[DdotT]

(Original post by Alpharius)
It is not the teaching in the Koran. It is more to do with power.

The Catholic Church used to be very good at terrorising people into believing in their doctrines, only a few hundred years ago in Europe to not be a Catholic was to be seen as a heretic/witch/whatever. The Inquisition is all the proof you need for that.

The Catholic Church however, has lost its power over the law of western European nations. As I've said in other threads, Fascism was just the Catholic Churches last attempt at gaining material power in Europe (in that they allied with dictators such as Hitler and Mussolini almost as soon as they took power in Germany and Italy respectively). Thats why they now claim to be all meek and humble, because they don't have the law enforcing their beliefs any more.

Islam does not have this issue. The only reason they are seen as more dangerous is because we now have weapons that can destroy our civilisation.

So, Islam still holds sway over politics in many nations of the world, other religions do not (well, theres always America...). Suicide bombing is Islams equivelant to the Catholics Inquisition, the Protestants Salem Witch trials. It's a stain that mars all large, organised religions at some point.

Lol seriously? you need to redo your history, the catholic church only 'allied' with Hitler to protect the catholics from Nazism. And even so Hilter went back on his word and persecuted Catholics. Fascist states tend to be opposed to religon as they can pose a threat to their total rule, thoug this does vary. How can you compare a barbaric medieval practice to a modern day suicide bombing, where education is readily avaliable. That wasn't the case in medieval times.
You are an idiot. End.

[Alpharius]

(Original post by DdotT)
Lol seriously? you need to redo your history, the catholic church only 'allied' with Hitler to protect the catholics from Nazism. And even so Hilter went back on his word and persecuted Catholics. Fascist states tend to be opposed to religon as they can pose a threat to their total rule, thoug this does vary. How can you compare a barbaric medieval practice to a modern day suicide bombing, where education is readily avaliable. That wasn't the case in medieval times.
You are an idiot. End.

The very first diplomatic pact made by Hitler with any other state was with the Vatican. Exactly the same for Mussolini in Italy upon his take-over.

For the authority and backing of the Pope on his upcoming war, he gave all education in Germany over to the Vatican.

The Pope's backing resulted in the death of over 6 million people. Hitler constantly claimed that he did what he did with "Gott mit uns," ("God on our side"). So much so, he had that put on the belt buckle of every solider.

The Pope's had for centuries promoted that the Jews had commited "Deicide." Do you really think that had nothing to do with what then happened in the Holocaust?

I will not call you an idiot. I will call you deluded.

[interact]

(Original post by Suetonius)
Oh, fantastic. Islam may mandate slavery but, get this, slaves get to own slaves as well. How righteous.

I thought this was a good post about the issue

(Original post by L'Impératrice)
The Qu'ran specifically states right hand possessions, which are not “sexual slaves”.During war right hand possessions were commonly earned as prisoners. This most definitely is not to be confused with the linguistic term “sexual slave” and is in fact an erroneous presumption levelled by present-day non-Muslims against Islam and unfortunately many Muslims have even fallen short of the English term’s comprehension.

Today, in many wars fought historically and in our contemporary times globally, aggression against women occur by way of rape and/or forcing them into sexual slavery under the power of the victorious men. This means that these women are defenceless, powerless, and treated worse than animals as their feelings and their bodies are not considered their own but under the ownership of men. Also, sexual slavery cases across the globe have a distinct pattern: the women are forced into servicing many men and are the recipient of dominance and debased subjugation that commits them without any rights to accomplish pornographic fantasies of men under physical harm and threats and even at times corruption of mind. Sexual slavery is a form of psychological and physical torture inflicted upon women that in no way, shape, or form is comparable or resembles to what Islam taught about treatment that right hand possessions merit. Moreover, sexual slaves are necessarily the extreme givers of sexual pleasure, not the recipients, and any pleasure ever derived is evoked not out of their own will or power which means they are further psychologically damaged because to them (should that ever occur) this mistakenly means that they do deserve the dehumanizing outlook and behaviour of the men under whose control they only function perfunctorily.

