This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- How would most Muslims react if a Muslim girl got married to a non-Muslim?
- Had the Ottoman Empire been Christian rather than Muslim
- OCR GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 [15 May 2023] Exam Chat
- AQA GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 (8062/ 11-17) - 15th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Interfaith and Intercultute Relationships
- Black girl and Pakistani guy
- .
- relationship
- Islam and converting...
- Eduqas A-level Religious Studies 1 (A120UA0-1-A120UF0-1) & 2 (A120U20-1) [Exam Chat]
- GCSE 2023 Grade Boundaries (All Exam Boards)
- Official GCSE RS Help Chat
- (muslim/hindu advice)
- Don't know how to revise GCSE (short course) Religious studies
- AQA Spanish IRP Topic Help!!
- Re themes paper
- islam re
- Muslim grouping OIC says measures needed to prevent Quran desecration
- AQA RS gcse
- How to get grade 9 in gcse re?
'Abandon Christianity, convert to Islam, or suffer the consequences.'
Scroll to see replies
Thanks for all the negs, i was in a rush and couldn't properly express what i wanted to properly.
I read the article and didn't exactly see the open threats. It's not like Al-Qaeda can attack the entire Christian world. Therefore to me, it was more like empty/ false threats, not ones of violence against the entire Christian world.
As many of you know, i don't support violence against religions.
There's also a double meaning to this, seeing as the above view of violence towards Christianity is not feasible (and not right, imo too) it could also mean that they would suffer the consequences in the afterlife and not this one.
I read the article and didn't exactly see the open threats. It's not like Al-Qaeda can attack the entire Christian world. Therefore to me, it was more like empty/ false threats, not ones of violence against the entire Christian world.
As many of you know, i don't support violence against religions.
There's also a double meaning to this, seeing as the above view of violence towards Christianity is not feasible (and not right, imo too) it could also mean that they would suffer the consequences in the afterlife and not this one.
I thought muslims and christians worshiped the same God. Well thats what I got taught at school, so it didnt come from the most reliable of sources. Please explain if otherwise.
gas_panic!
There are people on here who think that the sun shines out of Al-Qaeda's arse, and endorse what they are doing.
NB: If that's addressed to me, then i don't support Al-Qaeda. I never have.
wirbelsturm
I thought muslims and christians worshiped the same God. Well thats what I got taught at school, so it didnt come from the most reliable of sources. Please explain if otherwise.
Muslims believe that Allah (swt) sent down both the Taurat (Torah) and Injeel (Gospel) and we also believe that both Esa (Jesus) and Musa (Moses) (PBUT) were both muslims.
This is another reason why they shouldn't attack the Christians. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all inherently linked (from an Islamic point of view) Just for the record, i'm not advocating violence towards any other religion either (in the general sense)
KieranP
They don't threaten to kill people if they don't convert. No wait shi- They don't threaten to kill people if they don't convert any longer. I take it, if the IRA had told NI protestants to convert to Catholicism or suffer the consequences, you would have been okay with that?
I have absolutely no idea about that situation. It depends what they mean by "suffer the consequences". If they're threatening to fight them, then one side of me says to stop it. The other side says let em fight if they really want it and can't co-exist. Of course this is just without any prior or current knowledge of the situation
If they mean to suffer in the next life i.e. heaven and hell, well like i said in my initial post - it's customary to most religions.I don't think Al-Qaeda's claim can be taken seriously so i thought the point of this thread was both stupid and redundant, frankly. It's more likely that Bush's current rampage of ME states lends itself more to the kill all the muslims argument than the claims of some terrorist faction. I could quote the Westboro Baptist Church or that old-time Christian dude who said the muslims were Gog and Magog but then why waste everyone's time
Nothing in this thread is exactly worth debating, i'd appreciate if you could point me to a worthwhile post on the topic of this thread.
and we also believe that both Esa (Jesus) and Musa (Moses) (PBUT) were both muslims.
