The Islamic thread

Page 18 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: hscorpio


So how can you be so sure that the version this guy ordered printed was the accurate version.
Again, it requires faith.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: Sultan
What? Which cleric advocated the "religious cleansing" of the country? Some non-Muslims in this forum have more information about Muslims than Muslims themselves.

Many statements have been issued by leaders of Muslim nations, scholars, and Muslims in general with respect to terrorist acts. I gave the example of denouncing 9/11 attack above as one such case. If you choose to be deaf to such statements, there's nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.

Some examples of what I am talking about. with respect to the radicals and what they are espousing. None of the links/quotes are even include those that are against Israel.



Link- Sheikh Abu Hamza - England

Egyptian preacher Muhammad Al-
Ghazzali who, in 1992, issued a fatwa for the murder of Farag
Foda, an anti-clerical writer in Cairo. Within weeks of the
fatwa, zealots murdered Foda in his home.

Other "sheikhs of death" mentioned include the Yemeni
Abdul-Majid Al- Zendani, and the Saudis Ali bin Khudhair
Al-Khudhair and Safar Al- Hawali. The two Saudis have described
the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks against the United States as
"retaliations", and thus justified under Islamic law.

Nov 16, 2004
Abu Bakar Bashir, the Muslim cleric whom American intelligence officials have blamed for the attack in Bali, refused to condemn the bombing and said that the United States intelligence agency is behind the Bali bombings in an attempt to justify their accusation that Indonesia is a terrorist base. He also warned not to cooperate with America because it will bring tragedy for your country. (Harper's Magazine)

Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, during his federal grand jury trial in New York City. Rahman was convicted of helping engineer the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as well as a failed Islamic Group plan (known as ?The Day of Terror?) to destroy other Manhattan landmarks including the Holland and Lincoln tunnels, United Nations building, and George Washington Bridge. Rahman was also found guilty of trying to arrange Mubarak?s assassination, an act that wasn?t surprising considering his fatwah (religous decree) against then-Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1981.


Eygptian Government Cleric - Apr 2002
 

imported_hscorpio

Golden Member
Sep 1, 2004
1,617
0
0
[offtopic]
Originally posted by: hscorpio

So how can you be so sure that the version this guy ordered printed was the accurate version.

Again, it requires faith.

I know that. I was hoping Sultan would find his way to the "it requires faith" answer eventually. He disbeleives Christianity because he thinks the bible has been corrupted/changed but believes the Qu'ran is somehow perfect because he thinks it's written form has never been changed.

I linked to a site that said the official version of the Qu'ran was ordered to be printed because some leader was worried about the differing accounts of the Qu'ran throughout the region. I was suggesting the possibility that the version of the Qu'ran ordered written could be one of the different accounts. I was trying to point out that there is no way to know that it is Muhammads true teaching for sure and believing in the Qu'ran is EXACTLY the same thing as believing in the Bible.

Even if there was some way of knowing 100% that the current Qu'ran is Muhammads original message, there is no way to prove that Muhammad actually received a message from God. He could have just made the whole thing up. We don't know and never will.

Believing in any religion requires faith. There is no way to prove the Qu'ran or the Bible is the true word of god using reason and logic.

In the end it all comes down to faith, believing in something that cannot be proved.

We should get back on topic though because this thread is supposed to be about details of the faith of Islam. I'm sure Sultan doesn't want it to turn into a debate over why/why not to believe in Islam.
[/offtopic]

What kind of holidays are there in Islam? Is there anything similar to Christmas?



 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: hscorpio
[offtopic]
Originally posted by: hscorpio

So how can you be so sure that the version this guy ordered printed was the accurate version.

Again, it requires faith.

I know that. I was hoping Sultan would find his way to the "it requires faith" answer eventually. He disbeleives Christianity because he thinks the bible has been corrupted/changed but believes the Qu'ran is somehow perfect because he thinks it's written form has never been changed.

