New Poll: Is Islam under attack? [Archive]

Netcurtains3

30-09-2005, 13:36

Tayeb,
Its a meaningless poll.
All religions and secular non-beliefs are after the same market and want to increase their market share at the expense of competitors. The market is very aggressive.

What you appear to mean is this sort of question:

"Is Islam appearing to be weak to its competitors and are these competitors trying to exploit these weaknesses at the expense of Islam?"

Obviously the "weakness" appears to be a perception of cultural limitations on women in some islamic states, a perception that Islam has a current history of hurting people who convert to other faith systems and also a perception that Islam is against democracy and Islam is against legal systems built around the rights of the individual rather then religious laws. This is over and above any problems there might be with the historically accurateness of any key figures (as per all religions) and trying to come to terms with modern scientific theories. the world is currently moving at a very fast rate.

johara

30-09-2005, 15:49

Brother Tayeb, i say no to this poll,not because i am Catholic, but because i feel that all religions have people percicute their beliefs,and i feel thease people are just ignorant.In my faith the Romans killed Catholics,for our beliefs,our maryters,died for our faith.There are allways a few that cause trouble for religions.Look at the Athiests who say UNDER GOD,should not be said in schools.......I have allways said the Pledge in school when i was young girl in Catholic school,and now in USA this is being attacked by people who do not believe.........very sad indeed.......so not just Islam,that have people that attack your faith,all religions have and still are being criticized............regards johara

Tayeb

30-09-2005, 17:53

I will alow free discussion before intervening. However I disagree with John as there's a perspetion that Islam is being tergeted, and the most flagrant violations of all is Guantanamo prison camp, that nobody with sound mind can defend it.

Netcurtains3

30-09-2005, 19:17

Oh Tayeb,
You did not make that clear. If you mean this current western "terrorist" thing is targeting people from an "islamic" background - then of course that is very true. I would have thought that so apparent it wouldn't be worth saying.

I thought you meant in a more general sense, a theological sense: Is Islam being attacked in a theological way? In this sense too of course its under attack, as are all religions and non-religions.

I don't defend the "Guantanamo prison camp" or any abuse of civil liberties - whether they are from terrorists trying to hurt us or the state over abusing its powers.

If you saw Question Time last night on BBC1 they had a right-wing "Christian" fundamentalist on the panel. You could see that there were many there who acted very verbally aggressively towards him, trying to make him a laughing stock.

If the question is of a more personal nature:
on 7/7 an "islamic" person tried to murder me (I was on the train network during the attacks), I'm a neo-athiest Church going Catholic, and in response the police did not target an "islamic" person they shot dead a Roman Catholic boy with 8 shots to the head.

I voted "really a lot" because all beliefs and non-beliefs are being attacked "really a lot" .... Currently the winning belief is something called "secularism" but it has weaknesses and it will not last. Its problem is a drift towards "the lowest common denominator" which as each decade goes on gets lower and lower.

The worst wars in recent memory have to be Rwanda and the Iran V Iraq war. Also many wars in Africa, South America, Indonesia, Ex-Soviet republics (some islamic some not), Cambodia and Vietnam. A bit further back - Korea.

Net

johara

01-10-2005, 00:53

I think that Gitmo should be closed as many Americans also say.Thease men should be sent to their own counrties and if they are inocent be it.As i see my Muslim friends say Allah knows best

Kharib

16-10-2005, 01:59

I have met many people who are very intolerant towards Muslims. Most of them the right Christians here, the same ones who take up drinking and other forbidden acts while claiming to be "following God". Some of them have even professed their wish that the US continue their assault on Islam. I have also met members of the US guard who say that a lot of doctrinization is more or less anti-Arab and anti-Muslim. There is no doubt the US fosters this on purpose. Their goal is to eradicate Islam, unfortunately there is little unity to fight back with, yet.

xioncrow2

08-11-2005, 07:57

Of Course there’s an attack on Islam.
It’s the very nature of the question. The foundation of this world view is a desire, no a need to be attacked. When will there not be? If All the World converted to Islam, what version would it be? Sunni, Shiite? Come on there is a strong foundation to fight against those ‘competitive religions’ Its always that way.

So really when do you look into yourself alone with the Koran & listen to Allah within yourself & ask as an individual, is this my fight or the groups fight?
As long as one sees us vs. them, there will always be… an attack.

Idiots.

The same holds true for the reactive military/industrial/republican(when it’s convenient) Christians. All Are Extreme. All are about Power, All are about control.

All are about Him.

Very few are aware of our common ground, or us.

There is no other than the one YOU choose to see.
Sunni, Shiite.

Tayeb

08-11-2005, 10:39

Dear xioncrow,

My terms of reference aren't exactly the same as you are saying. Let me explain: just like the native indians were living on a vast almost unexplored continent, Muslims sit on large energy resources. In the past it was land, nowadays is energy. There comes then the military/industrial complex of american imperisalists.

If you look at this war as a war of interests, of taking control of resources, of a savage capitalism, then you may understand why Muslims are being targeted.

Muslims don't seek a World conversion to Islam. That's a wrong notion because in fact any Muslim is taught that conversion comes from within. You have been here for a long time as our member. Have we tried to convert you? What do we always say? Is it not "it's up to Allah!"?