Right hand possessions were in many aspects actually similar to that of marriage.

Moreover, the right hand possessions gained under the Shariat when jihad occurred meant that they merited their unique rights under Islam. They were not ever to be “used” and “abused” as the term sexual slavery connotes. But rather, when captured without their husbands or any protector, they were given protection of Muslim men and given dignity in the households. Since Islam is a religion based in practicality, reality means recognizing probabilities and then giving rules and regulations and rights based on them. Thus, Islam recognizes that men under whom these women are given as slaves might be inclined sexually towards them and thus Islam laid out the rules, regulations and rights regarding these women. This was not given so the female slave could be forced or abused as they were not to be compelled to copulate neither marry their Muslim protectors nor convert forcibly to Islam.

Also, I want to clarify that even while the many slaves widespread in paganistic Arabia or gained through jihad were not forced under Islam to be freed overnight, the practice was highly encouraged which is why the practice as per the correct understanding of the rightly guided Caliphs led eventually history to witness abolishment of slavery under Islamic rule peacefully. Moreover, Islam encourages Muslims to treat any slaves (man or woman) the same that they would treat themselves in terms of clothing, food, and shelter. The humane treatment and particular rights given to them as well as voluntary manumission is also primarily why many, even can be said to umpteen, non-Muslim slaves accepted Islam from their own volition as they recognized that such was unprecedented up to that time and that if they as slaves could merit such recognition of their humanity then that Scripture must be honoured.

Verily, God honored mankind by enjoining upon them Islam.

[*Dreaming*]

Probably because Muslim people seem to be a lot more religious than other groups these days, and SOME people twist things in the Quran, using quotes to back up any argument. Proper Muslims don't see terrorists as Muslims because Islam does not teach what they do in the Quran.

[killer whale]

(Original post by In2deep)
I'm going to ignore the above paragraph for now or else this discussion will get sidetracked.

I do not at all disagree that this is religiously inspired but where we disagree is that Islam itself prescribes this. Can you put forward any evidence to suggest that what these men are doing is actually Islamically correct?

THEY think it is Islamically correct. Who are you to say they are wrong?

And even if they do misunderstand Islam, and Allah isn't actually going to welcome them into paradise to deflower the famous virgins for murdering innocent people what consolation is that to the rest of us? We still risk getting blown up because these Muslim nutjobs THINK it is Islamically inspired. That they are waging Jihad

Remember Mohameed Saddiq Khan's Martyrdom video. All British citizens are legitimate targets because this is a democracy and the UK commit atrocities on "the Muslims."

"Your democratically elected governments continually perpetrate atrocities against my people all over the world. Your support makes you directly responsible. We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation."

Do I think he is in heaven now, getting slapped on the back by Allah? No, I don't. But it isn't any consolation to his victims is it?

[imzir]

(Original post by killer whale)
THEY think it is Islamically correct. Who are you to say they are wrong?

And even if they do misunderstand Islam, and Allah isn't actually going to welcome them into paradise to deflower the famous virgins for murdering innocent people what consolation is that to the rest of us? We still risk getting blown up because these Muslim nutjobs THINK it is Islamically inspired. That they are waging Jihad

Remember Mohameed Saddiq Khan's Martyrdom video. All British citizens are legitimate targets because this is a democracy and the UK commit atrocities on "the Muslims."

"Your democratically elected governments continually perpetrate atrocities against my people all over the world. Your support makes you directly responsible. We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation."

Do I think he is in heaven now, getting slapped on the back by Allah? No, I don't. But it isn't any consolation to his victims is it?

They think it is islamically correct without any islamic justification therefore it isnt islamically correct. Dont think of them as extremists but just as people who think they are muslims. It doesnt matter if they think it is islamically inspired or not the fact that they are clearly distinct from the 'actual muslims' is all you need to know.