I linked to a site that said the official version of the Qu'ran was ordered to be printed because some leader was worried about the differing accounts of the Qu'ran throughout the region. I was suggesting the possibility that the version of the Qu'ran ordered written could be one of the different accounts. I was trying to point out that there is no way to know that it is Muhammads true teaching for sure and believing in the Qu'ran is EXACTLY the same thing as believing in the Bible.

Even if there was some way of knowing 100% that the current Qu'ran is Muhammads original message, there is no way to prove that Muhammad actually received a message from God. He could have just made the whole thing up. We don't know and never will.

Believing in any religion requires faith. There is no way to prove the Qu'ran or the Bible is the true word of god using reason and logic.

In the end it all comes down to faith, believing in something that cannot be proved.

We should get back on topic though because this thread is supposed to be about details of the faith of Islam. I'm sure Sultan doesn't want it to turn into a debate over why/why not to believe in Islam.
[/offtopic]

What kind of holidays are there in Islam? Is there anything similar to Christmas?
How the fvck do you figure that this was offtopic, I mean, you know the definition of faith, now ponder the thread title. We must take a political viewpoint about Islam on this forum to justify the existance of the thread . As such, the nuts and bolts of Islam must be tested in this thread....



 

imported_hscorpio

Golden Member
Sep 1, 2004
1,617
0
0
Originally posted by: Ozoned
How the fvck do you figure that this was offtopic, I mean, you know the definition of faith, now ponder the thread title. We must take a political viewpoint about Islam on this forum to justify the existance of the thread . As such, the nuts and bolts of Islam must be tested in this thread....
The point of this thread was to explain the nuts and bolts of Islam to non-muslims who the OP feels are misinformed. I do not believe it was to debate the merits of believing in Islam, but I'll let the OP address the issue.

Nice choice of words.



 

Sultan

Banned
Feb 21, 2002
2,297
1
0
Originally posted by: hscorpio
I know that. I was hoping Sultan would find his way to the "it requires faith" answer eventually. He disbeleives Christianity because he thinks the bible has been corrupted/changed but believes the Qu'ran is somehow perfect because he thinks it's written form has never been changed.

I linked to a site that said the official version of the Qu'ran was ordered to be printed because some leader was worried about the differing accounts of the Qu'ran throughout the region. I was suggesting the possibility that the version of the Qu'ran ordered written could be one of the different accounts. I was trying to point out that there is no way to know that it is Muhammads true teaching for sure and believing in the Qu'ran is EXACTLY the same thing as believing in the Bible.

Even if there was some way of knowing 100% that the current Qu'ran is Muhammads original message, there is no way to prove that Muhammad actually received a message from God. He could have just made the whole thing up. We don't know and never will.

Believing in any religion requires faith. There is no way to prove the Qu'ran or the Bible is the true word of god using reason and logic.

In the end it all comes down to faith, believing in something that cannot be proved.

We should get back on topic though because this thread is supposed to be about details of the faith of Islam. I'm sure Sultan doesn't want it to turn into a debate over why/why not to believe in Islam.
[/offtopic]

The argument that " because some leader was worried about the differing accounts of the Qu'ran throughout the region" is incorrect. The original written form was purely Arabic in nature spoken by the region it was revealed in. When the message of Islam spread beyond those borders, people were unable to pronounce the words correctly. Thus the leader you mention ordered that the Quran should contain the punctuation, which in Arabic included Zabar, Zir, Pesh, etc.

Yes, all religions are a matter of faith. One cannot even prove the existence of God, much less the revelations contained in the revealed Books.

What kind of holidays are there in Islam? Is there anything similar to Christmas?

Yes, there are similar holidays, such as Eid-ul-Fitr celebrated after the end of the month of Ramadan, Eid-ul-Azha, celebrated after the pilgrimage.
 

Sultan

Banned
Feb 21, 2002
2,297
1
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
....

Thank you for your post. It was an informative one. I am sorry and ashamed that such characters exist amongst us Muslims.

These characters are no different that many non-Islamic characters who expouse hatred amongst people. This said, I am not trying to justify these bad elements amongst Muslims.

I do not agree with their views, and I hope you understand that most Muslims dont either.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: Sultan
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
....

Thank you for your post. It was an informative one. I am sorry and ashamed that such characters exist amongst us Muslims.

