Saudi cleric: Allah wants Islam to rule the world

[Termagant]

In 20 years, will this Global Islamist Conspiracy BS have the same level of disdain as the old Global Zionist Conspiracy BS?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: sandorski
Christians believe the same. Why else would Christian Missionaries have so quickly flooded into Iraq after the invasion?

When was the last time a Christian Missionary blew themselves up in a crowded market full of women and children?

But, I digress...

Most here are correct when they say: We are not "at war" with their entire religion. Only a small minority of them have reached the violence threshold requiring termination. The rest are what I'll call fence-sitters, and certainly worth paying attention to - although the vast majority will never be a threat. The challenge is figuring out who is who without persecuting, or worse, angering, the entire bunch.

Just remember this 21st Century truism: Most Muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim.

Profiling does have its place in law enforcement and counter-terrorism.

Actually, i'm not convinced that most terrorists are Muslim, that would have to require a definition of terrorists that no one except the US agrees with.

The LTTE is the largest terrorist organization on this earth and they are mostly Hindus, Al Quaida, Hezbollah and the lot of the small fractions that make up the islamic terrorist networks are very small in comparison.

But when you start counting people fighting in their own nation by the only means they have as terrorists, well then you have nations of terrorists, this is the way the US counts terrorists but you're alone in that practice.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

It should also be noted that the LTTE was responsible for 98% of all terror attacks up until we invaded Iraq, after that pretty much anything that happens in Iraq is counted as a terrorist attack and the truth is that through politically colored investigations most are found to be Al-Quaida attacks but they are mostly carried out by the general populations teenagers and young men.

They form a sort of resistance that, despite what the politically scripted reports the generals give, is the reason the war in Iraq is not going well.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Saudi cleric: Allah wants Islam to rule the world

Sheik Muhammad Al-Munajid: This is a nation of monotheism, and this is the Islam that Allah wants to spread throughout the world, and to rule the land it its entirety.

Humanity can have no happiness without Islam. Humanity can enjoy no goodness, unless the sun of monotheism, the Koran, and the Sunna shines upon it. The world without the sun of the divine revelation is a place of eternal darkness, as we can see today ? a world of frustration, collapse, injustice, arbitrariness, and wrongdoing. The world today is a jungle ? a world of barbarism of all kinds. People in many parts of the world are not happy, because they do not walk in the path of Allah.

There are rules of shari'a in everything. We have counted almost 70 rules about how to urinate and defecate. In contrast, how do those beasts in the West answer the call of nature? They stand in front of other people, in toilets at airports and other public places. They do not care about covering their private parts. Even their underwear is colored and not white, so it can conceal all that filth. We are a nation that has long known the meaning of cleanliness, what to do when nature calls, and what the rules of hygiene are. The others, to this day, live like beasts. To this day, many of them are not circumcised, even though the World Health Organization has advised to circumcise people as a treatment for AIDS, because it has been scientifically proven that circumcised people are less susceptible to AIDS, and are less likely to spread it than uncircumcised people.

A small radical minority right? Remember it is THIS foreign money/ideology straight from their homeland that is imported here via Saudi funding in their mosques here in our land. Islamic supremacists are our enemy, and the apologists and defenders of the faith here aid them in their goal of eradicating your human rights.

In the name of tolerance how much longer will you continue to permit the disassembly of human rights across the globe by this fanatical zealotry? They have proven their bloodlust, and we are continuously proving our ineptitude to a suicidal degree.

This is the region that is achieving newfound nuclear ambition after we received a forewarning of what is to come from them in New York six years ago. That was the beginning and the end is their desire for global Islamic rule. They must be made to surrender this, but instead we offer successions and apologies to them for our very existence in our own homes as if it is somehow an offense.

All you have to do is watch what they say, by their own words, and the understanding that this is not some small isolated faction becomes clear. The supremacy we bear witness to in Islam is a growing ? an expanding epidemic brought into our homes through the ideology. From it our blood will spill and thus far we continue to allow it. We ferment it and will, one day at their opportune moment, reap the seeds we sow.

It would be amusing hearing YOU of all people talk about supremacism if it wasn't so bloody sad that you cannot see that you are one of them.

 

[Aimster]

LOL @ this thread and the OP followers.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
It should also be noted that the LTTE was responsible for 98% of all terror attacks up until we invaded Iraq, after that pretty much anything that happens in Iraq is counted as a terrorist attack and the truth is that through politically colored investigations most are found to be Al-Quaida attacks but they are mostly carried out by the general populations teenagers and young men.