The problem you have there is that Islam wasn't dreamt up until 500AD. At which point they were both kind of dead....
City bound
The problem you have there is that Islam wasn't dreamt up until 500AD. At which point they were both kind of dead....
Of course, but then we also believe Adam (AS) was a muslim too as he was also a prophet and first creation of Allah (Azzawajall). So they are still considered muslims
City bound
The problem you have there is that Islam wasn't dreamt up until 500AD. At which point they were both kind of dead....
Well, Jesus might have gone back to his cave to hang out at this point. I'm not totally read up on my Christian Dogma, but i'm pretty sure that's what happened. He was just keeping a low profile, he didn't like the fame he received, couldn't hack it.
Green
I don't think Al-Qaeda's claim can be taken seriously
Tell that to the famalies of the thousands of people who have died as a direct result of Muslims wanting them to believe in their imaginary friend.
Nothing in this thread is exactly worth debating, i'd appreciate if you could point me to a worthwhile post on the topic of this thread.
The fact that you have single-handedly kept the debate up for about 46 replies makes that a fairly odd thing to say. I daresay that, had you not posted, this thread would have died as another "oh look, the muslims are shouting again" thread.
@TGM:
1)While obviously Al-Qaeda cannot actually hope to convert the West at swordpoint, the fact that it is taking out attacks on Western targets, and encouraging others to attack Jews and Christians, kind of makes a mockery of your claim that their threats were purely metaphysical in nature.
2)The IRA are the terrorist/militia wing of the Catholic/Republican faction in the "Troubles"* in Northern Ireland, the other side being the (protestant) loyalists. Now, knowing that the IRA are a terrorist group prone to carrying out attacks on Protestant targets with a mixture of political and religious motives (like Al-Qaeda) how would you feel about the situation.
*Essentially: See Kashmir, except that India and Pakistan don't want to anything to do with it.
3) The point about Christian fundamentalists is completely irrelevant, Islam is not what's being criticised here, Al-Qaeda is. As I pointed out before, Christianity is no stranger to sword point conversions. In fact that was part of the justification for the Slave Trade, IIRC.
1)While obviously Al-Qaeda cannot actually hope to convert the West at swordpoint, the fact that it is taking out attacks on Western targets, and encouraging others to attack Jews and Christians, kind of makes a mockery of your claim that their threats were purely metaphysical in nature.
2)The IRA are the terrorist/militia wing of the Catholic/Republican faction in the "Troubles"* in Northern Ireland, the other side being the (protestant) loyalists. Now, knowing that the IRA are a terrorist group prone to carrying out attacks on Protestant targets with a mixture of political and religious motives (like Al-Qaeda) how would you feel about the situation.
*Essentially: See Kashmir, except that India and Pakistan don't want to anything to do with it.
3) The point about Christian fundamentalists is completely irrelevant, Islam is not what's being criticised here, Al-Qaeda is. As I pointed out before, Christianity is no stranger to sword point conversions. In fact that was part of the justification for the Slave Trade, IIRC.
Beekeeper
Uhm, you haven't really thought this through, have you? You've just contradicted your own 'main point'.
No i haven't. You clearly didn't read the post properly.
I'll put it again, but I wont conveniently miss out the key part.
"If it isn't and its just the way the rules have been interpreted, we should reserve our disgust for the people who preach the false crap, and not all muslims, or the religion itself."
I was saying that if it isn't the actual religion, but the way it is interpreted, we shouldn't denounce the religion. If however, it is the actual religion, then it deserves denouncing. Come on, keep up Beekeeper.
TakingOutTheGash
Tell that to the famalies of the thousands of people who have died as a direct result of Muslims wanting them to believe in their imaginary friend.
Tell that to the famalies of the thousands of people who have died as a direct result of Muslims wanting them to believe in their imaginary friend.
And? They're a terrorist organisation who have had this on their agenda for a while. I don't really see the point of a thread about the bleeding obvious.
