The religion of peace.

Is Islam a religion of peace?

  • Total voters
    19
  • Poll closed .
Sharia

The religion in and of itself is not violent, but its the religious text that mix with muslim culture and laws that makes it violent..
I mean: just recently in the news a man was considered put to death because he converted to hinduism. I don´t remember the story, but that was the main point.

But then again people who are willing to strap bombs around their childrens chests and send them off to blow up subwaystations and such has to have atleast one screw loose.....
:stupid: F :cen:KERS!
 
Most translated texts are translated from incorrect texts. (From a Quran that was originally even in Arabic that was changed. Examples are Wahabism, Shiite's, Sufi's, etc) Also. This is another problem. When you group ALL these sects into the majority sunnis. The sects are those that you find that believe that all should die.

Heck, the Ayatollah (In arabic these means, 'Grace of God') during the war in Iran versus Iraq in the 80's said to his people.. "If you fight the Iraqi's and die, I will grant you a pass to heaven." And you know what happened? Many went and died against Saddam's military which was better equiped.

So yes, if you wanna know the TRUE Quran, PM me and I can direct you to some sites run by AICP. (AICP= An organization based in Lebanon to teach people about Islam. The main mosque in America is the one I go to here in Philadelphia)
 
How about this? How about no person on this earth try to convert anyone else who practices his own religion without bothering or judging anyone else. As long as a religion adheres to peace on earth, good will to all, murder is punishable by death, don't steal, and just generally adhere to the laws of the land and what is acceptable to society as a whole, prosperity will follow and everyone will be rewarded by the amount of effort they expend to better themselves and their families. There will always be the knuckle draggers that the countries of the world will have to confront because they want what someone else has without working for it or they think only they are destined to have it.
 
Missileer said:
How about this? How about no person on this earth try to convert anyone else who practices his own religion without bothering or judging anyone else. As long as a religion adheres to peace on earth, good will to all, murder is punishable by death, don't steal, and just generally adhere to the laws of the land and what is acceptable to society as a whole, prosperity will follow and everyone will be rewarded by the amount of effort they expend to better themselves and their families. There will always be the knuckle draggers that the countries of the world will have to confront because they want what someone else has without working for it or they think only they are destined to have it.
Click to expand...
We tried that...They were called "utopias" and they didn't last long at all. People will always disagree.Always.We would like to think that everyone can adhere to the same laws and common courtesies, but thats just not happening.


Deerslayer, Ive translated Spanish before, sure the words are a little mixed up, like the negatives, but you can still understand what the person is saying...
 
Good point on utopias, Henderson. Sooner or later, somebody's going to take control of a peaceful little utopia. It's the way the world works.

Spanish was just an example, albeit a bad one, and doesn't quite do justice to the situation. If you want something a little more extreme, missionaries in Africa, unaware of the nuances of the languages, had converts singing hymns like "The Old Rugged Cross", and other, not-so-soul-stirring things such as "There is no egg on the bicycle."
 
Even if no one takes control, and we have this little "communist" thing goin on, where everyone VOLUNTAIRILY shares everything and the gov't doesnt interfere...Someone will want more of something for him/herself...Humans are greedy,selfish, and jealous...That's what made the utopias of the past fail. If we can get past those bad habits, we would be fine, and there would be no need for any weapons, home security devices, or anything. I always think that the closest thing we have to utopias was in the simpler times out in the country...Where people would just walk in your front door and have a sit down, and the people in the house wouldnt have to worry about the other person stealing something or anything like that. I sometimes think I was born in the wrong time because I let my friends do that all the time...They just hop through the open window. I wish we could still have that without having to worry about the person coming in stealing something or killing someone.
 
The thing is, utopias actually do work...






for about five minutes, or until someone comes along and fills hte power vaccuum. You have to have a capable governing body, or your state is screwed. Period. Mob rule, social anarchy, the works. Read Julius Caesar and you'll see what I'm talking about.
 
Everyone take a close look at my post. Now replace "on this earth" with "in this country."

Recognize the place I just described? Come on use some of those rusty brain cells, read and think.

Now class, where am I describing?

Still no answers? Hint: It has nothing whatsoever to do with utopia.
 
Last edited:
America- or any well-developed country with a fair societal base. I was just contesting Henderson, didn't read your post. Sorry:)
 
Missileer said:
Everyone take a close look at my post. Now replace "on this earth" with "in this country."

Recognize the place I just described? Come on use some of those rusty brain cells, read and think.

Now class, where am I describing?