They form a sort of resistance that, despite what the politically scripted reports the generals give, is the reason the war in Iraq is not going well.

Where did you pull that pre-2003 98% figure? Just curious...

 

[umbrella39]

Grabs tin foil hat and kindly asks OP to move aside so I can fit under the bed with him.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Socio

Originally posted by: ericlp

---- My thoughts? They are like any other organized religion. They have both radical and freaks like any other religion out there...

Ah but there is huge difference; Islam has produced more radical and freaks than all other religions combined 1000 fold and then some!

Link?

 

[Siddhartha]

Considering the number of people killed in the name of Abraham derived religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, I can almost understand the anti Islam paranoria and hate that keeps being posted on this forum.

But I have to agree with someone who posted earlier in thread. Islam is not going to conquer the US and the Western Civilization.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: Nebor
Anyone who didn't already know that we're at war with Islam either has their head buried in the sun, or is an enemy sympathizer.

Or maybe simply wasn't sleeping during College classes...

Pft, college is for pussies. Unless it's Pat Robertson's college...

 

[Nebor]

Picked up a new FN FAL at the gun show today. Should aid me well in defending the homeland. 😀

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
It should also be noted that the LTTE was responsible for 98% of all terror attacks up until we invaded Iraq, after that pretty much anything that happens in Iraq is counted as a terrorist attack and the truth is that through politically colored investigations most are found to be Al-Quaida attacks but they are mostly carried out by the general populations teenagers and young men.

They form a sort of resistance that, despite what the politically scripted reports the generals give, is the reason the war in Iraq is not going well.

Where did you pull that pre-2003 98% figure? Just curious...

It's from a document you have access to. I can't give you the exact number but it's from 2002 and has the word estimate in the name of the report. 😉

Stay safe.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Nebor
Anyone who didn't already know that we're at war with Islam either has their head buried in the sun, or is an enemy sympathizer.

Maybe you are personally but the US is not at war with Islam.

Islam is a mighty big religion, that is 1.2 billion people you are at war against son, i doubt that your FN FAL will do you much good against those numbers.

Why not just realize that yours and others mindless generalizations are stupid? You're not in a position to do any fighting anyway.

You lack balls and brains, work on that before you go buy any more guns.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Nebor
Picked up a new FN FAL at the gun show today. Should aid me well in defending the homeland. 😀

Then go kill a Muslim since you are at war with them... otherwise stfu?

 

[BMW540I6speed]

jaskalas said:

The stratagem of terrorism in warfare does not require invasion by an ?official? military to strike in acts of war. The invasion is by ideology.

What kind of "defense" does one use? of this so called "invasion". Unless your solution is going on offense, which would include an invasion of the whole ME and the death of many. I dunno, maybe a start would be to stop selling them arms?

To some people, "defend" means physical, fight-to-the-death, confrontation "exclusively".

I consider this a narrow, primal, pre-enlightenment understanding of our relationship with other ideologies.

Is the way we defend against extreme islam the same way we defended against communism?. We excercised our freedoms, made allies, and led by example in the world. Soviet citizens saw us and wanted to be like us.

No doubt American military strength kept the USSR at bay, but the actual defeat of communism was their envy of our system. That is why when the end for communism came, the buzz-word was not surrender, but "Glasnost", meaning: "openness".

Oh, there was another factor accelerating their demise: military adventurism in the Middle East. We defend our way of life differently. We live it faithfully. We fight for our superior system "here" first.

Personally, I don't want to live in a theocracy, whether it's Islamist, Hindu, Jewish, or Christian. But of those four, it's pretty obvious which one could have the greatest probability of occurring in the USA. Don't you think our own christian right would have us all living under their religious laws, if they could pull it off?

How does intolerance for the ideas/beliefs of others that are different from ones own somehow fit in with a devotion to 'western liberalism'? Is it unwise to say, "people with beliefs different from my own will not be allowed into the country unless they renounce them"?

There are different people in Saudi Arabia. People are different from each other. No society is monolitic.

Instead of me trying to prove to you that Saudi Arabians are not all the same, how about you show me any society where all the people are the same? Or, have ever been? Anywhere. It is not possible.

There has always been a sector of our society who needs to dehumanize somebody at any given time. Maybe it's natural to humans everywhere, but to stand up against them is at the core of this social experiment we call the United States.

I'm sure it's the same challange Lincoln referd to as: "testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure."

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: Socio

Originally posted by: ericlp

---- My thoughts? They are like any other organized religion. They have both radical and freaks like any other religion out there...