The sunni shii problem exists no doubt. It's an ideological difference not really of basic principles of Islam. Both sunni and shiah believe in One Only God and that Muhammad is His Last Messenger. Both believe that the Holy Qur'an is the Word of God. The differences arose from concept of political power, after the death of the prophet Muhammad.

Sunnis, unlike shii (which means party by the way, party of the family of the prophet) said that a caliph (leader) could be anyone who's upright and fulfills the criteria of a believer. Shii said that a leader could only be from the family of the prophet and chose Ali, the son-in-law of the prophet. Ali eventually also became caliph. He was the fourth caliph after Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman.

Sunni and shiis are everywhere and there are no conflicts betwwen them. Where do we see conflicts? In Iraq, where there's an occupying power supported by the master of all imperisalists, the british, who fully know how to divide and rule and in Pakistan from time to time, that's the biggest laboratory of sysops of enemies of Islam.

Ma'a-salaama,

ginap

07-04-2006, 23:32

Usamah said we were in a Holy War. Many did not believe him. Some even accused him of trying to start one; but it has been there, just unrecognized. What is even worse, if it is true, is that there is a conspiracy too. Go to prisonplanet.com and read Dr. Robert M. Bowman's interview. Dr. Bowman was the head of the Star Wars Space Defense System under President's Ford and Carter and he thinks Dick Cheney masterminded 9/11. He left his job when he found out the US was not planning the Star Wars Defense System primarily as a defense system, but wanted the capability to launch nuclear weapons on Russia. Dick Cheney has long been planning world conquest. In larouchepub.com back in February 2005 under the articles section is an article detailing something Cheney co-wrote with others in Washington on how to destabilize the entire Middle East, and those plans have now come to fruition. The basis of all of that is an evilness, a desire for conquest at any cost. They want all the Islamic countries to become 'liberated' and 'democratized', they also want all the oil as a thank you; but to be able to accomplish this, they must eliminate Islam because the Muslims who live in the countries they want to take over will object to being forced to adopt and accept Western ways. Why does France ban the hijab? They do not want Islam in their country. Why does the US violate it's own Constitution in it's treatment of Muslim prisoners? The US does not want to recognize Islam, or give any Muslim the same rights a non-Muslim prisoner would have; so yes there is a war on Islam.

Assalamu-alaikum and greetings:

We have now a new survey here "Is Islam under attack?". Do particpate by casting your vote. Voting is completely anonymous though we have means to catch cheaters.

You can vote in this poll at the main page of this portal.

Ma'a-salaama,

Netcurtains3

07-04-2006, 23:56

oi ginap,

you care NOTHING for the muslim working class people. [ADMIN: insulting word removed and given 3 warning points - it isn't first time you have used insulting words - control yourself John or you'll be banned from here! My apologies to sr ginap]

Look at the list of corruption tables you will see ICELAND is the least corrupt nation on the planet followed by most of the other scandinavian states. This is where modern WORKING CLASS democracy originated from.

This is what democractic WIKIPEDIA stays about corruption:

"
Some argue that the following conditions are favorable for corruption:

1 Concentration of power in decision makers who are not practically accountable to the people.
2 Democracy absent or dysfunctional. See illiberal democracy.
3 Lack of government transparency (Freedom of information) in decision making.
4 Contempt for or negligence of exercising freedom of speech or freedom of the press.
"

Yeah, you bow down to the whims of your billioniare shieks, or you can stand up and be COUNTED.... I am not a THING, I am a free man and I will not be made a fool of by you billionaire scum bags. I demand to be heard!!!

um noori

08-04-2006, 12:33

oi ginap,

you care NOTHING for the muslim working class people. You are scum!

WARNING!! Netcuratains you can't call people with such names!!

Mind your language please!!

Sorry ginap for this, you are a very valueable member of our site.

um noori

Netcurtains3

08-04-2006, 14:40

Tayeb

09-04-2006, 18:36

Dear John,

In your catholic Spain, from end of civil war to 1975 some 200,000 people were killed, some faced firing squads, some were hanged and many died in forced-labour that lasted over 20 years. Your catholic chuch worked closely with fascist Franco in oppressing spaniards that happened to be against dictatorship.

Ma'a-salaama,

Netcurtains3

09-04-2006, 19:04

Tayeb,
Lets get the facts right, you are the Franco-ite here not me. Its you who think democracy is bad and religious dictatorship good. You are a Franco-ite.

John

Tayeb

09-04-2006, 19:38

Dear John,

I am against bigotry. To talk about Catholic church as if it has ever been in defense of democracy, when its internal system isn't democratic at all, to talk about working-class and having no sympathy towards it as demonstrated from your response to my last post in this thread.

Instead of coming in favour of working-class people that were murdered and exploited by Franco with the help of Catholic Church you ignore them altogether.

Ma'a-salaama,

Netcurtains3

09-04-2006, 20:39

Tayeb,
If you really want an unbiased account of Spanish Civil war then Wikipedia it.