Still no answers? Hint: It has nothing whatsoever to do with utopia.
Click to expand...
Well, the definition of a utopia is a perfect place, so that would have something to do with a utopia...but anyway, yea, it would be close to america. Even though people do steal, the death penalty can be avoided with a good enough lawyer, and, believe it or not, people still do judge other people and attempt to convert other people to other religions...Ever heard of Televagelists? Besides, what is acceptable to some, may be of the utmost serverity to others...Take the Qu'ran, or the Bible. there are some passages in both of these books that are quite violent...to a pacifist, thats bad, to a violent person, they are quite acceptable...I dont mean to argue, but thats what happens....
 
C/1Lt Henderson said:
Well, the definition of a utopia is a perfect place, so that would have something to do with a utopia...but anyway, yea, it would be close to america. Even though people do steal, the death penalty can be avoided with a good enough lawyer, and, believe it or not, people still do judge other people and attempt to convert other people to other religions...Ever heard of Televagelists? Besides, what is acceptable to some, may be of the utmost serverity to others...Take the Qu'ran, or the Bible. there are some passages in both of these books that are quite violent...to a pacifist, thats bad, to a violent person, they are quite acceptable...I dont mean to argue, but thats what happens....
Click to expand...

You and I must be on different pages. The point here is that in America, you have the right to do a lot of things until you bother someone else's peace of mind. As far as televangelists go, you have a couple hundred channels to choose from, thanks to our freedom of speech. And religions, we fought for that a long time ago, and anyone has a right to talk to you about theirs as long as your space is not violated. You're not dragged into a church and forced to listen. As in the first part of the argument, violence or lawbreaking of any sort will happen but we have twelve jurors to put that type of people where they belong.

And judging others," judge not lest ye be judged." And if you are, as long as the judge isn't sitting on a tall mahoghany bench, no one gives a squat.
Our laws consisting of judge and jury trials may not be perfect but it beats hell out of the next best system.
 
I agree...I guess we were, now I understand what you were saying. I think that America has more freedoms than any other nation...But as to the violence thing, sometimes, with a good enough lawyer, those twelve jurors can be "persuaded" to vote not guilty.
 
Missileer said:
You and I must be on different pages. The point here is that in America, you have the right to do a lot of things until you bother someone else's peace of mind. As far as televangelists go, you have a couple hundred channels to choose from, thanks to our freedom of speech. And religions, we fought for that a long time ago, and anyone has a right to talk to you about theirs as long as your space is not violated. You're not dragged into a church and forced to listen. As in the first part of the argument, violence or lawbreaking of any sort will happen but we have twelve jurors to put that type of people where they belong.

And judging others," judge not lest ye be judged." And if you are, as long as the judge isn't sitting on a tall mahoghany bench, no one gives a squat.
Our laws consisting of judge and jury trials may not be perfect but it beats hell out of the next best system.
Click to expand...
Amen.
 
Washington's policy-makers have been careful in the war on terror to distinguish between Islam and the terrorists. The distinction has rankled conservatives who see scarce difference.

A little-noticed speech by President Bush in October gave them some hope. In a major rhetorical shift, he described the enemy as "Islamic radicals" and not just "terrorists," although he still denies that radicalism has anything to do with their religion.

Now for the first time, a key Pentagon intelligence agency involved in homeland security is delving into Islam's holy texts to answer whether Islam is being radicalized by the terrorists or is already radical. Military brass want a better understanding of what's motivating the insurgents in Iraq and the terrorists around the globe, including those inside America who may be preparing to strike domestic military bases. The enemy appears indefatigable, even more active now than before 9/11.

Are the terrorists really driven by self-serving politics and personal demons? Or are they driven by religion? And if it's religion, are they following a manual of war contained in their scripture?

Answers are hard to come by. Four years into the war on terror, U.S. intelligence officials tell me there are no baseline studies of the Muslim prophet Muhammad or his ideological or military doctrine found at either the CIA or Defense Intelligence Agency, or even the war colleges.

But that is slowly starting to change as the Pentagon develops a new strategy to deal with the threat from Islamic terrorists through its little-known intelligence agency called the Counterintelligence Field Activity or CIFA, which staffs hundreds of investigators and analysts to help coordinate Pentagon security efforts at home and abroad. CIFA also supports Northern Command in Colorado, which was established after 9/11 to help military forces react to terrorist threats in the continental United
States.

Dealing with the threat on a tactical and operational level through counterstrikes and capture has proven only marginally successful. Now military leaders want to combat it from a strategic standpoint, using informational warfare, among other things. A critical part of that strategy involves studying Islam, including the Quran and the hadiths, or traditions of Muhammad.

"Today we are confronted with a stateless threat that does not have at the strategic level targetable entities: no capitals, no economic base, no military formations or installations," states a new Pentagon briefing paper I've obtained. "Yet political Islam wages an ideological battle against the non-Islamic world at the tactical, operational and strategic level. The West's response is focused at the tactical and operation level, leaving the strategic level -- Islam -- unaddressed."