Ah but there is huge difference; Islam has produced more radical and freaks than all other religions combined 1000 fold and then some!

Go tell that to Africa

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
jaskalas said:

The stratagem of terrorism in warfare does not require invasion by an ?official? military to strike in acts of war. The invasion is by ideology.

What kind of "defense" does one use? of this so called "invasion". Unless your solution is going on offense, which would include an invasion of the whole ME and the death of many. I dunno, maybe a start would be to stop selling them arms?

To some people, "defend" means physical, fight-to-the-death, confrontation "exclusively".

I consider this a narrow, primal, pre-enlightenment understanding of our relationship with other ideologies.

Is the way we defend against extreme islam the same way we defended against communism?. We excercised our freedoms, made allies, and led by example in the world. Soviet citizens saw us and wanted to be like us.

No doubt American military strength kept the USSR at bay, but the actual defeat of communism was their envy of our system. That is why when the end for communism came, the buzz-word was not surrender, but "Glasnost", meaning: "openness".

Oh, there was another factor accelerating their demise: military adventurism in the Middle East. We defend our way of life differently. We live it faithfully. We fight for our superior system "here" first.

Personally, I don't want to live in a theocracy, whether it's Islamist, Hindu, Jewish, or Christian. But of those four, it's pretty obvious which one could have the greatest probability of occurring in the USA. Don't you think our own christian right would have us all living under their religious laws, if they could pull it off?

How does intolerance for the ideas/beliefs of others that are different from ones own somehow fit in with a devotion to 'western liberalism'? Is it unwise to say, "people with beliefs different from my own will not be allowed into the country unless they renounce them"?

There are different people in Saudi Arabia. People are different from each other. No society is monolitic.

Instead of me trying to prove to you that Saudi Arabians are not all the same, how about you show me any society where all the people are the same? Or, have ever been? Anywhere. It is not possible.

There has always been a sector of our society who needs to dehumanize somebody at any given time. Maybe it's natural to humans everywhere, but to stand up against them is at the core of this social experiment we call the United States.

I'm sure it's the same challange Lincoln referd to as: "testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure."

Jaskalas is a coward. He can't trust in anything you have said. He is too afraid to chance fighting their ideology with ours because he thinks theirs is superior. He wants to fight blind insanity with his own blind insanity. He can see only that others are very dangerous because in fact it is he who contains that danger. He would have others die so he can be secure. But he can kill the world and not ever become secure because what he fears has already happened to him when he was young and he carries now that fear deeply suppressed within.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Nebor
Anyone who didn't already know that we're at war with Islam either has their head buried in the sun, or is an enemy sympathizer.

Maybe you are personally but the US is not at war with Islam.

Islam is a mighty big religion, that is 1.2 billion people you are at war against son, i doubt that your FN FAL will do you much good against those numbers.

Why not just realize that yours and others mindless generalizations are stupid? You're not in a position to do any fighting anyway.

You lack balls and brains, work on that before you go buy any more guns.

Excellent reply to the one of the most asinine posts I have ever read here. IMO, anyone that thinks we are at war with Islam either has their head too far up Bush's stupid ass, or is at best.. mildly retarded.

 

[fierydemise]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Just remember this 21st Century truism: Most Muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim.

Profiling does have its place in law enforcement and counter-terrorism.

Alright how do you plan to tell who is Muslim and who isn't?

3 Facts:
1)Various estimates say that somewhere between 15%-20% of Muslims are Arabs, the most common estimate is about 18%.
2)The total population of Muslims in the world is somewhere between 1 and 1.8 billion.
3) There are estimated to be 300-340 million Arabs

For the sake of math we'll assume that 17.5% of Muslims are Arabs, there are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world and there are 320 million Arabs.

1.4 billion*.175=245 million Muslims who are Arabs
320 million-245 million=75 million Non Muslim Arabs
75 million/320 million= 23.4% of Arabs are not Muslim

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: fierydemise

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Just remember this 21st Century truism: Most Muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim.

Profiling does have its place in law enforcement and counter-terrorism.

Alright how do you plan to tell who is Muslim and who isn't?

3 Facts:
1)Various estimates say that somewhere between 15%-20% of Muslims are Arabs, the most common estimate is about 18%.
2)The total population of Muslims in the world is somewhere between 1 and 1.8 billion.
3) There are estimated to be 300-340 million Arabs

For the sake of math we'll assume that 17.5% of Muslims are Arabs, there are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world and there are 320 million Arabs.