"
Many of these deaths, however, resulted not from military operations but the brutal mass killings perpetrated on BOTH SIDES. The war started with military uprisings throughout Spain and its Colonies, which were followed by Republican reprisals against the Church,
"

Had the Democrats won in Spain then its quite possible WW2 would not have occured. The Vatican backed Franco because the republicans were getting more and more dominated by Stalinist communists. So perhaps WW3 would have started earlier. I have a great deal of time for the working class, but of course this does not go to the point of smashing the MIDDLE CLASS. No in a REAL DEMOCRACY there is room for some wealth. I don't hate the rich simply because they are rich, I hate rich CORRUPT people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War

I can't believe that you seriously lay all the blame on the right, when in fact the whole situation was just generally awful. I can see by looking at your views on the Spanish civil war you are a person unwilling to compromise to find solutions.

It is you who has admitted to being a wealthy businessman and against giving the vote to working class muslims. You appear to want them to do as YOU and your GROUP want rather than to listen to what THEY want.

John

ginap

09-04-2006, 20:42

I do not care about Sheikh Usamah because he is a millionaire or billionaire and he does not allow his wealth to pervert him. According to Peter Bergen's most recent book, The Osama I Know, which is a series of quotes from interviews of people who knew him, he did not even have air conditioning in his modest home in the Sudan. He lived with the utmost simplicity and piety, unlike spoiled Sheikhs with their luxuriant homes. He does not live on whims. I do not think a true democracy can even be a reality in any country because it will always be based on a capitalist system, which does not address the needs of most of the masses and you are wrong when you say that I don't care about the Muslim working class people, Allah (swt) did not give the Quran only to the wealthy, he gave it to all. He wants the duas and supplications from all, from the poorest of the poor, to the richest of the rich, in his eyes we are all of the same value. He does not say to the wealthy Sheikhs do not bother me with your problems, you have what you need so I do not need to hear from you. He may be disgusted with some of the arrogance of some of them, but he wants everyone to know him. I say that no country has a true democracy because for the most part, they don't. The US decided it's people were not capable to voting for laws themselves so we needed to have intermediaries who could intrepret them for us and vote for us. Most of the people in the US do not support the war in Iraq, yet the legislators go along with the President anyway, or he will override their objections and do it anyway. Yet this is the democracy we want to help the world achieve. Working class people everywhere have to reject being slaves to governments and governing systems that do not represent them. That is the only hope their is. In addition to that, we cannot allow them to disregard Islam in the systems they set up, be it financial, legal etc. which is what has happened. Islam is under attack because each time someone disputes one of the laws as being anti-Islamic, they are told nobody wants draconian stone age Shariah laws implemented. That is the mind set. So yes Islam is under attack in many ways. Do you think the introduction of Playboy magazine in Jakarta over the last week is an attack on Islam? I do. What does it seek to do?

oi ginap,

you care NOTHING for the muslim working class people. [ADMIN: insulting word removed and given 3 warning points - it isn't first time you have used insulting words - control yourself John or you'll be banned from here! My apologies to sr ginap]

Look at the list of corruption tables you will see ICELAND is the least corrupt nation on the planet followed by most of the other scandinavian states. This is where modern WORKING CLASS democracy originated from.

This is what democractic WIKIPEDIA stays about corruption:

"
Some argue that the following conditions are favorable for corruption:

1 Concentration of power in decision makers who are not practically accountable to the people.
2 Democracy absent or dysfunctional. See illiberal democracy.
3 Lack of government transparency (Freedom of information) in decision making.
4 Contempt for or negligence of exercising freedom of speech or freedom of the press.
"

Yeah, you bow down to the whims of your billioniare shieks, or you can stand up and be COUNTED.... I am not a THING, I am a free man and I will not be made a fool of by you billionaire scum bags. I demand to be heard!!!

Tayeb

09-04-2006, 20:43

I'm talking about post-civil war, Franco's dictatorship to 1975, when last execution was done.

ginap

09-04-2006, 20:50

Its immoral to come up with stuff like this:

"
but to be able to accomplish this, they must eliminate Islam because the Muslims who live in the countries they want to take over will object to being forced to adopt and accept Western ways. Why does France ban the hijab?
"

With no backing citations, or evidence of any kind. Islam was not banned when most of the Middle East was in French, Spanish and UK hands. We were not nice to Arabic people but we had nothing against their religion.

so hence the word (and its also a lie to say france bans head scarves - it does not - it simply insists on everyone wearing school uniforms at school. People can wear what they want in their own time).

No country can ban Islam overnight, it is a long term subtle assault on it and all Muslims. If you doubt it, look at how Muslims are treated in any country, in France it is a flimsy excuse that the hijab was not part of the school uniform and thus could not be accepted, it was dis-allowing the muslimahs to practice their religion which is necessary in living their lives. They cannot be Muslimahs only in the privacy of their own homes and in the mosque, because Islam is not solely a religion but a way of life based on religious law. So then they have to accept that they will be limited on where they can go to school because their religion is not accepted there; how can you think that is not an attack on Islam?

Netcurtains3

09-04-2006, 22:30

LOL,
Of course its not an attack on Islam.

You do not immigrate to a country that is world famous for its non-theistic
school system and then call trying to change the non-theistic school system an attack on Islam. The TRUTH is 100% the reverse, Islamic clothing is an attack on the non-theistic school system. No one is FORCING muslim people to immigrate into France. No one is forcing muslim children to go to French state schools. Families are making a choice to come to France and to go to state schools. Its their choice. You are the attacker. Lets at least get our FACTS right before we can even begin to discuss whether your attack is right or wrong.

