Define conservatism

[palerider]

However, if we're going to discuss religion and warfare, taking a glance at what historians refer to as the "Age of Religious Warfare" might be a good idea. Especially since all that religious warfare centers on the West - the conflicts between Protestants and Catholics as Protestantism was founded. Especially since it shows that Islam is not the only world religion that has had more than its healthy share of warfare. Especially since despite the extreme violence promoted and propagated by the Catholic Church it is considered a "peaceful" religion today - because it is recognized that all religion is interpretative.

Interesting, isn't it that with the exception of Ireland, you have to go back hundreds of years to find other religions besides muslims engaging in holy wars while you only need look at today's paper (or tomorrows) to see that mindset at work in "modern" islam.

Let's take a quick look at the Five Pillars of Islam.

The first is Shahadah - total submission to the will of God. There's a recitation that is the basis of Shahadah - it goes something like, "The only God is Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger." This is an acknowledgment that, in the Islamic faith, Allah is the only God (Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, is monotheistic).

And good muslims are called on to fight the infidel until only allah is worshipped. Any good muslim will tell you that.

The second is Salah, which requires Muslims to pray five times a day. There are some pretty specific guidelines: pray at this time, use a prayer rug/mat, pray in the direction of the holy city (Mecca, in case you were wondering), etc.

And anyone who doesn't pray to allah 5 times a day is an infidel. See pillar 1.

The third is Zakat, or "alms-giving." Basically it is a sort of required charity with varying levels depending on how materially wealthy you are.

Well, the money certainly does flow within islam. To the terrorists for training and weaponry, and from the terrorists to buy the loyalty of those whom they are using as human shields

The fourth is Sawm, fasting. Muslims use fasting in a number of different ways - it is considered a way to grow closer to Allah and it is considered a form of capitulation for wrongs (analogous to confession in Christianity).

What do you know. Something that doesn't involve killing the infidel wherever he may be found.

So where does the problem come from? Well, it comes from the word "mujahideen" (literally, "struggler" or "one who struggles") and the fact that the mujahideen are considered to be on a different societal level than the qaid, those who choose not to struggle.

Sure, read the qur'an. Allah says that only 1 out of 100 will get into paradise and the only way to be sure not to end up in hell is to fight against the enemies of allah and the enemies of allah are anyone who does not worship him. The qur'an clearly says that those who fight are superior in they eyes of allah to those who don't.

The bottom line through all of this is that everyone who practices Islam interprets it. No Muslim alive today participated in those conquests. Many Muslims who are alive today live in just as much fear of being killed by extremists because those extremists interpret the meaning of jihad differently; moderate Muslims living in Iraq just want to be left alone (their version of "jihad" is self-defense) whereas extreme Muslims want to blow up everyone who doesn't agree with them (their version of "jihad" is preemptive). Moderate Muslims don't speak out against their wayward cousins because A) it isn't their responsibility and B) the best way to defend one's self is to not provoke an aggressor.

According to the qur'an, the "extremists" are the only good muslims. Those who don't fight are in constant danger of being labeled infidels and killed themselves.

Once again and always, islam is the problem.

 

[palerider]

And I repeat that the actions of radical Islam are the direct consequence of certain western policies, starting around the end of the nineteenth century and souped up after WWII.
Absent those, you would have very little to talk about without reaching back a thousand years.

The actions of "radical" (read as good islamists) are just more of the same that has been going on since mohammed manufactured the religion in the first place. The violence isn't anything new, and didn't begin as the result of anything the west has ever done. Islam started this fight and is called upon by allah to win it.

 

[vyo476]

However, if we're going to discuss religion and warfare, taking a glance at what historians refer to as the "Age of Religious Warfare" might be a good idea. Especially since all that religious warfare centers on the West - the conflicts between Protestants and Catholics as Protestantism was founded. Especially since it shows that Islam is not the only world religion that has had more than its healthy share of warfare. Especially since despite the extreme violence promoted and propagated by the Catholic Church it is considered a "peaceful" religion today - because it is recognized that all religion is interpretative.

Interesting, isn't it that with the exception of Ireland, you have to go back hundreds of years to find other religions besides muslims engaging in holy wars while you only need look at today's paper (or tomorrows) to see that mindset at work in "modern" islam.

Let's take a quick look at the Five Pillars of Islam.