The fact that you have single-handedly kept the debate up for about 46 replies makes that a fairly odd thing to say. I daresay that, had you not posted, this thread would have died as another "oh look, the muslims are shouting again" thread.
I didn't bring up the IRA
In fact, i was the one who started saying what was the point of this thread 1)While obviously Al-Qaeda cannot actually hope to convert the West at swordpoint, the fact that it is taking out attacks on Western targets, and encouraging others to attack Jews and Christians, kind of makes a mockery of your claim that their threats were purely metaphysical in nature.
See my reply to the first part of TakingOutTheGash's post. It's fairly redundant to mention this.
2)The IRA are the terrorist/militia wing of the Catholic/Republican faction in the "Troubles"* in Northern Ireland, the other side being the (protestant) loyalists. Now, knowing that the IRA are a terrorist group prone to carrying out attacks on Protestant targets with a mixture of political and religious motives (like Al-Qaeda) how would you feel about the situation.
*Essentially: See Kashmir, except that India and Pakistan don't want to anything to do with it.
*Essentially: See Kashmir, except that India and Pakistan don't want to anything to do with it.
Essentially no, but then it's your opinion that they're a terrorist/ militia wing. Let me illustrate... The LTTE here in Sri Lanka are bombing the place to **** and it's terrible. But some of them say they saw the Sinhalese people burning their parents alive in barrels of molten tar. Now, if that happened to your parents what would you do? I'm not saying they're right/ condoning (neither am i siding with Al-Qaeda but i'm just showing that there can be two sides to a coin
)But for the time being then i would condemn the attacks.
3) The point about Christian fundamentalists is completely irrelevant, Islam is not what's being criticised here, Al-Qaeda is. As I pointed out before, Christianity is no stranger to sword point conversions. In fact that was part of the justification for the Slave Trade, IIRC.
That's exactly the point, they're a terrorist wing. There's no point criticising again, them being labelled under that banner is already testimony to that. Hence why i think this thread is utterly redundant.
GM, your point about this thread being redundant is pretty much inarguable. A thread about how terrible Al-Qaeda is unnecessary. But this thread has been mostly kept going by arguments about whether this particular outburst should be considered a fairly common, acceptable example of evangelism, or an attempt at swordpoint conversion, which is immoral. You seemed to be supporting the former interpretation, which is the bone of contention for most people here.
As for your comments on terrorism in general, what else would you call the IRA except a terrorist group/militia? Militia is about the kindest work you could use for any terrorist group ("Freedom fighters" is a comment on their aims, not their tactics, and in any case hardly suited to modern Al-Qaeda or IRA), "organised crime syndicate" is a possibility, certainly for the IRA, but it's a stronger condemnation, while you seemed to imply they might be something more noble: care to elaborate.
As to the LTTE, I would not start bombing anyone who looked like the people who killed my parents. In fact, the British did spend a good half-millenia or more raping the country of my ancestors, and I think an awful lot of the people on this forum could say the same. We don't, as a rule, go around stabbing anyone who wears an England shirt, nor do we act with any hostility towards the natives of this country: because we recognise that the actions of one group of people do not reflect upon the nature of everyone with the same colour skin as them. There's another side to this coin, true, but it's grubby and tarnished.
As I said though, your main point is entirely true. We don't really need to start a thread for every action Al-Qaeda does so we can pull apart exactly why it's evil. It's kind of a given that anything they attach their name to is unlikely to involve puppies and love.
As for your comments on terrorism in general, what else would you call the IRA except a terrorist group/militia? Militia is about the kindest work you could use for any terrorist group ("Freedom fighters" is a comment on their aims, not their tactics, and in any case hardly suited to modern Al-Qaeda or IRA), "organised crime syndicate" is a possibility, certainly for the IRA, but it's a stronger condemnation, while you seemed to imply they might be something more noble: care to elaborate.