These characters are no different that many non-Islamic characters who expouse hatred amongst people. This said, I am not trying to justify these bad elements amongst Muslims.

I do not agree with their views, and I hope you understand that most Muslims dont either.

Thank-you for the response.

The problem that most have with the Muslim/Arab nation is that their general population generates the impression that such "spokemens" are acceptable and/or supported.

When actions that such people encourage are then impliments and supported, it is difficult to accept that it is an abnormality.

Then when actual historical events are twisted to justify these actions, it destroys the credability of the presenter.

The thread of coincidence (connect the dots) becomes to great to ignore and thereby contaminates any that try to justify such actions.

 

Sultan

Banned
Feb 21, 2002
2,297
1
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Thank-you for the response.

The problem that most have with the Muslim/Arab nation is that their general population generates the impression that such "spokemens" are acceptable and/or supported.

When actions that such people encourage are then impliments and supported, it is difficult to accept that it is an abnormality.

Then when actual historical events are twisted to justify these actions, it destroys the credability of the presenter.

The thread of coincidence (connect the dots) becomes to great to ignore and thereby contaminates any that try to justify such actions.

That is an incorrect impression. Do you support Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell? I suspect no, but I havent heard you say that. But that does not imply that I get the impression you support their views.

Life is too short and busy to go around criticizing nut cases for the words they speak.

You must also understand that it is not the religion which incites certain people to acts of violence, but rather actions of others which does. Dont you think this Iraq war will create many, many more "terrorists" who watched their children bleed to death when our forces rained bombs on their city and did not allow medical aid to enter?
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Originally posted by: Sultan
Originally posted by: Citrix
Terrorist acts have nothing to do with any religion


you just lost all credibility. Terrorst attacks/acts have EVERYTHING to do with the muslim religion. when was the last time you saw a Shinto monk, or Bhuddist Monk, Mormon Clergyman, Pentacostal Priest, Baptist Preacher, American Indian Shaman... telling their followers to go kill all the non belivers of their religion??????

Thank you for your hate-mongering post. If you have any question about Islamic beliefs, please ask. I can answer your ridiculous question with pages and pages of information.


my post is hate-mongering? If Islam is such a peaceful religion, then answer my question. the truth is you cant. If you compare current day Islam to all the other religions in the world, which one is comitting terrorist attacks? Which one treats their women like property, which one has it written in it religious dogma to kill all infidels. Which one issues death decrees to any person who speaks out against their religion. This is a ligimate quesiton please look in a mirror and answer it.

I could go into Muhammad being a pedophile but that is another thread.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: Sultan
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Thank-you for the response.

The problem that most have with the Muslim/Arab nation is that their general population generates the impression that such "spokemens" are acceptable and/or supported.

When actions that such people encourage are then impliments and supported, it is difficult to accept that it is an abnormality.

Then when actual historical events are twisted to justify these actions, it destroys the credability of the presenter.

The thread of coincidence (connect the dots) becomes to great to ignore and thereby contaminates any that try to justify such actions.

That is an incorrect impression. Do you support Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell? I suspect no, but I havent heard you say that. But that does not imply that I get the impression you support their views.

Life is too short and busy to go around criticizing nut cases for the words they speak.

You must also understand that it is not the religion which incites certain people to acts of violence, but rather actions of others which does. Dont you think this Iraq war will create many, many more "terrorists" who watched their children bleed to death when our forces rained bombs on their city and did not allow medical aid to enter?


When one ignores histroy, one becomes doomed to repeat. Short-sighted justification perpetuate the cycle.

The Iraqi war will create terrorists, just as the conflict in Israel has.
Those that are participating in Israel are operating on false assumptions that have been spoon fed by those that refused to accept the consequences of their actions.

The "terrorists" being bred in Iraq are going to be in the same situation.
They had power/influence inder Saddam.
They lost it because of his actions (right or wrong).
They realize that they are now on the wrong side of power and therefore want to disrupt the situation in order to satisfy their frustrations and/or attempt to regain some influence.
The response to the troublemakers feeds resentment. The troublemakers know this and attempt to encourage a response that will generate recruits.