1.4 billion*.175=245 million Muslims who are Arabs
320 million-245 million=75 million Non Muslim Arabs
75 million/320 million= 23.4% of Arabs are not Muslim

LOL.. I never said that it's easy or foolproof - but it's still one important tool in the belt of all law-enforcement and CT personnel. Believing otherwise would be just plain ignorant...

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: sandorski
Christians believe the same. Why else would Christian Missionaries have so quickly flooded into Iraq after the invasion?

When was the last time a Christian Missionary blew themselves up in a crowded market full of women and children?

But, I digress...

Most here are correct when they say: We are not "at war" with their entire religion. Only a small minority of them have reached the violence threshold requiring termination. The rest are what I'll call fence-sitters, and certainly worth paying attention to - although the vast majority will never be a threat. The challenge is figuring out who is who without persecuting, or worse, angering, the entire bunch.

Just remember this 21st Century truism: Most Muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim.

Profiling does have its place in law enforcement and counter-terrorism.

Actually, i'm not convinced that most terrorists are Muslim, that would have to require a definition of terrorists that no one except the US agrees with.

The LTTE is the largest terrorist organization on this earth and they are mostly Hindus, Al Quaida, Hezbollah and the lot of the small fractions that make up the islamic terrorist networks are very small in comparison.

But when you start counting people fighting in their own nation by the only means they have as terrorists, well then you have nations of terrorists, this is the way the US counts terrorists but you're alone in that practice.

Is this post a joke? You claim that the LTTE is the largest terrorist organization in the world. It's a group fighting for a secession. Yet you then claim that those type are not terrorists.

Actually, most of the world did not consider the LTTE to be terrorists except for India, US, Sri Lanka, and a few other countries. The LTTE received mucho support from Europe & Canada until it was designated a terrorist group by the EU & Canada in... 2006.

2006! That's progress, folks!

If you actually think about it yourself, beyond what your overlords want you to think, the most dangerous terrorist group would be the French intelligence community. They only massacred a million people in the Rwanda genocide and continue to massacre people all over Africa and Europe. They're the most cunning, ruthless terrorist group active in the world. I can't think of another modern group that has killed more in recent history.

 

[fierydemise]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
LOL.. I never said that it's easy or foolproof - but it's still one important tool in the belt of all law-enforcement and CT personnel. Believing otherwise would be just plain ignorant...

In that case I guess I'm ignorant, I don't think its a useful tool because of the practical impossibilities of profiling. There are no physical traits that can be associated with Muslims nor are there any actions that can be directly associated with Islam. Profiling only works if someone can determine with some certainty whether or not someone belongs to the group being profiled. I think in this case profiling more serves to waste the time of law-enforcement and CT personnel and possibly cause them to miss the real terrorist who is more likely not to be an Arab.

 

[Aimster]

The correct term would

Most terrorists are Arabs.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Moonbeam said:

He is too afraid to chance fighting their ideology with ours because he thinks theirs is superior.

There are people, so driven in fear, (coupled with media driven fear) with the worldview that islam, has ony "one" interpretation: violent & evil. They seem to think the only solution to extremism in religion is extermination not enlightenment. Many christians today think this. They quote verses from the Koran as proof. Find some citations from Islamic scripture to bolster their claims about the true nature of Islam. Try to convince non-muslim and even muslims of this.

This clearly is couterproductive to be doing this, especially to the vast majority, the moderate muslms who are battleing extremist interpretation of islam.

I would think, the majority of muslims want to see Islam go through a period of enlightenment. They believe their tolerant interpretation of the Koran is correct, and that those who say otherwise are just wrong. Why would someone want to discourage that?

The nature of religion is that once a religion is established and huge proportions of the population become members of it, the religion becomes extremely malleable. Anyone can find quotes from the bible to support any interpretation they want to make. Anybody who's tried to engage a serious fundamentalist knows this. People who want to practice their religion in a particular way will find some scriptural support for their position and ignore any scriptures that run counter to the way they want to practice it. People are great at selective interpretation.

There are still people in America practicing christianity in ways that I find violent in nature. But overall, as the West has prospered, we've managed to evolve our way slowly toward more enlightned values. The serious wackjobs that want to rule the world according to their reading of christianity are minorities that have the vast bulk of rational humanity against them.

The debate going on betwen Muslims about the correct way to interpret their scriptures will have a effect on our lives. Religions being the malleable things they are, Islam has plenty of scripture to quote supporting either the extremists who want to convince their fellow Muslims that Allah wants them to rule the whole world, or the peaceful ones (who make up the majority) that just want to live and raise families alongside the rest of the world.

