On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Unfortunately, my liberal, Western-minded corporation has > forbidden me to view that site. I'd be happy to view it at home, but > I have no access whatsoever to the Internet there. My main drive in > all of this is that I don't want to paint X for the actions of Y. > Something, I'm pretty sure we'd agree on. 100%. > Anyway, if the Qur'an is > correct, then all these atrocities commited by anyone (irrespective of > professed faith) will be handled justly come Judgement Day. This is little sympathy to those who have to face the issues now, in real life, which is where the concern arises. It's even less comfort to those of us who have no belief in a Judgement Day, and want a world free of atrocities (which, to be blunt, seems like could a goal more than half achieved just by outlawing religion of ANY kind). > Sorry if > I offended you but, as most (95%) of my friends are Muslims, I feel > personally attacked by the Islamophobia, and, have, no doubt, over- > reacted. Apologies for any offence!! But I just don't want more > hatred; it's won't help mankind and will, rather, tend us towards the > Armageddon that the Neo-Cons and Wahhabis want. I don't have any hatred for any individual that's not based specifically on their actions. I don't hate Muslims, period. However, being friends with Muslims, and appreciating the contributions of Muslims to early science and mathematical development, doesn't preclude me from making accurate observations about the state of Muslim society at large. Clearly you have a little fire in you! This was a facet I hadn't seen from you before. No offense taken or offered. > Both sects that are > rampant and as vile as one another. Another 100% agreement. > The Prophet himself was > vehemently opposed to sectarianism, as you must know. I do, which is part of the reason the Wahabbists themselves rarely identify as such...they don't consider Wahabbism to be a sect, so much as a purification of the fundamentals of Islam. > So, we must > conclude that the best way forward is an internal Islamic reform that > hearkens back TO those ideals and implements a version of Shar'ia of > which mankind can be proud. Or, to recognize that faith is individual, and implement a secular law which allows for the free expression of all faiths, and doesn't attempt to use spiritual tenets to judge civil matters. > Pray for a mujaddin that is universally > accepted. > I'll have to leave that to those with faith. ;) > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Pat <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > On 3 Dec, 16:10, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > More of Orn's favorite...bifurcation! > > > > > > The reality is, .01% may be truly active terrorists (and I sincerely > > > doubt > > > > the number is that low...), but 60% live in countries where Islamic > > > > Theocratic Rule mandates beatings and executions for renouncing your > > > faith, > > > > or converting to another faith, and horrifying "punishments" for > women to > > > > have the audacity to go out alone, drive, be educated, choose whom to > > > share > > > > their body or lives with, or Allah Forbid, be raped. Overwhelmingly, > the > > > men > > > > of those countries support said policies, and Sharia law. > > > > > Yet these are all examples of poor interpretation OF Quranic and > > > Sunnic traditions. Many leaders of 'Islamic countries' bow to age-old > > > cultural practices that are, in fact, completely prohibited BY the > > > Qur'an and/or the Prophet's statements (ahadith). You're buying into > > > the Islamophobia without trying to discover the truth about such > > > practices and their TRUE origins. They are NOT Islamic. > > > > > > Interesting to me that you think of the liberties in the west, which > > > include > > > > equality between genders, free speech, freedom of religion, freedom > of > > > the > > > > press, etc, as: > > > > "Western society demand(ing) its right to be > > > > intoxicated and irascible to the point of outright destructive > > > > behaviour afterwards and the duty to oppress one another through > usury > > > > and other ways (in the name of 'Survival of the Fittest', a euphemism > > > > for maintaining that animal instincts are the way forward!!) and > > > > Muslims don't understand why Western, supposedly civilised people, > > > > demand the right to act like idiots, screw up the environment and > take > > > > as much as is possible from those who have the least. Muslims don't > > > > view that as civilised behaviour." > > > > > > Hmmm...so, it's not the CORE differences in our liberty based society > > > that > > > > offends them, it's the excesses of the minority. Interesting. I > > > personally > > > > don't view burying 12 year old girls to their necks and stoning them > to > > > > death for the crime of being raped as civilized, but hey, perhaps we > just > > > > have a different perspective. > > > > > Again, a cultural practice that is prohibited by the Qur'an and the > > > Prophet's Sunnah (lifestyle). > > > > > >I'm not sure why it is you think Muslims will > > > > be left with the moral high ground...perhaps you find Sharia law to > be an > > > > attractive rule set and world view to live under? Surprising to me > that > > > > someone in such a modern environment would have such a barbaric > > > > perspective. > > > > > Amazing that you would think me barbaric for having a greater > > > understanding OF Islam and Shar'ia than you do. Ignorance and the > > > struggle (jihad) to remain ignorant is FAR more barbaric, in my eyes. > > > And, certainly, not particularly scientific or fair. > > > > > > It's one thing to note that the tenets of a religion do not match the > > > > actions of the followers; hell, that's the problem with religions the > > > world > > > > over. > > > > > Exactly! So why paint the whole of the Islamic world by the action of > > > the minority? > > > > > >It is, however, very much a case of sticking your head in the sand to > > > > deny that the general actions of a vast majority of a religion's > > > followers > > > > (who live in Sharia based societies), reflect on that religion as a > > > whole. > > > > > A population is forced to either accept the laws of the land, fight a > > > revolution or move. Whydo you think so many Muslims are leaving their > > > homelands to live elsewhere? They KNOW that Shar'ia isn't being > > > implemented correctly, so they move to places where they