereotypes and feed off the fears of radicalism. Thats what makes people watch the news: to rationalize and/or clarify their fears. From what the media portrays, it seems like every religious crime involves Islam.

 

 

 

I don't understand what the difficulty here is. Are there not enough psychopathic Muslims, or just the right amount? Of course there's too many. Even if there was one suicide bombing psychopathic Muslim then that's still too many.

 

 

 

EDIT: I don't want to do this, but it's unfortunate that I feel like I have to: I'm not racially biased in any way. The fact that I'm talking about Islam is because it's the relevant topic. I feel as if it's difficult to criticise Islam without being viewed as ignorant.

4 Questions.

 

 

 

1.) Why is it that anywhere that Islam shares a border with any other country there is violence.

 

 

 

2.) Why do even "normal" muslims (the majority) of them refuse to be proper citizens of any country, and refuse to be functional and synthezied members of society. ( excuse the lifeless terms )

 

 

 

3.) Why do muslims demand special treatment, "because of their religious beliefs"

 

 

 

4.) Why does the Koran state that kafirs ( anyone who isnt muslim ) must be converted or killed.

As yes, the typical stereotype of a person who's developed their opinion on what they saw on the news. Can you even count the amount of Muslims you know on one hand?

 

 

 

Maybe you should read clearer sometimes. I know the majority of Muslims are not radical. But there's enough (which you'll of course deny) to ruin the rest.

 

 

 

Going on that logic then I could argue there's enough psychopathic Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland both wanting to push each other into sea such as Hamas and Israel, ruining both religions and the rest of it's followers.

 

 

 

The media serious overplays the Islamic stereotype, yes there is many psychopathic Muslims, I wont deny that but the media serious does fuel the fear we feel of them.

It's unfortunate a large minority of Muslims are [bleep] up in the head.

 

 

 

 

 

I know it is part of the discussion, but is that statement justified ? Hell no.

of course it is. a large minority of muslims could be considered that. if he said large MAJORITY, then he'd be wrong. whereas he said MINORITY, which makes him more correct. maybe not 100% correct, but i wouldn't say he's wrong.

^ No, they have absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

Last time I checked, the KKK's goal was to create a White Christian conservative American nation. Pretty sure that it's arguably based on religion then to a certain degree. Do remember for a brief period they also targeted Catholics as well.

 

Nobody that supports the ideas of the KKK can honestly say that they are a Christian. Racism goes directly against the fundamental principles of Christianity.

Maybe you should read clearer sometimes. I know the majority of Muslims are not radical. But there's enough (which you'll of course deny) to ruin the rest.

 

How does a minority of radicals "ruin the rest" of an entire population? I guess the entire population of American whites is "ruined" too, huh, just because a minority of them are radical supremacists?

Maybe you should read clearer sometimes. I know the majority of Muslims are not radical. But there's enough (which you'll of course deny) to ruin the rest.

 

How does a minority of radicals "ruin the rest" of an entire population? I guess the entire population of American whites is "ruined" too, huh, just because a minority of them are radical supremacists?

 

 

 

Don't be so narrow-minded as to use that analogy again. You know enough what I mean when I said that. Are there white supremacists? Yes. Are there enough of them to [bleep] up their reputation? No. It's objective, yes. But this opinion isn't held by me alone.

A subjective conclusion, you mean, not an objective one.

 

 

 

If there is indeed any damage to Muslim "reputation," it is not due to the minority of radicals -- something that exists in every population (blacks, Germans, right-wings, etc). The more likely detriment to their "reputation" is the ignorance of the West, brought about by propaganda and media hype.

I've known of Islam and terrorism and that was before I even heard of what Muslim Arabs do.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_ ... hilippines

 

 

 

It's not just a "western" thing.

^ No, they have absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

Last time I checked, the KKK's goal was to create a White Christian conservative American nation. Pretty sure that it's arguably based on religion then to a certain degree. Do remember for a brief period they also targeted Catholics as well.

 

Nobody that supports the ideas of the KKK can honestly say that they are a Christian. Racism goes directly against the fundamental principles of Christianity.

 

 

 

 

 

No True Scotsman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman

 

No Christian follows Jesus' commanments on the whole(hating everyone, giving away all your possessions, following all the Old Testament Laws like a Pharisee, etc). Does that mean they are not Christians, just like any Scotsman who murders is not a true Scotsman?