[In2deep]

(Original post by killer whale)
x

If someone was to kill a few people and then say they were inspired by TSR, I doubt many would even try to blame TSR. I don't care what they state, they are Islamically wrong and anyone who blames Islam is being a moron tbh

[Suetonius]

(Original post by In2deep)
If someone was to kill a few people and then say they were inspired by TSR, I doubt many would even try to blame TSR. I don't care what they state, they are Islamically wrong and anyone who blames Islam is being a moron tbh

You didn't answer me. How can AQ actions taken deliberately targeting Shia populations, for the sole reason that they're Shia, not be attributable to Sunni-Shia schism? How can it be that murderous devotion to an Islamic holy book, that is meant to be the unalterable word of a deity, is not a fault of that specific religion? Islam claims to be the solution to all human problems. The main reason AQ hates the West is because of the humiliation that has come with Western society's superiority over it (as Bernard Lewis has suggested). Islamic sharia allows for the death penalty for homosexuality and apostacy, it alienates women by permitting polygamy. Again, you've repeatedly attempted to shoot down any argument against the religion itself being responsible for such criminal actions, yet you've failed to provide an alternative.

[killer whale]

(Original post by In2deep)
If someone was to kill a few people and then say they were inspired by TSR, I doubt many would even try to blame TSR. I don't care what they state, they are Islamically wrong and anyone who blames Islam is being a moron tbh

They don't care what you state. You aren't just Islamically wrong, you are also either a Jahili ersatz-Muslim or an infidel Jew and/or Westerner.

This is what they say remember:


"Much of the Muslim world approaches the Qur'an as a means to simply acquire culture and information, to participate in academic discussions and enjoyment. This evades the real purpose, for rather, it should be approached as a means to change society, to remove man from the enslavement of other men to the servitude of God.

Rather than support rule by a pious few, (whether a dictator(s) or democratically elected, Muslims should resist any system where men are in "servitude to other men" — i.e. obey other men — as un-Islamic and a violation of God's sovereignty (Hakamiyya) over all of creation. A truly Islamic polity would have no rulers — not even have theocratic ones — since Muslims would need neither judges nor police to obey divine law.

The way to bring about this freedom is for a revolutionary vanguard to fight jahiliyyah with a twofold approach: preaching, and abolishing the organizations and authorities of the Jahili system by "physical power and Jihad."

The vanguard movement would grow with preaching and jihad until it formed a truly Islamic community, then spread throughout the Islamic homeland and finally throughout the entire world, attaining leadership of humanity. While those who had been "defeated by the attacks of the treacherous Orientalists!" might define jihad "narrowly" as defensive, Islamically correct Jihad is in fact offensive, not defensive.

Islam will transform every aspect of society, eliminating everything non-Muslim while Jahili ersatz-Muslims, infidel Jews and Westerners would all fight and conspire against Islam and the elimination of jahiliyyah."


TSR contains a lot of *******s it is true, but no-one could claim it as a basis for anything quite like that...

[In2deep]

(Original post by killer whale)
They don't care what you state. You aren't just Islamically wrong, you are also either a Jahili ersatz-Muslim or an infidel Jew and/or Westerner.

This is what they say remember:


"Much of the Muslim world approaches the Qur'an as a means to simply acquire culture and information, to participate in academic discussions and enjoyment. This evades the real purpose, for rather, it should be approached as a means to change society, to remove man from the enslavement of other men to the servitude of God.

Rather than support rule by a pious few, (whether a dictator(s) or democratically elected, Muslims should resist any system where men are in "servitude to other men" — i.e. obey other men — as un-Islamic and a violation of God's sovereignty (Hakamiyya) over all of creation. A truly Islamic polity would have no rulers — not even have theocratic ones — since Muslims would need neither judges nor police to obey divine law.

The way to bring about this freedom is for a revolutionary vanguard to fight jahiliyyah with a twofold approach: preaching, and abolishing the organizations and authorities of the Jahili system by "physical power and Jihad."