And good muslims are called on to fight the infidel until only allah is worshipped. Any good muslim will tell you that.



And anyone who doesn't pray to allah 5 times a day is an infidel. See pillar 1.



Well, the money certainly does flow within islam. To the terrorists for training and weaponry, and from the terrorists to buy the loyalty of those whom they are using as human shields



What do you know. Something that doesn't involve killing the infidel wherever he may be found.



Sure, read the qur'an. Allah says that only 1 out of 100 will get into paradise and the only way to be sure not to end up in hell is to fight against the enemies of allah and the enemies of allah are anyone who does not worship him. The qur'an clearly says that those who fight are superior in they eyes of allah to those who don't.



According to the qur'an, the "extremists" are the only good muslims. Those who don't fight are in constant danger of being labeled infidels and killed themselves.

Once again and always, islam is the problem.

So, did you just ignore my post or what...?

It does not implicitly state, anywhere in the Qur'an, "Go invade other countries and kill all who oppose you," without anything else to qualify the statement.

Take a look.

"And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight against you and do not transgress bounds [in this fighting]. God does not love the transgressors. Kill them wherever you find them and drive them out [of the place] from which they drove you out and [remember] persecution is worse than carnage. But do not initiate war with them near the Holy Kabah unless they attack you there. But if they attack you, put them to the sword [without any hesitation]. Thus shall such disbelievers be rewarded. However, if they desist [from this disbelief], Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Keep fighting against them, until persecution does not remain and Allah’s religion reigns supreme. But if they mend their ways, then [you should know that] an offensive is only allowed against the evil-doers. A sacred month for a sacred month; [similarly] other sacred things too are subject to retaliation. So if any one transgresses against you, you should also pay back in equal coins. Have fear of Allah and [keep in mind that] Allah is with those who remain within the bounds [stipulated by religion]." Qur'an 4:75-76

That is the directive to jihad in the Qur'an. Note the first sentence: "Fight in the way of Allah with those who fight against you." This is often interpreted as being a self-defense directive, not an offensive one. Everything else that follows in the entire passage deals with these "transgressors" - that is, people who have violated Muslims. If you had to sum this up it'd go something like, "Do everything you have to in order to protect yourselves." I can already hear you jumping on "Keep fighting against them, until persecution does not remain and Allah's religion reigns supreme." Don't take it out of context though. The "them" mentioned in that sentence still refers to people who have already transgressed against the Muslims; and the statement "Allah's religion reigns supreme" could just as easily be amongst the secular group of Muslims as it could mean the world. Remember that one of the principal definitions of "jihad" is that it is an internal struggle - so Allah's religion reigning supreme could simply mean that the Muslims are then free from the persecution of outside aggressors and allowed therefore to practice their religion in full.

And also noting that according the Qur'an, Christians and Jews are not infidels, but "People of the Book" - people who believe in the earlier teachings of Allah but have yet to see the truth of the Qur'an - is probably a good idea. They aren't considered infidels until they attack Islam. The extremist view of an attack on Islam is their very existence, which goes against Islamic principles. The moderate view is an actual, physical attack or just plain hostility - when we invaded Iraq in 2003 we were met by joyous mobs of people who thanked us for deposing Saddam Hussein. Nowadays they aren't so fond of us being there, as our continued presence in their country constitutes, in their eyes, aggression.

There are also extensive rules for warfare described by the Qur'an that include restrictions on collateral damage. No woman or child is supposed to be killed, according to the Qur'an. While there is no passage stating that infidels are not human (only misguided), extremists combine the belief that infidels are unreachable with the idea that they are all transgressors (see above) and boom - radical terrorism. These are two extreme views within the religion, as most Muslims take those passages for what they're worth - unless an infidel attacks you, leave him alone, since he too is Allah's child only misguided; do not ever kill women and children, whether they be Muslim or otherwise.

 

[Dave]

Communism was the problem ?... Can it not be said that the problem was actually more like *relations between the US and some of the countries which had chosen communism* ??


Although each of those has posed a fatal threat to various areas at some time in the past (and that alone should prevent us from singling out Muslims as the spawn of hell ... the way some people do on this board).


And I repeat that the actions of radical Islam are the direct consequence of certain western policies, starting around the end of the nineteenth century and souped up after WWII.
Absent those, you would have very little to talk about without reaching back a thousand years.