can, > > > hopefully, practice their faith in peace without fear of 'poor > > > Shar'ia' to further afflict them. And what they find, is that, the > > > people in their new lands think them barbarian for having grown up > > > under a dictatorship. > > > > > > Would you be so passionately apologetic of Christianity? I'm guessing > > > not, > > > > but feel free to correct me. > > > > > Well, I certainly think that the Crusades and the Inquisition reflect > > > on Christianity. But not on today's population. They were the > > > results of a similar form of fundamentalism within Christianity that > > > occurred about 1400 years or so after Jesus. The Wahhabi sect of > > > Islam has done much the same for the name of Islam. But do we tar and > > > feather all Muslims because of one errant sect? Or, do we work > > > together with both Sunni and Shi'a and strive WITH them to help them > > > eradicate the 'innovations' that the Wahhabis have instigated and > > > further engender common goals? Oh yeah, but the Saudis are Wahhabi > > > and they have the oil we need, so, we'd better stay on-side with the > > > good-oil guys, even thought we know they support the poorest of all > > > interpretation of the Qur'an. > > > > > > Compare human rights in any Muslim controlled country to any of the > > > Western > > > > secular controlled countries. Compare the general standard of living > of > > > the > > > > masses. Compare the number of atrocities perpetuated in the name of > > > religion > > > > between the two. Moral high ground? Ludicrous. > > > > > Yeah, Abu Ghraib was a perfect example of how we have the moral high > > > ground, eh? What was done there was not good, nor moral; rather, it > > > was done out of ignorance and hatred and were, essentially, godless > > > acts of degradation and humiliation. But, of course, we wouldn't want > > > to talk about those issues, as they don't foster Islamophobia. > > > > > > The twelve apostles of Christ had some interesting ideas. The > religion > > > since > > > > then has been a blood thirsty, backwards, barbaric organization > > > responsible > > > > for the deaths of millions. Only in the last century has Christianity > > > made > > > > ANY forward movement in social evolution. Islam is still 300 years > behind > > > > that. > > > > > I can't think of any movements forward within Christianity. The > > > current Pope was the former head of the Inquisition. OK, they've > > > changed the name of that branch now to "The Congregation for the > > > Doctrine of the Faith", but it still exists and is the same > > > 'department'. Most of your arguments are against Wahhabi > > > interpretation of Shar'ia, and I agree with you. That needs to be > > > addressed. But not by tarring and feathering the masses with that > > > which they don't believe or accept themselves. > > > > > > P.S. Here's some good reading about the history of Islamic Militancy. > It > > > > goes back FAR further than you apparently seem to think. > > > > > >http://islam-watch.org/MA_Khan/IncessantTerrorism.htm > > > > > LOL!! the site's 'About us' link states, "We are a group of Muslim > > > apostates...". So, do you think that they are going to be offering > > > you a completely balanced view? It's like trying to hone up on > > > Judaism by viewing a website that is run by Jews-For-Jesus. It's > > > simply NOT a site that I would remotely consider as wanting or trying > > > to be fair. Rather, they want you to have the worst possible view of > > > Islam that they can engender. And you bought right into it. > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Pat <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On 3 Dec, 01:53, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Interesting development. Perhaps, despite tremendous efforts > from > > > the > > > > > > PC crowd, some folks are beginning to see the connection between > > > > > > Islamic militant terrorism and your friendly neighborhood mosque. > In > > > > > > the chatter in the control room(water cooler) I heard something > about > > > > > > some politician offering to allow it when Saudi Arabia allows > > > > > > Christian churches to be built there. No going, apparently. > > > > > > > > Another problem is the Islamic schools popping up all over > western > > > > > > culture. All funded by rich Arabs for the most part. A study > done > > > on > > > > > > the text books supplied these kids was a little alarming. Little > > > > > > Osamas are being indoctrinated on our home soil. Unless laws are > > > > > > changed this problem will increase. I'm still flabbergasted we > > > didn't > > > > > > start profiling at the airports after 9/11. I'm shocked folks > are > > > > > > still whining about the Patriot Act. > > > > > > > It could just be a numbers game. Given a Muslim population of 1.6 > > > > > Billion (1,600,000,000), if 0.01% of them are militant terrorists > > > > > (i.e., 99.99% good people), then there are 16,000 problems out > there. > > > > > And 16 thousand people can, if organised, cause a great deal of > > > > > trouble. However, that shouldn't paint the other 99.99% of good > > > > > people with the paintbrush called 'Terrorist Potential'. We are > ALL > > > > > potential terrorists, given the right impetus, so the profiling > should > > > > > be for ALL. > > > > > > > > If we could get these other countries to open their borders and > allow > > > > > > freedom of religion I'd feel a lot better about allowing them to > > > build > > > > > > more here. I am not, by the way, in favor of interment camps or > > > > > > shutting down the mosques already here that have proven > themselves > > > > > > peaceful and are a compliment to the community. I have to say > that > > > or > > > > > > some of you would be jumping down my throat accusing me of > genocide. > > > > > > > > -Don > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:28 PM, fran the man <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 2 Dez., 17:58, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >> Fantastic news and, despite what you say, very progressive! :) > > > > > > > > > Er, Ian, I don't believe I personally put forward any opinion > as to > > > > > > > the progressive, or otherwise nature of the decision of the > Swiss > > > > > > > people in my original post. I > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > ""Minds Eye"" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<minds-eye%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