So many lies - what is the point. Who are you trying to talk to? What point is there in lying? why do you bother? Who is fooled by your unbiased nonsense.

From Wikipdia:
"
Since 1905, France has had a law requiring separation of church and state, prohibiting the state from recognising or funding any religion. Schools directly operated by the national or local governments must not endorse or promote any religious dogma (whether endorsing an existing religion or endorsing atheism or any other philosophy). Schools funded totally or in part by the national and local governments by law must not force students into religious education; they should remain equally accessible to children of any, or no, faith. For example, even though a majority of the population nominally professes Catholicism (although far fewer regularly practice Catholicism), government-operated French schools have no communal prayers, religious assemblies, or Christian crosses on the walls. The Constitution of France says that France is a laïque (roughly, secular) Republic.
"

For ONCE IN YOUR LIFE WHY DON'T YOU TRY TO HAVE A RATIONAL CONVERSATION INSTEAD OF TALKING CARP NONSENSE TO YOURSELF.
some people, it beggers belief!

John

John

Tayeb

10-04-2006, 10:41

Tayeb

10-04-2006, 10:43

Dear John,

Tayeb,
If you really want an unbiased account of Spanish Civil war then Wikipedia it.

"
Many of these deaths, however, resulted not from military operations but the brutal mass killings perpetrated on BOTH SIDES. The war started with military uprisings throughout Spain and its Colonies, which were followed by Republican reprisals against the Church,
"

Had the Democrats won in Spain then its quite possible WW2 would not have occured. The Vatican backed Franco because the republicans were getting more and more dominated by Stalinist communists. So perhaps WW3 would have started earlier. I have a great deal of time for the working class, but of course this does not go to the point of smashing the MIDDLE CLASS. No in a REAL DEMOCRACY there is room for some wealth. I don't hate the rich simply because they are rich, I hate rich CORRUPT people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War

I can't believe that you seriously lay all the blame on the right, when in fact the whole situation was just generally awful. I can see by looking at your views on the Spanish civil war you are a person unwilling to compromise to find solutions.

It is you who has admitted to being a wealthy businessman and against giving the vote to working class muslims. You appear to want them to do as YOU and your GROUP want rather than to listen to what THEY want.

John

I repeat I was talking about post-civil war, Franco's dictatorship to 1975, when last execution was carried out.

Is it unpalatable to your catholicism to admit that the catholic church was part and parcel of a modern day genocide in Spain? They were collaborators of Franco's fascist dicatatorship?

Ma'a-salaama,

Tayeb

10-04-2006, 11:02

For ONCE IN YOUR LIFE WHY DON'T YOU TRY TO HAVE A RATIONAL CONVERSATION INSTEAD OF TALKING CARP NONSENSE TO YOURSELF.
some people, it beggers belief!

John: I am warning you moderate your language. I haven't given you extra points but I know you mispelled the word in bold. I know fully well your intentions in mispelling. You risk being banned from myiwc.com.

Ma'a-salaama,

Netcurtains3

10-04-2006, 19:46

Tayeb

10-04-2006, 20:14

tayeb,
look at your last posts.

Can you honestly say, with your hand on your heart, that you are in any way at all trying to have an honest conversation?

what you appear to be saying is:

"Catholics were awful in Spain during time of Franco so therefore is valid that Muslims can be awful now"

Dear John,

Apart from Megiddo I rarely find a christians who wants to have an honest discussion here. Tell me did I say what you have put in my lips?

Anyhow will you at least be honest and admit that the catholic church collaborated with Franco's regime.

three errors at least here:
1) Pope Paul VI was anti-franco. 2) Opus Dei (based in spain) was netral (both "facts" are available on wikipedia. 3) Two wrongs do not make a right.

I think you're lost out on popes. Pius XII was the pope when the civil war finished. He was succeeded by Pope John XXIII (1958-1963) and Paul VI (1963-1978). Franco's regime ended in 1975 when he died.

On Opus Dei check this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_Dei_and_politics

"Some of Franco's ministers were from Opus Dei."

So much about Opus Dei peace lovers.

"... José Maria Escrivá, founder of Opus Dei... insisted that with Hitler's help the Franco government has saved Christianity from the communism".

Ma'a-salaama,

Netcurtains3

10-04-2006, 20:48

ginap

10-04-2006, 22:37

None of the Muslims who wanted to go to that school sought to change the school in any way, nor force or encourage others to adopt their religious beliefs, they went there because of the educational curriculum. Islamic clothing is an attack on their school system? A Hijab is a personal choice, it is not attacking anyone, or asking anyone else to wear one. The students are not voicing their religious or political views, they are only there to learn. There are plenty of mujahid commanders children who go to attend schools in London, do they have to want to grow up like the Queen or Tony Blair and endorse their beliefs because they are in that country? No, they just want the technical education they cannot get in Afghanistan. You are right no one is forcing Muslim children to go to French schools, but why should they be denied the right to go to any school, simply because their religion requires their head be covered in public?

LOL,
Of course its not an attack on Islam.