I have a fair idea, from reading something he wrote in [I think it was] 1999. Let me see if I can find that later.

The problem during the Cold war was the actions of countries that chose Communism as their path. It may just be coincidence, but it seems that every country that chose Communism also chose a anti-western stance, oppression of the masses, and a complete disregard for human rights in all forms. That is not the fault of the West.

When have Christians and Jews posed a "fatal threat" in the past? Other than the crusades, which was initiated by Muslims, I cannot think of a time when Jews and Christians have fought to completely destroy a people based on religious grounds.

Osama bin Ladin's hatred of the United States, and Saudi Arabia stems from the first Gulf War. Bin Ladin was living in Saudi Arabia as a wealthy man, and forming his own private religious army. When Iraq began its invasion of Kuwait, bin Ladin offered to use his army as a defense for the Saudis. The royal family told him thanks but no thanks, and said they would be more comfortable with America getting involved. Bin Ladin was extremely offended by this gesture. The Koran states that no infidels should set foot on the Arabian Peninsula, and bin Ladin took this as a slap in his face that Arabs would trust Westerners with their defense over other Arabs. He was especially offended to see white women in combat on the Arabian Peninsula. He was exiled after he decided that the Saudi government was a puppet for America and started making threats. He traveled to Sudan where he met Ayman al-Zawahiri and then began his terrorist operations.

My point is that yes, it is the hatred of non-Muslims that is the driving force behind Al-Qaida. The fact that we were willing to stop an invasion, and in turn saved the lives of thousands of Muslim people, caused hatred for America amongst countless Muslims.

 

[palerider]

So, did you just ignore my post or what...?

It does not implicitly state, anywhere in the Qur'an, "Go invade other countries and kill all who oppose you," without anything else to qualify the statement.

Then you haven't read the book.

"Those who barter their life in this world for the next should fight in the way of Allah; whether he is killed or victorious, a glorious reward awaits." "Urge the believers to fight...to keep back the might of the Infidels." "Seize them and kill them wherever they are." "Muslims who sit idle are not equal to those who fight in Allah’s Cause with their wealth and lives. Allah has exalted those who fight for Islam." 4th surah

And who is the infidel?

"They are surely Infidels who say Christ, the Messiah is God." (5:72)

And also noting that according the Qur'an, Christians and Jews are not infidels, but "People of the Book" [/quote]

Maybe you should read the books rather than depend upon someone who might pick out the "VERY FEW" passages in the qur'an that might be interpreted in a peaceful way. The qur'an states quite clearly who the infidel is.

"They are surely Infidels who say Christ, the Messiah is God." (5:72)

"O believers, do not hold Jews and Christians as your allies. They are allies of one another; and anyone who makes them his friends is one of them." Qur'an 5:51



- people who believe in the earlier teachings of Allah but have yet to see the truth of the Qur'an - is probably a good idea. They aren't considered infidels until they attack Islam. The extremist view of an attack on Islam is their very existence, which goes against Islamic principles. The moderate view is an actual, physical attack or just plain hostility - when we invaded Iraq in 2003 we were met by joyous mobs of people who thanked us for deposing Saddam Hussein. Nowadays they aren't so fond of us being there, as our continued presence in their country constitutes, in their eyes, aggression.

There are also extensive rules for warfare described by the Qur'an that include restrictions on collateral damage. No woman or child is supposed to be killed, according to the Qur'an. While there is no passage stating that infidels are not human (only misguided), extremists combine the belief that infidels are unreachable with the idea that they are all transgressors (see above) and boom - radical terrorism. These are two extreme views within the religion, as most Muslims take those passages for what they're worth - unless an infidel attacks you, leave him alone, since he too is Allah's child only misguided; do not ever kill women and children, whether they be Muslim or otherwise.

"Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace." Ishaq:587

"Arabs were the first to respond to the call of the Prophet. We are Allah’s helpers and the viziers of His Messenger. We fight people until they believe in Allah. He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us. As for one who disbelieves, we will fight him forever in the Cause of Allah. Killing him is a small matter to us." Tabari IX:69

Grab yourself a qur’an. Right after 2:190 you will find the following passage:

"Jihad is holy fighting in Allah’s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad, Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad, Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite."