 

The only real requirement to be a Christian that I see is believing in the Divinity of Jesus.

 

 

 

I won't even get started on genocides and racism in the bible.

^ No, they have absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

Last time I checked, the KKK's goal was to create a White Christian conservative American nation. Pretty sure that it's arguably based on religion then to a certain degree. Do remember for a brief period they also targeted Catholics as well.

 

Nobody that supports the ideas of the KKK can honestly say that they are a Christian. Racism goes directly against the fundamental principles of Christianity.

 

 

 

As does the thought of blowing up one's self to spread to Islam, it is misinterpreted passage of the Quran and isn't endorsed by the vast majority of Muslims. By your logic Al'Qaeda aren't associated to Islam as the vast majority of Muslims don't even agree with them.

 

 

 

In nearly every central religious book dating from more than 500 years ago there is passages of "convert or kill non-believers" but also "help those who can't help themselves", some parts are misinterpreted, doesn't mean in whole a religion is centered on killing all non-believers. Many passages in the Quran also center on charitable messages and morals.

Didn't Muhammad conquer Arabia to convert everyone to Islam?

Didn't the Christians capture Jerusalem in the crusades to either convert Jews and Muslims to Christianity or either kill them? We can play this game all night Shadow and it wont go anywhere.

Why hide Islam behind Christianity instead of refuting my point?

No Christian follows Jesus' commanments on the whole(hating everyone, giving away all your possessions, following all the Old Testament Laws like a Pharisee, etc). Does that mean they are not Christians, just like any Scotsman who murders is not a true Scotsman?

Correction there, no Christian obeys His commandments on the whole. There's a difference. Someone who follows a commandment tries to obey it, (Followers have not always obeyed their master, as in) while someone who does not follow it (Such as the KKK and racism) can not honestly say that they try to obey it, or to follow it. Another thing, since the new testament not all the laws are followed that were stated in the Old testament, (Which is obviously why it's called "New"), so following all the old testaments is not a part of it.

 

The only real requirement to be a Christian that I see is believing in the Divinity of Jesus.

 

That's interesting, because it is stated quite clearly that a Christian must also strive to be like Him.

No Christian follows Jesus' commanments on the whole(hating everyone, giving away all your possessions, following all the Old Testament Laws like a Pharisee, etc). Does that mean they are not Christians, just like any Scotsman who murders is not a true Scotsman?

Correction there, no Christian obeys His commandments on the whole. There's a difference. Someone who follows a commandment tries to obey it, (Followers have not always obeyed their master, as in) while someone who does not follow it (Such as the KKK and racism) can not honestly say that they try to obey it, or to follow it. Another thing, since the new testament not all the laws are followed that were stated in the Old testament, (Which is obviously why it's called "New"), so following all the old testaments is not a part of it.

 

The only real requirement to be a Christian that I see is believing in the Divinity of Jesus.

 

That's interesting, because it is stated quite clearly that a Christian must also strive to be like Him.

 

 

 

 

 

"For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:20)

 

 

 

The Pharisees were crazy kooks in Jesus' time who followed all of the old Testament Laws.

 

 

 

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily, I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.

 

Matthew 5: 17, 18

 

 

 

If you want to have a bigger debate on this, head over to the god thread, this is way offtopic :P.

 

 

 

Religion, in the case of Christians blowing each other up in Belfast, Muslims bombing places, or Scientologists throwing frivolous lawsuits, is often an excuse for actions that are inexcusable, but the perpetrators attempt to obviate this with religion, and point to their moderates.

 

Moderate Muslims that do not speak up against radicals are implicitly aiding them and causing their religion to be seen in a negative light by society at large; and maybe they deserve it.

Is this a trick question? Of course it's bad.

Didn't the Christians capture Jerusalem in the crusades to either convert Jews and Muslims to Christianity or either kill them?

 

No, the Pope and high-up officials noticed an increase in local populations, and food shortages. They also noticed how powerful and wealthy the Muslims were. So, they cloaked a want for power behind a holy war. There's really no such thing as a holy war, only war.

 

 

 

Or maybe they were just bored.

Who even asks this question in at all a legitimate light?

 

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... -bin-laden

 

 

 

Extremism and radicalism when used as a tool to bring harm unto others is never a good thing.

 

 

 

No need to discuss this further, why is this even a discussion?

