???uuuhhhh???? The ones blowing things up are the enemy. In seeking understanding of the enemy I look to what they say. Looking to what muslims who are not the enemy is what you do in your role as apologist for the ones who are blowing things up.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Understanding the Enemy
- Thread starter bewitched
- Start date
???uuuhhhh???? The ones blowing things up are the enemy. In seeking understanding of the enemy I look to what they say. Looking to what muslims who are not the enemy is what you do in your role as apologist for the ones who are blowing things up.
Werbung:
???? I didnt interpret them, I only quoted them. The interpretation was yours. Obviously you came up with the same interpretation that the Muslim fundamentalist arrived at.
I am genuinely lost as to how this argument continues to be debated by people who have already gone round in circles about it so many times before.
1. It is obvious that everyone agrees that the majority of Muslims don't go around blowing each other up.
2. If you judge a religion as a whole, judge it by the actions of the majority, because that is the most fair way to do it.
If you judge Islam by its majority, you will realise its normal followers are not really anymore violent than those of another other large world religion.
3. If you are going to attack Islamic fundamentalists then, it must be accepted that they are not representative, and so Islam itself is not the big evil, but those who interpret it in an evil way. If you attack Islam, rather than these people and their more specific ideology, you are attacking the wrong thing, and are therefore wrong in your argument.
Don't call me an apologist, I have no time for one load of oragnized mumbo jumbo religious toss over the next.
1. It is obvious that everyone agrees that the majority of Muslims don't go around blowing each other up.
2. If you judge a religion as a whole, judge it by the actions of the majority, because that is the most fair way to do it.
If you judge Islam by its majority, you will realise its normal followers are not really anymore violent than those of another other large world religion.
3. If you are going to attack Islamic fundamentalists then, it must be accepted that they are not representative, and so Islam itself is not the big evil, but those who interpret it in an evil way. If you attack Islam, rather than these people and their more specific ideology, you are attacking the wrong thing, and are therefore wrong in your argument.
Don't call me an apologist, I have no time for one load of oragnized mumbo jumbo religious toss over the next.
No, the fundamentalist who adhere to the literal word of the text. If it were those who misrepresent it, I wouldn be critical of what they have misrepresented.
Oh geez, thats rich. Havent you read anything about the 19 suicide bombers. Atta wasnt "cornered and wounded" as he studied engineering in Hamburg. Do you know ANYTHING about the life of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? Ramzi Yousef? Bin Laden? They didnt just want the troops out of Saudia Arabia, they wanted the royal family out of Saudia Arabia, Mubarek out of Egypt, Hussein out of Jordan. Zarqawi has been fighting against Jordan for years.
1928 the Ikhwan in Saudi Arabia revolted, Ibn Saud cracked down on them and many fled to Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood was formed and their ideology continues to this day. "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope." The same goals remain. The establishment of the Islamic Khilafah. This silly idea that some personal experience of being a "cornered or wounded animals" is Preposterous! Read Sayyid Qutbs writings, he came to the US to earn a degree and developed his hatred of the west. Not because he was a cornered animal but because he was disgusted by our society. In Egypt the foreign influenced monarchy was removed by a coup and replaced with Nasser's Nationalist movement. They tried to assasinate him because Nasserism wasnt Islamic enough for their taste.
Islam is an ideology, Muslims are a group of people. If my criticisms were against a group of people I would see your point. Since they are not, I do not.
Coyote
Well-Known Member
That is nothing more then semantics.
Coyote
Well-Known Member
What "top" Mullahs and clerics?
vyo476
Well-Known Member
You know what? I'm happy with this statement. We can agree to disagree on the rest if we've got this down, I suppose.
bewitched
Well-Known Member
the 4 q'tubs are probably the most important.
See if you can help the coyote grasp the concept
bewitched
Well-Known Member
here's an example of the difference between radical and moderate Muslims
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7172779.stm
An Iraqi soldier has opened fire on American troops, killing two and wounding three others, US and Iraqi officials have said.
there is no difference. Islamic theology tells muslims to kill the infidel. and in dar ul Harb that is legal and encouraged. so even if muslims are enlisted into the US army and their job is to fight insurgents... the theology trumps any law, theory, job, logic and Muslims revert back to original Islamic theology.
very simple.
this is a mindset we all must understand.
we are only in the early stages of this war and it will be long and big.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7172779.stm
An Iraqi soldier has opened fire on American troops, killing two and wounding three others, US and Iraqi officials have said.
there is no difference. Islamic theology tells muslims to kill the infidel. and in dar ul Harb that is legal and encouraged. so even if muslims are enlisted into the US army and their job is to fight insurgents... the theology trumps any law, theory, job, logic and Muslims revert back to original Islamic theology.
very simple.
this is a mindset we all must understand.
we are only in the early stages of this war and it will be long and big.
That certainly is not the case with asian muslims - who, predictably, aren't thrilled with goat meat.
Feel free to accuse others of making stuff up when in fact, you are the one more prone to it.
It is you who need to understand that almost all religious text are written to provide tiered levels of meaning. So, a goat herder and a scholar would see it in very different but COMPLIMENTARY ways.
The best example I can think off hand is revelations. You can either see it as a prophecy of doom and gloom yet to come or an inspirational message written for the early christians undergoing extreme persecution.
Ultimately, the point is to remain steadfast in the christian teachings in the face of personal adversity.
Capice?
Werbung:
Coyote
Well-Known Member
Has it occurred to you this has nothing to do with theology and everything to do with a war of foreign occupation?