As to the LTTE, I would not start bombing anyone who looked like the people who killed my parents. In fact, the British did spend a good half-millenia or more raping the country of my ancestors, and I think an awful lot of the people on this forum could say the same. We don't, as a rule, go around stabbing anyone who wears an England shirt, nor do we act with any hostility towards the natives of this country: because we recognise that the actions of one group of people do not reflect upon the nature of everyone with the same colour skin as them. There's another side to this coin, true, but it's grubby and tarnished.
As I said though, your main point is entirely true. We don't really need to start a thread for every action Al-Qaeda does so we can pull apart exactly why it's evil. It's kind of a given that anything they attach their name to is unlikely to involve puppies and love.
KieranP
GM, your point about this thread being redundant is pretty much inarguable. A thread about how terrible Al-Qaeda is unnecessary. But this thread has been mostly kept going by arguments about whether this particular outburst should be considered a fairly common, acceptable example of evangelism, or an attempt at swordpoint conversion, which is immoral. You seemed to be supporting the former interpretation, which is the bone of contention for most people here.
Oh it's unfair and uncalled for. Check verse 2:256 in the Qur'an.
As for your comments on terrorism in general, what else would you call the IRA except a terrorist group/militia? Militia is about the kindest work you could use for any terrorist group ("Freedom fighters" is a comment on their aims, not their tactics, and in any case hardly suited to modern Al-Qaeda or IRA), "organised crime syndicate" is a possibility, certainly for the IRA, but it's a stronger condemnation, while you seemed to imply they might be something more noble: care to elaborate.
Nothing to elaborate dude, i was merely stating that i have no idea about the things they've done/ have happened therefore i'm not in a position to make an accurate judgement. I can safely say that i think Al-Qaeda is a terrorist group though. As to the IRA, from what i've heard they aren't the most endearing lot
Anyway, i think you've got an idea of my position now As to the LTTE, I would not start bombing anyone who looked like the people who killed my parents. In fact, the British did spend a good half-millenia or more raping the country of my ancestors, and I think an awful lot of the people on this forum could say the same. We don't, as a rule, go around stabbing anyone who wears an England shirt, nor do we act with any hostility towards the natives of this country: because we recognise that the actions of one group of people do not reflect upon the nature of everyone with the same colour skin as them. There's another side to this coin, true, but it's grubby and tarnished.
Well, of course... I could say the same. But unfortunately there are people who will hold that grudge and act on it too.
As I said though, your main point is entirely true. We don't really need to start a thread for every action Al-Qaeda does so we can pull apart exactly why it's evil. It's kind of a given that anything they attach their name to is unlikely to involve puppies and love.
LOL at the last line, but yeah pretty much!
The article
adding that God did not recognise a separation of religion and state.
Well, that's enough reason for me to reject.
How is that a misinterpretation? That seems to be the whole point of religion.
Believe in x, not y, or you go to hell.
Believe in x, not y, or you go to hell.
-1984-
Anyone else heard about this piece of news?
I think Muslims should strongly condemned these threats by Al-Qaeda, as anti-Islamic. I don't think there has ever been a religion as self-centered and arrogant.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/03092006/325/al-qaeda-urges-bush-convert-islam.html
I think Muslims should strongly condemned these threats by Al-Qaeda, as anti-Islamic. I don't think there has ever been a religion as self-centered and arrogant.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/03092006/325/al-qaeda-urges-bush-convert-islam.html
What is important here is to keep in mind that normal everyday Christians have nothing to fear from normal everyday Muslims and visa-versa.
Everyone ought to worship God according to his own inclinations, and not to be constrained by force.
Flavius Josephus (37 AD - 100 AD), Life
Flavius Josephus (37 AD - 100 AD), Life
Hmmm....an interesting collection of replies!