If you want to play dueling scriptures, I have to warn you that you are going to run out of peacefull material in the books of the qur'an a very long time before I run out of explicit instructions from allah and the prophet to do violence.

 

[vyo476]

Then you haven't read the book.

"Those who barter their life in this world for the next should fight in the way of Allah; whether he is killed or victorious, a glorious reward awaits." "Urge the believers to fight...to keep back the might of the Infidels." "Seize them and kill them wherever they are." "Muslims who sit idle are not equal to those who fight in Allah’s Cause with their wealth and lives. Allah has exalted those who fight for Islam." 4th surah

And who is the infidel?

"They are surely Infidels who say Christ, the Messiah is God." (5:72)

And also noting that according the Qur'an, Christians and Jews are not infidels, but "People of the Book"

Maybe you should read the books rather than depend upon someone who might pick out the "VERY FEW" passages in the qur'an that might be interpreted in a peaceful way. The qur'an states quite clearly who the infidel is.

"They are surely Infidels who say Christ, the Messiah is God." (5:72)

"O believers, do not hold Jews and Christians as your allies. They are allies of one another; and anyone who makes them his friends is one of them." Qur'an 5:51



- people who believe in the earlier teachings of Allah but have yet to see the truth of the Qur'an - is probably a good idea. They aren't considered infidels until they attack Islam. The extremist view of an attack on Islam is their very existence, which goes against Islamic principles. The moderate view is an actual, physical attack or just plain hostility - when we invaded Iraq in 2003 we were met by joyous mobs of people who thanked us for deposing Saddam Hussein. Nowadays they aren't so fond of us being there, as our continued presence in their country constitutes, in their eyes, aggression.



"Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace." Ishaq:587

"Arabs were the first to respond to the call of the Prophet. We are Allah’s helpers and the viziers of His Messenger. We fight people until they believe in Allah. He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us. As for one who disbelieves, we will fight him forever in the Cause of Allah. Killing him is a small matter to us." Tabari IX:69

Grab yourself a qur’an. Right after 2:190 you will find the following passage:

"Jihad is holy fighting in Allah’s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad, Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad, Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite."

If you want to play dueling scriptures, I have to warn you that you are going to run out of peacefull material in the books of the qur'an a very long time before I run out of explicit instructions from allah and the prophet to do violence.

And what is "fighting for Islam"? Many throughout history have interpreted it as being conquest. That's all that is though - interpretation. I find it ironic that "Seize them and kill them wherever they are," showed up in your first block of quotes as I had previously quoted the full passage from which that comes - as a means of showing that it discusses self-defense.

In terms of Christians and Jews, there's also this: "And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him do we submit." 29:46.

And admittedly, there's also this: "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!" 29:30

There's a xenophobic streak in much of Muhammad's writing; he expected that Muslims would have defend themselves a lot and, as he'd already predicted the decline and eventual fall of polytheistic religions, it stands to reason that Muhammad believed the Muslims would wind up having to defend themselves against Christians and Jews.

Pale rider, I seriously doubt that we're going to come to an agreement on this. I am in no way stating that Islam is inherently good; I'm simply stating that it is inherently interpretative. While I do believe that Islam is interpretative, I also recognize that it has been interpreted for aggressive and (from our point of view) evil means over the course of its history. If we can both agree that Islam is interpretative but has more often been interpreted for bad than for good than I'm willing to concede the debate.

 

[palerider]

Pale rider, I seriously doubt that we're going to come to an agreement on this. I am in no way stating that Islam is inherently good; I'm simply stating that it is inherently interpretative. While I do believe that Islam is interpretative, I also recognize that it has been interpreted for aggressive and (from our point of view) evil means over the course of its history. If we can both agree that Islam is interpretative but has more often been interpreted for bad than for good than I'm willing to concede the debate.

There is very little in the books of the qur'an that could be interpreted as peaceful. Maybe 2% of the verses could be construed in such a way as to present an image of a peaceful islam. The bulk of the books are incitements to kill the infidel and to fight all of mankind until only allah is worshipped.

By the way, God is not allah. Most of the qur'an is a twisted and distorted version of the Old Testament. The only characters that are in it, that are not in the Old Testament are mohammed, two men from an imaginary, non existant city, and Alexander the Great. Did you know that Alexander was a muslim prophet?