The vanguard movement would grow with preaching and jihad until it formed a truly Islamic community, then spread throughout the Islamic homeland and finally throughout the entire world, attaining leadership of humanity. While those who had been "defeated by the attacks of the treacherous Orientalists!" might define jihad "narrowly" as defensive, Islamically correct Jihad is in fact offensive, not defensive.

Islam will transform every aspect of society, eliminating everything non-Muslim while Jahili ersatz-Muslims, infidel Jews and Westerners would all fight and conspire against Islam and the elimination of jahiliyyah."


TSR contains a lot of *******s it is true, but no-one could claim it as a basis for anything quite like that...

Disagree with this. Read on early Islamic political history, all political dominations, including even the Kharijites accepted the basic principle of having a Khalifah.

There is not a single group that I know of, whether extremists or moderate, that are looking to establish an Islamic state that you describe.

[synvilla]

I don't see how less than 1% of terrorist attacks in EU can be counted as "so many".

[killer whale]

(Original post by In2deep)
Disagree with this. Read on early Islamic political history, all political dominations, including even the Kharijites accepted the basic principle of having a Khalifah.

There is not a single group that I know of, whether extremists or moderate, that are looking to establish an Islamic state that you describe.

You accuse me of being moronic, but now I am starting to wonder about YOUR intelligence.

Let's get this straight her and now.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that there is no group "either extremist or moderate" that is trying to establish an Islamic state along the broad lines I described above?

[Lady Gaga's Bottom]

Before 9/11 it was all IRA.

[Majdovic7]

The problem is that those terrorist are not muslim ...Islam do not accept their doings at all.
Islam asked muslims to leave peacefully and happily with each others
those people just want to ruin the image of Islam just for being paid for such things!!
believe me those terrorist are not muslims they are protecting their doings under the name of islam!!

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by Lady Gaga's Bottom)
Before 9/11 it was all IRA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rorist_attacks

[In2deep]

(Original post by killer whale)
You accuse me of being moronic, but now I am starting to wonder about YOUR intelligence.

Let's get this straight her and now.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that there is no group "either extremist or moderate" that is trying to establish an Islamic state along the broad lines I described above?

I wasn't accusing you of anything

As for your post; I clearly added "that I know of", it is there for a reason. Having said that, if such a group does exist then they are clearly in the wrong. Can you provide evidence that:

1- There is a group that seeks to establish an Islamic theocratic state without a leader where "A truly Islamic polity would have no rulers — not even have theocratic ones — since Muslims would need neither judges nor police to obey divine law."

2- That such a state is even Islamically correct.



I am responding to your posts and trying to keep this discussion as short and precise as possible, I therefore have ignored all your palavering.

[Lady Gaga's Bottom]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rorist_attacks

You took my literally...

12. *claps*

[killer whale]

(Original post by In2deep)
I wasn't accusing you of anything

As for your post; I clearly added "that I know of", it is there for a reason. Having said that, if such a group does exist then they are clearly in the wrong. Can you provide evidence that:

1- There is a group that seeks to establish an Islamic theocratic state without a leader where "A truly Islamic polity would have no rulers — not even have theocratic ones — since Muslims would need neither judges nor police to obey divine law."

2- That such a state is even Islamically correct.



I am responding to your posts and trying to keep this discussion as short and precise as possible, I therefore have ignored all your palavering.

Well I'll ignore your palavering too then.

The passage quoted is a (very) brief synopsis of the ideas of arguably the most influential Islamist thinker of the Twentieth Century. They come from Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq by Sayyid Qutb.

I take it you haven't read it?

I suspect a lot of Muslims haven't, and I am glad about that. But some profess a greater intellectual debt, and start to take direct action, as we have discussed. Including a certain Ayman al-Zawahiri, of whom you may have heard.

"Ayman Zawahiri, who went on to become a member of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad was one of Qutb's students and later a mentor of Osama bin Laden and a leading member of al-Qaeda."

(By the way I have no idea if they are Islamically correct. I am an atheist. But if you think they are aren't (and good for you) you should be arguing with THEM about it not me.)