You do not immigrate to a country that is world famous for its non-theistic
school system and then call trying to change the non-theistic school system an attack on Islam. The TRUTH is 100% the reverse, Islamic clothing is an attack on the non-theistic school system. No one is FORCING muslim people to immigrate into France. No one is forcing muslim children to go to French state schools. Families are making a choice to come to France and to go to state schools. Its their choice. You are the attacker. Lets at least get our FACTS right before we can even begin to discuss whether your attack is right or wrong.

So many lies - what is the point. Who are you trying to talk to? What point is there in lying? why do you bother? Who is fooled by your unbiased nonsense.

From Wikipdia:
"
Since 1905, France has had a law requiring separation of church and state, prohibiting the state from recognising or funding any religion. Schools directly operated by the national or local governments must not endorse or promote any religious dogma (whether endorsing an existing religion or endorsing atheism or any other philosophy). Schools funded totally or in part by the national and local governments by law must not force students into religious education; they should remain equally accessible to children of any, or no, faith. For example, even though a majority of the population nominally professes Catholicism (although far fewer regularly practice Catholicism), government-operated French schools have no communal prayers, religious assemblies, or Christian crosses on the walls. The Constitution of France says that France is a laïque (roughly, secular) Republic.
"

For ONCE IN YOUR LIFE WHY DON'T YOU TRY TO HAVE A RATIONAL CONVERSATION INSTEAD OF TALKING CARP NONSENSE TO YOURSELF.
some people, it beggers belief!

John

John

Tayeb

11-04-2006, 09:57

I didn't think it worth while mention Pope John as his Vatican 2 obviously shows him as a liberal. I'm surprised you feel you need to argue that John was a Franco-ite.

Wikipedia says:
"
("Work of God") was, according to some historians, one of the most most influential Catholic lay group during the Franco period together with the ACNP or the National Catholic Association of Propagandists, who was influential both in the early and late years of the Franco period. [1] Opus Dei denies any political aims, and some historians and journalists argue that it was (and remains) politically neutral. Others underline the conservative tone of all of its members.
"

I think you will find most MODERN research (eg without emotional baggage or the early post franco yearS) will say Opus Dei was neutral.

Thats enough.
I've had here for a while.
Its all words that cannot be said.... It really is seriously that bad.

I'm off for a while.

John

Dear Johon,

Your holding onto Wikipedia is partial. You write what pleases you. The 200,000 and over who died under oppression of Franco's regime are a reality that you can't whitewash, but then eurocentrics like to whitewash everything and not recognise how awful they have been. We know of the secret linls (and even double role) of the Catholic Church with Nazism. I witnessed how the Catholic Chruch worked with portuguese fascist regime of Salazar and later Caetano in Mozambique, so don't talk about innocence of Pope Paul VI, as if he didn't know of massacre of Wiryamu (Mozambique) etc.

Anyhow Pope Paul VI's role can be accounted from 1963 to 1978, but on the whole he didn't change the policies of Catholic Church.

My aim really to unmask once for all the connection you make between democracy and catholic church as if it were any key of civilised behaviour. It's a joke as really you adon't know the bloody history of Catholic Church. On Jose Maria Escrivá do you know what he thought of Jews?

Ma'a-salaama,

cyberpi

11-04-2006, 13:42

I am against bigotry.
Can you describe in your words what bigotry is? I think you are confused. Those who are religious intolerant are bigots. Those who are opposed to free speech are bigots. Those who are for censorship are bigots. Those who lift a single finger over an apostate, are bigots. But in your words, can you describe bigotry?

Here is a definition from a dictionary for you:
(1) stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. (2) actions, beliefs, prejudices, of a bigot. (3) to be so emotionally or subjectively attached to one's own beliefs as to be unthinkably hostile to all others who disagree.

Tayeb

11-04-2006, 15:05

Dear cyberpi,

You have your own worldview of whatever you thing of your self-righteneous. You cannot accuse us here of being intolerant as we allow differing views and you are an example. But remember your freedom ends where my starts. Hence we have rules here, as in any civilised place.

The hat of bigotry doesn't fit me. In fact Netcuratains - I think you have chosen to be his advocate ;) - says catholicism is synonimous of democracy and they apart and parcel of the same. I say pure bigotry what he has been saying because he also says that besides being catholic he is atheist. This a true bigotry, you can't be a believer and unbeliever at the same time. You can't be believer in Jesus and say there are doubts he ever existed.

I advise you to read what Netcurtains has been saying before coming to his defense.

Ma'a-salaama,

cyberpi

11-04-2006, 20:27

Tayeb, I quoted a single sentence to focus on the definition of a single word. You have formerly called me a bigot, and on another thread here you say the USA's foreign policy is bigotry. What does the word bigotry mean to you? What is your definition for the word bigot or bigotry?

If I understand your examples here... are you saying that you think bigotry means a person who you think has conflicting beliefs?

Tayeb

12-04-2006, 20:17

I like wikipedia's definition:

Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to his or her prejudices even when these prejudices are challenged or proven to be false, often advocating and defending these prejudices in a rude and intolerant manner. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or worldview such as racism, religion, nationalism or homophobia or Islamophobia.

I don't recall ever called you a bigot. It'd be quite a strong word.

cyberpi

18-04-2006, 02:17

That is not a very good definition but it works. The religious intolerant are clearly bigots. Those who are opposed to free speech are bigots because when their prejudices (beliefs) are challenged they fight back by suppressing the ability of others to have a voice. The best anti-bigotry is unilateral freedom of speech. Those who censor are bigots because again, suppressing the beliefs that others have expressed no matter how intolerable or illogical, is bigotry. Those who lift a finger over an apostate from any religion are bigots.