If the "terrorists" reserved their attacks aginst the US coalition, that could be construed as resistance.
To attack their own government and countries resources, demonstrate that if they can not have it their way, then there shall be no way. It destroys the legitimacy of their statments that they are trying to free the country of the oppressor. They are becoming gangs with high powered weapons and taking advantage of the fact that their is no reasonable government presence to counteract them.

When they had "control" of some cities, they were not trying to help the local population and set up some type of internal government.

At least that is what the PLO finally did when they wanted legitamacy.
 

Sultan

Banned
Feb 21, 2002
2,297
1
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
...

You use the term "terrorists" very loosely.

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Source

Since the United States action in Iraq is neither about WMD, nor about al-Qaeda, and the stated mission of our government is "regime change", "freedom", "liberation", "democracy", all ideological goals, the action in Iraq by the United States is a terrorist action in itself by definition.

Many disagree with our military presence there. Many dont. Tens of thousands of inncocent civilians have died in this unlawful war. Yes, we stop short of calling it terrorism, but how is that different from those extreme minority of clerics that you gave me above who support the actions of Osama bin Laden? There are quite many supporters of this war in Iraq in the United States. Heck, Muslims have been called ignorant and barbaric by many in this forum. How then do you account for over 50% of Americans still believing Iraq HAS WMD and was implicitly involved in 9/11?

The insurgents carry out attacks against the US resistance and the US appointed government. It is not the government Iraqis chose. Yes, those who muder people like truck drivers carrying aid are muderers and their action does not terrorise or deter the coalition forces. They are definitely terrorists who seek to intimidate the local populace or foreign aid workers. But I doubt the entire city of Falluja, Mosul and other hotspots have overwhelming amount of "terrorists" which warranted the evacuation of over 250000 people and the subsequent semi-levelling of the city.

Anyways, this is more of a political arguement and I will not comment on it further.

Thanks for the civil discussion.
 

dszd0g

Golden Member
Jun 14, 2000
1,226
0
0
Originally posted by: Sultan
This topic of denounciation and action against terrorist elements in countries of Muslim majority has been raised again and again. I have answered it in the past. This is a false charge. All leaders of Muslim nations and scholars of the religion have denounced terrorist acts. Heck, Yasser Arafat who half of (witless) America call a terrorist donated blood for the victims of 9/11. Actions against terrorists have been taken by Pakistan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc, etc and are continuing.

Yes, Islam is a religion of peace. Whoever commits these acts of violence are madmen, and there is no justification whatsoever for their attacks. There was no justification for 9/11, there is no justification to our actions in Iraq.

I believe you are off the ball on this post. You cannot honestly believe "All leaders of Muslim nations and scholars of the relgion have denounced terrorist acts"? They may denounce them when speaking to the US, but some of them support them in the Middle East. A lot of mainstream Middle East newspapers still print articles about Jews mixing the blood of babies into bread and similar articles as fact. Hatred is taught in schools. Yes, I can believe there are a large number of people in the Middle East who do not buy into this anti-semitism, but I think you will have a hard time showing that it does not run rampant. There are hundreds of examples available on google, so it would be difficult for you to refute this, but I would be happy to hear your side of this or if you believe that most of our news sources are wrong on this matter.

Terrorist says orders come from Arafat
How Arafat's Palestinian Authority Became an "Entity Supporting Terrorism"
Peer Pressure

"In 2000, Arafat walked away from the most generous land-for-peace offer the Palestinians were ever likely to get from any Israeli government. In place of diplomacy, Arafat sanctioned an armed uprising, including terrorist attacks against Israel. Complicit in this terrorism, Arafat lost international credibility and was shunned by Israel and the Bush administration."
http://www.signonsandiego.com/...1/news_1ed11top-1.html

"Arafat condemns the suicide bombings in English and praises them in Arabic. Arafat swears he's doing his best to curb them and issues textbooks to Palestinian children with math problems such as: 'If you kill one Jew on Monday, three Jews on Wednesday and five Jews on Friday, how many Jews have you killed for the week?'"
http://www.newsmax.com/archive.../2002/4/1/113310.shtml
http://www.science.co.il/Arab-...byshire-2002-03-22.asp

Terrorist acts have nothing to do with any religion

Killing is often done in the name of religion: the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, until around 1200 most Popes advocated the killing of Jews, and until very recently tolerated it.
 

dszd0g

Golden Member
Jun 14, 2000
1,226
0
0
This post has not been responded to yet. I am not sure if it was intentionally ignored, if it got lost in the long thread, or if it has not been gotten to yet. If this post is not responded to, I will assume it is being intentionally ignored.