Why would anyone, particularly as a non-Mulsim who feels threatened by the nature of Islam, take the side of the terrorists in their attempt to convince their fellow Muslims (and the rest of the world) that the Koran demands they enforce a strict Muslim code on the world?

Even if the Koran gives the extremists twice as many passages that seem to support their reading, why would you encourage them by reading the Koran yourself and claiming it indeed does support their more dangerous reading? I can't think of a better way to sabotage the efforts of the majority who want to read their scriptures in a way that allows them to assimilate with the rest of the world.

Religions are whatever their adherents say they are. Right now there is a struggle gojng on within the Muslim world over the proper way to interpret and practice the Islamic faith. Especially as someone who recognizes the danger of the more extreme interpretation, and the potential results that could come from having hundreds of millions of muslims agreeing with that, why do they continue to give aid to the extremists by agreeing with their dangerous reading of Islam?

Even if the extremists were able to find ten times as many passages supporting their reading, it would behoove us to support the moderates who want to live peacefully with us.

I can't think of anything more counterproductive, or that would give the terrorists more comfort, than to see these people and the media (Limbaughs, Becks, Malkins etc.) in America talk like they do about Islam. They support the terrorists and shoot the moderates in the foot all in one stroke.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Moonbeam said:

He is too afraid to chance fighting their ideology with ours because he thinks theirs is superior.

There are people, so driven in fear, (coupled with media driven fear) with the worldview that islam, has ony "one" interpretation: violent & evil. They seem to think the only solution to extremism in religion is extermination not enlightenment. Many christians today think this. They quote verses from the Koran as proof. Find some citations from Islamic scripture to bolster their claims about the true nature of Islam. Try to convince non-muslim and even muslims of this.

This clearly is couterproductive to be doing this, especially to the vast majority, the moderate muslms who are battleing extremist interpretation of islam.

I would think, the majority of muslims want to see Islam go through a period of enlightenment. They believe their tolerant interpretation of the Koran is correct, and that those who say otherwise are just wrong. Why would someone want to discourage that?

The nature of religion is that once a religion is established and huge proportions of the population become members of it, the religion becomes extremely malleable. Anyone can find quotes from the bible to support any interpretation they want to make. Anybody who's tried to engage a serious fundamentalist knows this. People who want to practice their religion in a particular way will find some scriptural support for their position and ignore any scriptures that run counter to the way they want to practice it. People are great at selective interpretation.

There are still people in America practicing christianity in ways that I find violent in nature. But overall, as the West has prospered, we've managed to evolve our way slowly toward more enlightned values. The serious wackjobs that want to rule the world according to their reading of christianity are minorities that have the vast bulk of rational humanity against them.

The debate going on betwen Muslims about the correct way to interpret their scriptures will have a effect on our lives. Religions being the malleable things they are, Islam has plenty of scripture to quote supporting either the extremists who want to convince their fellow Muslims that Allah wants them to rule the whole world, or the peaceful ones (who make up the majority) that just want to live and raise families alongside the rest of the world.

Why would anyone, particularly as a non-Mulsim who feels threatened by the nature of Islam, take the side of the terrorists in their attempt to convince their fellow Muslims (and the rest of the world) that the Koran demands they enforce a strict Muslim code on the world?

Even if the Koran gives the extremists twice as many passages that seem to support their reading, why would you encourage them by reading the Koran yourself and claiming it indeed does support their more dangerous reading? I can't think of a better way to sabotage the efforts of the majority who want to read their scriptures in a way that allows them to assimilate with the rest of the world.

Religions are whatever their adherents say they are. Right now there is a struggle gojng on within the Muslim world over the proper way to interpret and practice the Islamic faith. Especially as someone who recognizes the danger of the more extreme interpretation, and the potential results that could come from having hundreds of millions of muslims agreeing with that, why do they continue to give aid to the extremists by agreeing with their dangerous reading of Islam?

Even if the extremists were able to find ten times as many passages supporting their reading, it would behoove us to support the moderates who want to live peacefully with us.

I can't think of anything more counterproductive, or that would give the terrorists more comfort, than to see these people and the media (Limbaughs, Becks, Malkins etc.) in America talk like they do about Islam. They support the terrorists and shoot the moderates in the foot all in one stroke.

Such people as Limpbrow are not interested in what is intelligent or wise. They are interesting is stoking hate in their listeners to get their ears and then to deliver ads. They are there only to acquire in one place as many gullible idiots as will spend their hard earned money on garbage and crap.