Mohammed invented the religion to justify his desire for revenge, for pillage, and for women.

 

[Friendindeed]

Talking with a group that freely admits that they believe it is perfectly fine and acceptable to lie to one's enemy if an advantage can be gained? Which parts of what they say do you suppose we should accept as truth?

I notice that you are ignoring the point made earlier that Jews have the same advice in their holy book, to lie or not honor oaths if an advantage can be gained. Do you think we should stop talking to Jews too ?

Actually, a comprehensive list of islamic terrorists attacks can be found in numerous locations. And your seemingly never ending ad hominem attacks on sources simply because you don't like them highlights the weakness of your position. You have yet to point out a single inaccuracy at jihad watch. It is clear that you don't like them but since they are telling the truth, one must wonder why you don't like them.

You always tell me that your list can be found in numerous locations yet the only locations you have ever given are Jihad Watch and that other similar one which was also categorized as a hate site. In fact I could not even access the other one from my office because it was firewalled appaerntly as a hate site. Then you say that since those sites are "telling the truth" then you wonder why I dislike them. I dislike them because their biased slant on events is so obvious.

 

[Friendindeed]

Pale rider, I seriously doubt that we're going to come to an agreement on this. I am in no way stating that Islam is inherently good; I'm simply stating that it is inherently interpretative. While I do believe that Islam is interpretative, I also recognize that it has been interpreted for aggressive and (from our point of view) evil means over the course of its history. If we can both agree that Islam is interpretative but has more often been interpreted for bad than for good than I'm willing to concede the debate.

Conceding the debate, already? That's a shame. If you look back in this thread you would find that Lilly and TVOff found many positive quotes from the Qu'ran. It is good not to allow yourself to be intimidated.

 

[palerider]

I notice that you are ignoring the point made earlier that Jews have the same advice in their holy book, to lie or not honor oaths if an advantage can be gained. Do you think we should stop talking to Jews too ?

The jews have proven themselves trustworthy. Which islamic nation has proven itself trustworthy?

You always tell me that your list can be found in numerous locations yet the only locations you have ever given are Jihad Watch and that other similar one which was also categorized as a hate site. In fact I could not even access the other one from my office because it was firewalled appaerntly as a hate site. Then you say that since those sites are "telling the truth" then you wonder why I dislike them. I dislike them because their biased slant on events is so obvious.

Here. I wouldn't want you to get a callous doing some actual research on your own.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm

Since you can't point out any inaccuracies on jihad watch, it stands to reason that they are telling the truth and a site that tells the truth is, by definition, not a hate site. Maybe you hate to see the truth, but that is beside the point.

 

[palerider]

Conceding the debate, already? That's a shame. If you look back in this thread you would find that Lilly and TVOff found many positive quotes from the Qu'ran. It is good not to allow yourself to be intimidated.

Many? If he looks back over the thread, he will se that I provided quotes that identify islam as the violent "religion" it is at a rate of about 5:1. The number of verses in the books of the qur'an that could be used to show that islam is a religion of peace is less than 5% of the total. Hardly convincing.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

Good afternoon Dave; just very quickly and I can elaborate on these replies as soon as I have more time;
you wrote:

The problem during the Cold war was the actions of countries that chose Communism as their path. It may just be coincidence, but it seems that every country that chose Communism also chose a anti-western stance, oppression of the masses, and a complete disregard for human rights in all forms. That is not the fault of the West.

In my opinion it was not coincidence; the anti-western (and specifically anti-US) stance was the result of our multiple interferences.
In those cases, the nationalization of a country's resources was a setback for business interests in the US, so the US would send what were known as "jackals" to do a little persuading ...failing that there was more forceful action.

When have Christians and Jews posed a "fatal threat" in the past? Other than the crusades, which was initiated by Muslims, I cannot think of a time when Jews and Christians have fought to completely destroy a people based on religious grounds.

The crusades were not initiated by Muslims; they were initiated by one of the popes of my church.
:/
For one example of a time when Jews have posed a fatal threat to people based on a religious rationale, you need look no further than the book of Exodus [ I think it's that, or maybe it's the book of Deuteronomy ...whichever one of them tells of Joshua's leading the Israelites into the Promised Land].
Please recall the words "...and kill every man, woman, child, and animal".
Note that present day Jews asserting their rights to a State in Palestine regard themselves as having a direct lineage down from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who were the progenitors of Joshua, etc. In fact, that is the grounds of their claim to the land (that God gave it to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob).