 

 

 

 

 

 

As a born Jew converted to Islam, you might expect me to be conflicted over the fighting in Gaza. But having a foot in each camp only makes me more convinced that this tragic struggle isn't about religion.

 

 

 

Politicians and extremists on both sides inject religion into the debate, hoping to expand their squabble beyond its true, petty dimensions through support from outsiders. Today, Osama bin Laden released a recording in which he called on Muslims to fight a holy war against Israel.

 

 

 

Muslims, Jews and others people of goodwill who want to promote peace should ignore these pleas to take sides and force these cousins to settle their ancient conflict between themselves. Last weekend's rioting in London as part of an anti-Israel protest underscores both the danger and folly of joining someone else's fight.

 

 

 

Growing up as a Jew in America, I was encouraged to support Israel. I remember the rabbi leading my first year Hebrew School class into the sanctuary to pray for Israel on the eve of the 1967 Six Day War. But as the occupation of territories captured in 1967 stretched to decades, I questioned whether Israel had ceded the moral high ground in the Middle East. Without the moral high ground, it's hard to claim you're fighting for a religion worthy of the term.

 

 

 

Judaism thrived for centuries without a national homeland. In fact, some aspects of Jewish culture, such as the Yiddish language, have been diminished because of Israel, where Hebrew prevails. There's nothing about being a Jew that requires an Israel, or requires Jews to support one. Moreover, insisting that Jews must support Israel invites others to believe the antisemitic trope that Jews, no matter where they hold citizenship, are loyal only to Jewish causes.

 

 

 

Conflating Judaism with Israel is both insulting to Jews and short-sighted. Israeli politicians, like their counterparts in other nations, are guided by a variety of earthly interests. If religious doctrine is on their list at all, it's a low priority, easily trumped by national elections and a key ally's presidential succession.

 

 

 

For Israel, playing the religion card is foolish, too. There are about 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, more than one of out every four people on earth. There are less than 15 million Jews, fewer than one out of every 400 people. If Israel deserves Diaspora Jews' support because of the religious tie, then Palestinians can similarly line up 100-times as many Muslims across the globe (not to mention the world's even more numerous Christians, since not all Palestinians are Muslims). You don't need a degree in accounting to see those numbers don't work in Zionism's favour.

 

 

 

For Muslims, much of the above also applies. It's ludicrous for Muslims in places like Pakistan or Bangladesh to expend energy on behalf of this remote conflict rather than trying to fix their own barely functional states. Moreover, Muslims who reflexively hate Jews ignore their own history. As Michael Morgan points out in Lost History, his book highlighting the contributions of Islamic societies to so-called western civilisation, cohabitation and coexistence were the norm in the Middle East and beyond during caliphate, with Jews and others playing key roles.

 

 

 

These Muslim ruled societies that built on the achievements of the Greeks and were the most advanced on earth while Europe wandered through the Middle Ages. Their accomplishments in medicine, mathematics, astronomy, physics and philosophy are things to which young Muslims (and non-Muslims) can take pride in, rather than glorying in random violence and martyrdom. The Spanish Inquisition, under Catholic monarchs, expelled Jews that had flourished in Spain under Muslim rulers, and under the Ottomans, Jews and Muslims and Christians lived peacefully as neighbours.

 

 

 

The campaign to drive the other religion out of the Holy Land is a modern invention of extremists, not a directive from the Qur'an or the Old Testament, but a political tactic. Appealing to Jews across the globe brings Israel donations and compels US politicians to offer unwavering support or face the wrath of Jewish constituents. Palestinian appeals to Muslims wins support from autocratic regimes that welcome a populist outlet for discontent at no risk to their own rule.

 

 

 

Internationalising the Israeli-Palestinian conflict provides clothes to cover the naked bigotry and hatred on both sides. The current situation in Gaza exemplifies megalomaniacal leaders' belief that no sacrifice is too great for their people to make to further politicians' goals. Without the fig leaf of religion, these leaders might be held accountable for their violent policies and be compelled to seek alternatives. But negotiation and compromise don't mix with religion.

 

 

 

Outside support, particularly from co-religionists who don't suffer under these regimes' misrule, is the oxygen that keeps the Israel-Palestinian conflict burning. Without money, attention and, above all, the illusion of a heavenly cause, the innocent victims on both sides would see the smallness of their leaders and recognise who their real enemies are.