Many people within the USA most definitely have been bigots, having censored and been religious intolerant of others. It was by witnessing their own actions internally that they have learned what bigotry is... that is why censorship is a big mistake, because it defeats the ability of people to learn from each other.

Bigotry certainly can apply to people who are pro-democracy, pro-communism, pro-socialist, pro-dictatorship, or any other form of governing. If people unjustly censor, kill, or otherwise suppress the voice of people who have differing viewpoints... it is bigotry. However a police officer enforcing a law that was developed by the people is NOT bigotry. You are welcome to have the beliefs that theft, rape and murder are actually good and that you are entitled to them, but when you do them to society then justice would mean society can do them back to you.

I recognize from your viewpoint the USA are bigots for enforcing democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq. If that was the motivation of the people of the USA you are correct... and for some it is. But NOT removing Saddam and bringing him to justice would be a crime, and NOT removing training camps in Afghanistan after 9/11, given the defiance of the Taliban to remove them, would also be an injustice. If today those people wish to censor themselves or be religious intolerant that is their choice and mistake... it would be bigotry to force them to be tolerant of each others religions, and bigotry to remove their ability to censor themselves. However the moment society (a country) is intolerant of an individual or an individual is intolerant of society (their country), it is resolvable by justice. If you have a right to attack me for my beliefs then I have a right to attack you. When it is "Just us" then it is bigotry or hypocrisy. For example, whatever apostate you kill for no other reason than their beliefs, has a right to kill you for no other reason than your beliefs.

Being homophobic, Islamophobic, religion-phobic, democra-phobic, or any other belief is not bigotry, unless those people are unjustly rude and intolerant. It is NOT bigotry to not accept other people's beliefs... it is bigotry to not accept people with different beliefs than your own. Intolerance here means preventing others from judging for themselves what is right. I defend the right of every individual to be a racist, rapist, murderer, thief, homo, religious, democratic, or believer in any belief... but when society, the people, equally return the action it is a matter of justice. Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

Tayeb

18-04-2006, 10:01

Dear cyberpi,

Would you recognise you are a devout anti-Islamic and an enemy of all that's Islam, that you hate Muslims?

You can't hide these views and you ought to say it clearly: you hate Islam and Muslims and that you consider us heathen, pagans. Don't you?

Don't be devious and say it in a truthful manner!

One can read and read over whatever you say and your standing is on one side of a camp that is opposite to all that's Islam.

Do you also hate Arabs, be they Muslim or Christians?

Ma'a-salaama,

cyberpi

19-04-2006, 00:07

Tayeb despite your many attempts to be a self appointed representative, you do not speak for other people whether considered Muslim, Christian, or Arab. So why should anyone judge a religion or race by you? Why should anyone judge you by a religion or race?

Tayeb

19-04-2006, 09:58

Dear cyberpi,

I have asked you concrete questions and you haven't responded so I conclude that in fact you believe in what I have asked you on, as you could say clearly with no otherwise.

Your preaching and missionary activity is a self delusion because Muslims will never accept Jesus as a god or son of God. He was and is a prophet of God, there was nothing divine in him.

On Palestine, on Iraq, and elsewhere Muslims have already clear opinions and know these problems reflect the encroachment of a new wave of Crusaders. Desguised and behind NGOs are missionaries like you trying to convert Muslims, offering them money and worldly benefits. First bomb them then offer them Bibles is their motto.

Ma'a-salaama,

cyberpi

21-04-2006, 00:33

Tayeb, like the word 'democracy' or 'censorship', the word bigot is not in the bible or the Qur'an. It requires debate and I asked you for your definition. You said you hate bigotry and you have formerly called me a bigot, along with Americans in general and Jews or Israel in general, so I thought it might be good to nail down what exactly you think bigotry is. I am happy with the answer.

According to the written Gospels, Jesus was a Son of God and a Son of Man who has great faith and in whom great faith is placed. I was of the opinion we are all God's children... is that not the case? I have a biological father so am I not a son of man too? You are welcome to believe as you wish.

Your concrete questions are as concrete as silly putty... they are generalizations where there is clearly a discrepancy between us what a Muslim is.

You try to speak of the clear opinions of Muslims that you clearly don't know. You don't even know the opinion of your family and friends until they open their mouths... so either your eyes see the unseen and the Holy Spirit tells you the thoughts of billions of people, or God forbid you conjecture and lie about what their opinion is.

muslim1924

21-05-2006, 05:18

والله غالب على أمره ولكن أكثر الناس لا يعلمون

Netcurtains3

21-05-2006, 20:24

If you can’t use google it translates to:
” God is most downtrodden …”

I guess this means a TRUE muslim sees god in African homosexual AIDS victims and beaten women in Afghanistan. God is on the 8:30 Northern Line as a crushed sardine and a drug addict in Edinburgh’s Westerhales council estate.
God certainly is not a man who owns a gun

sister_Harb

06-07-2006, 02:32

Original question was "Is Islam under attack? " I read all the discussions and understood about it.. so... so even you discussed.