For examples of Christians posing fatal threats to people, apart from the Crusades, one could cite the treatment of Cathars, Hugenots, pagans of varying stripes, American Indians, probably more when I have additional time.

Osama bin Ladin's hatred of the United States, and Saudi Arabia stems from the first Gulf War. Bin Ladin was living in Saudi Arabia as a wealthy man, and forming his own private religious army. When Iraq began its invasion of Kuwait, bin Ladin offered to use his army as a defense for the Saudis. The royal family told him thanks but no thanks, and said they would be more comfortable with America getting involved. Bin Ladin was extremely offended by this gesture. The Koran states that no infidels should set foot on the Arabian Peninsula, and bin Ladin took this as a slap in his face that Arabs would trust Westerners with their defense over other Arabs. He was especially offended to see white women in combat on the Arabian Peninsula. He was exiled after he decided that the Saudi government was a puppet for America and started making threats. He traveled to Sudan where he met Ayman al-Zawahiri and then began his terrorist operations.

Yes, bin Laden has long been antagonized by the faulty observance of Islam by Saudi Arabia and about the continuing interventions of the US and our unsolicited presence in their lands. But his antipathy began actually at the age of thirteen, from a conversation he had with his father.

My point is that yes, it is the hatred of non-Muslims that is the driving force behind Al-Qaida. The fact that we were willing to stop an invasion, and in turn saved the lives of thousands of Muslim people, caused hatred for America amongst countless Muslims.

That is where I must disagree with you. It is not hatred for non-Muslims per se. All you have to do to see that is to research the very friendly relations - even affection and love - between Muslims and Neturei Karta Jews, for example.
It is the contempt for non-Muslims who interject themselves into Muslim affairs, invade Muslim lands, and so forth.
Hope to talk again soon; have a good Friday night,
Lilly

 

[Lilly Marlene]

The jews have proven themselves trustworthy. Which islamic nation has proven itself trustworthy?

Here. I wouldn't want you to get a callous doing some actual research on your own.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm

palerider, just in passing ...your link to the state.gov site does not corroborate your 1400 year list from the Prophet of Doom/Jihad Watch sites. That link you just gave is a list of terrorist attacks by people from all different countries, from Japan to Ireland.

As I have already told you in this thread I just do not have time to research each one of the various claims of Muslim atrocities made on those two anti-Islam sites, so I will continue the discussion as though the whole list is correct - but I just wanted to point that out to you.

Hope you had a nice Easter,
Lilly

 

[vyo476]

Conceding the debate, already? That's a shame. If you look back in this thread you would find that Lilly and TVOff found many positive quotes from the Qu'ran. It is good not to allow yourself to be intimidated.

I haven't been intimidated. I'm a full-time college student and I have finals coming up and quite frankly I don't have the time to spare to run around looking up verses from the Qur'an.

If you all feel like continuing the debate than that is, of course, up to you. I just don't have the energy to keep it up the way I have been and I refuse to stop backing up my posts with actual information (rather than just using my own knowledge pool, which has been known to be wrong - from time to time).

 

[palerider]

palerider, just in passing ...your link to the state.gov site does not corroborate your 1400 year list from the Prophet of Doom/Jihad Watch sites. That link you just gave is a list of terrorist attacks by people from all different countries, from Japan to Ireland.

It wasn't supposed to. It was just a list of terrorist attacks over the past half century or so. It illustrates that islam is responsible for most of the terrorist attacks in the modern world. Not just against US interests either as you have suggested. Islam is an equal opportunity terrorizer. They gladly go after people who haven't "invaded" their countries. Their only requisite that their target not bow to mecca 5 times a day.

As I have already told you in this thread I just do not have time to research each one of the various claims of Muslim atrocities made on those two anti-Islam sites, so I will continue the discussion as though the whole list is correct - but I just wanted to point that out to you.

Hope you had a nice Easter,
Lilly

I have checked them out. The last thing I would want is to post information and have someone be able to prove that it was incorrect. I believe that if my positions aren't formed on rock solid facts, then they aren't worth expressing. You should have guessed that about me by now.

I had an OK Easter. Thanks for asking. How was yours? (how is that for "chit chat?)