I would like to make my point now;
In every religion, there are people who go to extremes. Correct? Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organisation that has gone to extremes, so far, that by Islamic standards, they have strayed from the original religion of Islam. A person is not a believer in his own religion anymore if he takes religious matters into his own hands and start making his own "fatwas"/"doctrines". When this happens, when a person has been misguided about a certain point in an article, then he is enroute to deviating from the original path. This is what Al-Qaeda have done. Im sure the vast majority of Muslims around the globe would object to wat Al-Qaeda have to stand for. I certainly do. It is a sorry fact that many of the values of the original religion have been masked by the activites of that group.
Okay, also, what do most terrorist organisations want? Does Al-Qaeda want money? I somehow dotn think so. I dont see them robbign banks. There must be some fanatics out there who are crazy enough to fund these lackeys. Okay, so do Al-Qaeda want Publicity? I would safely say that they would. They want the world to know that they are around. That they are bringing judgement day to the non-muslims. They want the world to know their sick ways. They like to release tapes of their violence. Al-Qaesa also probably want "mass-conversion" of the human race. I somehow dont think I see this happening anytime soon. They are a society that have mixed up falsehood with Islam. The point Im trying to make is, that if your brother ate the last cookie in the cookie jar, that doesnt mean that you should be blamed for it? A feeble argument, yes, and slighlty clichéd but it gets the point through. What Al-Qaeda stands for is nothing compared to what the real Islam stands for. Islam shouldnt be labelled as a terrorist religion for the actions of others.
Im Open for criticism of my article, any offers?
I would like to make my point now;
In every religion, there are people who go to extremes. Correct? Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organisation that has gone to extremes, so far, that by Islamic standards, they have strayed from the original religion of Islam. A person is not a believer in his own religion anymore if he takes religious matters into his own hands and start making his own "fatwas"/"doctrines". When this happens, when a person has been misguided about a certain point in an article, then he is enroute to deviating from the original path. This is what Al-Qaeda have done. Im sure the vast majority of Muslims around the globe would object to wat Al-Qaeda have to stand for. I certainly do. It is a sorry fact that many of the values of the original religion have been masked by the activites of that group.
Okay, also, what do most terrorist organisations want? Does Al-Qaeda want money? I somehow dotn think so. I dont see them robbign banks. There must be some fanatics out there who are crazy enough to fund these lackeys. Okay, so do Al-Qaeda want Publicity? I would safely say that they would. They want the world to know that they are around. That they are bringing judgement day to the non-muslims. They want the world to know their sick ways. They like to release tapes of their violence. Al-Qaesa also probably want "mass-conversion" of the human race. I somehow dont think I see this happening anytime soon. They are a society that have mixed up falsehood with Islam. The point Im trying to make is, that if your brother ate the last cookie in the cookie jar, that doesnt mean that you should be blamed for it? A feeble argument, yes, and slighlty clichéd but it gets the point through. What Al-Qaeda stands for is nothing compared to what the real Islam stands for. Islam shouldnt be labelled as a terrorist religion for the actions of others.
Im Open for criticism of my article, any offers?
Related discussions
- How would most Muslims react if a Muslim girl got married to a non-Muslim?
- Had the Ottoman Empire been Christian rather than Muslim
- OCR GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 [15 May 2023] Exam Chat
- AQA GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 (8062/ 11-17) - 15th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Interfaith and Intercultute Relationships
- Black girl and Pakistani guy
- .
- relationship
- Islam and converting...
- Eduqas A-level Religious Studies 1 (A120UA0-1-A120UF0-1) & 2 (A120U20-1) [Exam Chat]
- GCSE 2023 Grade Boundaries (All Exam Boards)
- Official GCSE RS Help Chat
- (muslim/hindu advice)
- Don't know how to revise GCSE (short course) Religious studies
- AQA Spanish IRP Topic Help!!
- Re themes paper
- islam re
- Muslim grouping OIC says measures needed to prevent Quran desecration
- AQA RS gcse
- How to get grade 9 in gcse re?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