:D

We could also ask is Europe under Islam attack? Yes it is and it has been a long time. I remember when I was just a little girl (8 or 9) and at school my history teatcher told that "Islam" is coming to Europe. He told it like the snake would come to Paradise!

I afraid many years that "snake" called Islam, then I met sensible, nice muslims and later I became muslim.

But is Islam under attack? What Islam and whose Islam? I am personally supporter that Islam what Hamas represent and it is not moderate Islam at all. In Europe I seem to be as fundamentalist and at the same time I am not; I am member of communist party (auts); pasifist (auts), feminist (auts) and even accept ***s (AUTS) and I am fundamentalist. I support those people whose call "suicide bombers" as martydom operations"; I call it as resistance.

So whose Islam is under attack? Mine or?

your sister harb

sister_Harb

06-07-2006, 02:35

OOoooops I can see that g a y is nasty word in here :D Don´t worry about my moral; I am moderator in 3 other islamic forum...

s3

Netcurtains3

09-07-2006, 09:00

Harbor,
I see that you are a member of the Communist party.
Can you tell me why Marx says this in the very first line of the Manifesto:

"
A spectre is haunting Europe -- the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.
"

As an amatuer psychologist I think people put their pet hates at the top of lists.
It seems to me that this Jewish, athiest man (Marx) living in protestant/orthodox europe hated Catholics and associated spiritual beliefs (Spectre) more than anything else.

So why do Communists hate the Catholic church more than any other religion ?

IMHO, its because there was only one type of Communist society that has ever succeeded and that is communities of Monks. If you read "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" the truth comes out....
From Amazon:
"
This is one of those eye-opening books that put to rest widely accepted but nonetheless misguided notions about the past. In 225 information-packed pages Tom Woods reveals how, in the aftermath of the collapse of the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church single-handedly revived and rebuilt Western civilization. The Benedictine monks, for example, transformed wasteland and swamps into fertile fields, harnessed water power, and bred healthier strains of livestock. The Jesuits became pre-eminent in astronomy and developed a scientific approach to archaeology. The Church fostered village schools and the great universities of Paris, Bologna, Oxford, and Cambridge; operated hospitals and orphanages; sheltered and fed the poor; and formulated the idea of basic human rights. Thanks to this book, people who use the term "medieval" as an insult are going to be awfully embarrassed.
"

Yes Communism does work - but Catholic Communism is the REAL thing because it has a 2000 year track record. The concept of Monks developed in Egypt and then moved to Ireland.

Or another reviewer:
"
That said, I half expected to see a Chapter on Gregor Mendel, the Augustinian abbot and father of genetics. How this could be overlooked was in my mind a huge oversight (and otherwise 5 stars). Another reviewer mentions music. The contributions are good and wide-reaching, but one only wonders what else might be missing. It definitely needs a 2nd edition and it needs to be in paperback to reach a wider audience. The cover art is exquisite.
"

If you want to know what religious persecution is then this is it - in Spain between 1936 and 1939 at least 6,832 priests and religious were martyred, including 13 bishops. Or in Russia up to the 1970s. During the first five years of Soviet power, the Bolsheviks executed 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and over 1,200 Russian Orthodox priests. Many others were imprisoned or exiled. Believers were harassed and persecuted. Most seminaries were closed, and publication of most religious material was prohibited. By 1941 only 500 churches remained open out of about 54,000 in existence prior to World War I.

I hate a victim culture. Get a life!

Tayeb

09-07-2006, 16:33

One more burp from you Netty. Sorry but couldn't stop laughing on your views of catholicism, the same that helped in recent the murder of 750.000 spaniards.

Netcurtains3

09-07-2006, 16:52

...at least Catholics don't wallow in "victim culture" as so many muslims appear to.

A typical Muslim view of the world:
"Oh woe is me, I fire rockets at people and they fire them back. Oh why oh why do they do that."

Tayeb

10-07-2006, 00:17

Don't be so simplistic. First and second world war weren't caused by Muslims. Native americans and australians weren't almost removed from face of earth by Muslims. Muslims didn't invent Inquisition. It took 200 years for Muslims to have an effective answer to Crusaders. It was Crusaders that helped in bringing down the Eastern Roman Empire with unwaranted attack on Constantinople.

You want me to tell you about recent history?

Ma'a-salaama,

macmuslim

10-07-2006, 01:48

A typical Muslim view of the world:
"Oh woe is me, I fire rockets at people and they fire them back. Oh why oh why do they do that."

:confused:

Actually, John, if truth be told, to me that sounds like
1) the Israeli Zionist regime "We steal land and oppress people, why oh why do they fight back?"
2) the United Snakes of America "We bomb indiscriminately. Who the hell are you to do the same?"
3) Tony Blair - "I ignored the will of the UK people and went to war in Iraq. But the Muslims don't do enough amongst themselves to stop terrorism."

And if we are talking about victim obsession, isnt this the card played by the Zionists with regard to WW2 and the US with regard to Sept 11th?

Netcurtains3

10-07-2006, 23:14

....just a slight correction
Turkey was a key player in World War 1 and a Muslim was one of the bombers that started the war.

But you knew that.

Bored now.

Crotalushunter

02-11-2006, 00:54

I'm just trying to learn my way around these threads, but it appears the most common defense of atrocities committed in the name of Islam, is to point toward other religions and the atrocities committed in their names. It's relativism of the "Oh yeah, but you're are/were worse," kind and a logical fallacy to boot.