So far the conclusions of intelligence analysts assigned to the project, who include both private contractors and career military officials, contradict the commonly held notion that Islam is a peaceful religion hijacked or distorted by terrorists. They've found that the terrorists for the most part are following a war-fighting doctrine articulated through Muhammad in the Quran, elaborated on in the hadiths, codified in Islamic or sharia law, and reinforced by recent interpretations or fatwahs.

"Islam is an ideological engine of war (Jihad)," concludes the sensitive Pentagon briefing paper. And "no one is looking for its off switch."

Why? One major reason, the briefing states, is government-wide "indecision [over] whether Islam is radical or being radicalized."

So, which is it? "Strategic themes suggest Islam is radical by nature," according to the briefing, which goes on to cite the 26 chapters of the Quran dealing with violent jihad and the examples of the Muslim prophet, who it says sponsored "terror and slaughter" against unbelievers.

"Muhammad's behaviors today would be defined as radical," the defense document says, and Muslims today are commanded by their "militant" holy book to follow his example. It adds: Western leaders can no longer afford to overlook the "cult characteristics of Islam."

It also ties Muslim charity to war. Zakat, the alms-giving pillar of Islam, is described in the briefing as "an asymmetrical war-fighting funding mechanism." Which in English translates to: combat support under the guise of tithing. Of the eight obligatory categories of disbursement of Muslim charitable donations, it notes that two are for funding jihad, or holy war. Indeed, authorities have traced millions of dollars received by major jihadi terror groups like Hamas and al-Qaida back to Saudi and other foreign Isamic charities and also U.S. Muslim charities, such as the Holy Land Foundation.

According to the Quran, jihad is not something a Muslim can opt out of. It demands able-bodied believers join the fight. Those unable -- women and the elderly -- are not exempt; they must give "asylum and aid" (Surah 8:74) to those who do fight the unbelievers in the cause of Allah.

In analyzing the threat on the domestic front, the Pentagon briefing draws perhaps its most disturbing conclusions. It argues the U.S. has not suffered from scattered insurgent attacks -- as opposed to the concentrated and catastrophic attack by al-Qaida on 9-11 -- in large part because it has a relatively small Muslim population. But that could change as the Muslim minority grows and gains more influence.

The internal document explains that Islam divides offensive jihad into a "three-phase attack strategy" for gaining control of lands for Allah. The first phase is the "Meccan," or weakened, period, whereby a small Muslim minority asserts itself through largely peaceful and political measures involving Islamic NGOs -- such as the Islamic Society of North America, which investigators say has its roots in the militant Muslim Brotherhood, and Muslim pressure groups, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, whose leaders are on record expressing their desire to Islamize America.

In the second "preparation" phase, a "reasonably influential" Muslim minority starts to turn more militant. The briefing uses Britain and the Netherlands as examples.

And in the final jihad period, or "Medina Stage," a large minority uses its strength of numbers and power to rise up against the majority, as Muslim youth recently demonstrated in terrorizing France, the Pentagon paper notes.

It also notes that unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam advocates expansion by force. The final command of jihad, as revealed to Muhammad in the Quran, is to conquer the world in the name of Islam. The defense briefing adds that Islam is also unique in classifying unbelievers as "standing enemies against whom it is legitimate to wage war."

Right now political leaders don't understand the true nature of the threat,\ it says, because the intelligence community has yet to educate them. They still think Muslim terrorists, even suicide bombers, are mindless "criminals" motivated by "hatred of our freedoms," rather than religious zealots motivated by their faith. And as a result, we have no real strategic plan for winning a war against jihadists.

Even many intelligence analysts and investigators working in the field with the Joint Terrorism Task Forces have a shallow understanding of Islam.

"I don't like to criticize our intelligence services, because we did win the Cold War," says a Northern Command intelligence official. "However, all of these organizations have made only limited progress adjusting to the current threat or the sharing of information."

Why? "All suffer heavily from political correctness," he explains.

PC still infects the Pentagon, four years after jihadists hit the nation's military headquarters.

"A lot of folks here have a very pedestrian understanding of Islam and the Islamic threat," a Pentagon intelligence analyst working on the project told me. "We're getting Islam 101, and we need Islam 404."

The hardest part of formulating a strategic response to the threat is defining Islam as a political and military enemy. Once that psychological barrier has been crossed, defense sources tell me, the development of countermeasures -- such as educating the public about the militant nature of Islam and exploiting "critical vulnerabilities" or rifts within the Muslim faith and community -- can begin.

"Most Americans don't realize we are in a war of survival -- a war that is going to continue for decades," the Northcom official warns.

It remains to be seen, however, whether our PC-addled political leaders would ever adopt such controversial measures.
Click to expand...
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20539

Being PC is weakening our ability to deal with this threat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top