Tayeb

04-11-2006, 12:48

Dear Crotalushunter,

No one here defends atrocities in name of whoever they are done. I really don't understand you. It seems you thiong Islam mean dark-skinned or mdiddle-eastern type people. Islam is a religion professed by all people of different races, nations etc. It has nothing to do with race.

On this poll that has been going on for quite a while, those that participate can say yes, no or whatever. There's no imposition of vote. I hope this is clear to you.

Ma'a-salaama,

Crotalushunter

04-11-2006, 16:41

Dear Crotalushunter,

No one here defends atrocities inb name of whoever they are done. I really don't understand you. It seems you thiong Islam mean dark-skinned or mdiddle-eastern type people. Islam is a religion professed by all people of different races, nations etc. It has nothing to do with race.

On this poll that has been going on for quite a while, those that participate can say yes, no or whatever. There's no imposition of vote. I hope this is clear to you.

Ma'a-salaama,

I don't recall saying nothing of race. While I agree Islam can be a simple religion. Today it appears to be more of a socio-political ideology.

Tayeb

04-11-2006, 17:33

I don't recall saying nothing of race. While I agree Islam can be a simple religion. Today it appears to be more of a socio-political ideology.

Dear Crotalushunter,

That's your opinion. Islam has never separated worldly with personal and spiritual.

Muslims do their daily five times a day prayers, pay alms, and do the things they have to do as Muslims. If you say that Muslims whould be ready to give the orher cheek that's not the way Muslims think. It's always good to give the other cheek but if unbearable we have the right to fight back.

Perhaps you ought to star another topic if you want to understand better Islam.

Ma'a-salaama,

Crotalushunter

04-11-2006, 17:43

Dear Crotalushunter,

That's your opinion. Islam has never separated worldly with personal and spiritual.

Muslims do their daily five times a day prayers, pay alms, and do the things they have to do as Muslims. If you say that Muslims whould be ready to give the orher cheek that's not the way Muslims think. It's always good to give the other cheek but if unbearable we have the right to fight back.

Perhaps you ought to star another topic if you want to understand better Islam.

Ma'a-salaama,

Again, you seem to be discussing that which I did not even mention. I'm not understanding you.

Tayeb

06-11-2006, 12:23

Crotalushunter

06-11-2006, 13:16

I responded to your statement:

I don't recall saying nothing of race. While I agree Islam can be a simple religion. Today it appears to be more of a socio-political ideology.

On the race elsewhere you were implicit on if you don't like go back to your country. If you like I can dig out what you said and write here.

Ma'a-salaama,

I wrote, in order:
"I'm just trying to learn my way around these threads, but it appears the most common defense of atrocities committed in the name of Islam, is to point toward other religions and the atrocities committed in their names. It's relativism of the "Oh yeah, but you're are/were worse," kind and a logical fallacy to boot."

"I don't recall saying nothing of race. While I agree Islam can be a simple religion. Today it appears to be more of a socio-political ideology."

"to which you wrote:

Dear Crotalushunter,

That's your opinion. Islam has never separated worldly with personal and spiritual.

Muslims do their daily five times a day prayers, pay alms, and do the things they have to do as Muslims. If you say that Muslims whould be ready to give the orher cheek that's not the way Muslims think. It's always good to give the other cheek but if unbearable we have the right to fight back.

Perhaps you ought to star another topic if you want to understand better Islam."

and then I wrote"
"Again, you seem to be discussing that which I did not even mention. I'm not understanding you."

And countries are multi-racial ...

eletricfusion

13-07-2009, 01:46

I think so...
I am very tired of people calling me names and terrorists every day.

ginap

26-07-2009, 23:41

I don't recall saying nothing of race. While I agree Islam can be a simple religion. Today it appears to be more of a socio-political ideology.

Socio political ideology? No, Islam does not separate religion from culture and ways of living. The Quran gives specific guidance on how to live with regards to every aspect of one's life. It explains social obligations each man has towards his fellow man. It explains a woman's role. It explains people's roles towards society and their religion. Other religions are more like a one day a week hobby where people go about their day to day lives and one day a week they go to their congregation and pray and think about God. Islam expects and demands Muslims exercise the judgement and manners specified in the religion in their day to day affairs. It has come to the forefront politically because governments want to institute their own laws which may be in conflict with original laws handed down. So if you have a government's laws or religious law which do you obey? The governments respond to the public who want relaxed social laws.

Netcurtains3

27-07-2009, 08:41

if it was would that be a good thing?
A bad thing?
Neutral?

To my mind religions, politics, cultural practices should be confronted if you strongly disagree with them - to the point of war if the practice is so bad (slavery, terror leaders, racist leaders, Chinese imperialism, Islamic stuff, Christianity, Judsism, Hinduism, Westernism ). However sometimes what is required to win is not a war but a race...... The Space Race in many ways defeated communism. I think its time to go to Mars - lets beat the others out there by simply being loads and loads better. That is the Capitalist way.
We'll beat you in the end not with a bang but a whimper as policial religion disappears in a puff of Marsian rocket fuel. Lets take their ball away and play our own game - The Apollo (son of God) Space Race Mark 2.