Originally posted by: dszd0g
Please bear with me on this post; I am going to broach some of the more controversial subject matter. It will be easy to simply flame me in response, but I hope that I have been rational and I have faith that the response will be equally sensible.

Originally posted by: hscorpio
The Israeli miitary has killed many muslims and I think its safe to assume that muslims want Israel gone from the Middle East.

Do the Muslims here dispute this? How can there be peace in the Middle East when the only solution that will make the Muslims happy is eliminating the Jews? Israel was established because Europe was happy to get rid of Hitler, but they really did not want the Jews back. Europe did not want to give back all the property that was confiscated from the Jews, a lot of which has not been returned to this day. Making the Jews someone else's problem was the solution Europe came up with. Most of Europe would have been fine with Arab countries destroying Israel and removing their problem. In all probability, this would have happened with out the US support of Israel.

The Oslo accords demonstrated that Israel would be willing to pull out of the disputed territories tomorrow if they had any sort of guarantee that they would be left alone after that. If the Palestinians actually could show they could get the suicide bombers under control Israel would be happy to leave. When Israel has tried pulling out of areas, they are forced to go back in because the area becomes suicide bomber training camps. In the past leaving an occupied area has resulted in more deaths for Israelis, how is that encouragement?

Originally posted by: Sultan
The previous wars were a result of Israel's occupation and its Zionist agenda.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Israel did not occupy the West Bank, Gaza, or the Golan Heights until their neighboring countries attacked them. Just like we set up a Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) at Germany's border after World War I, Israel has been trying to use the zones as a DMZ. I am not sure you can call either one successful.

Yasar Arafat was a terrorist, I only hope the Palestinians do not chose another terrorist as a leader. Then all we need is Sharon to be replaced by someone a little less violent.

Another question, what is the religious significance of Jerusalem to the Muslim religion? Arafat wanted to be buried in Jerusalem. Palestinians make as big of a deal about Jerusalem as the Jews do, but I am not aware of any reason for this other than not being willing to make any compromises and not wanting to let the Jews have what they want. For Jews, Jerusalem is a bigger deal than Mecca is to Muslims, but is it of any religious import to Muslims?

Originally posted by: Sultan
The fact is over 150000 US soldiers are in Iraq who have killed 10000+ CIVILIANS, wounded many thousands more. Therefore they are the terrorists.

When listing terrorist organizations:

Originally posted by: Sultan
Hey, in my books, the list is:

US Army
IDF
Russian Army
Bush, Rumsfield, Cheney

While the US has definitely committed war crimes, there is a difference between civilian casualties and terrorism. The US is not trying to kill civilians. Terrorists are trying to kill civilians. The difference is intent. Many Muslims seem to take this stance of not differentiating between the behavior of the US and Israel and the suicide bombers. There is a world of difference. Statements like this that hurt American's opinion of Muslims. From this thread, even the Quran says that war is sometimes necessary, but terrorism is evil. If Muslims took the stance that their religion seems to teach, it would definitely help public opinion.

How common are Muslims like Faizenne who are full of hate, and 95% of the reasons he gives for hating Jews are not even true?

Originally posted by: Sultan
Iraq invasion = terrorist attack

I am strongly against the Iraq war. It is a war of aggression done for the financial benefit of large US corporations including the US oil industry and military contractors. Again, there is a difference between war of aggression and terrorism. Both are wrong, but there is a difference between the two. It is like the difference between walking up to a man and punching him, and walking up to and kicking a toddler. Both are wrong, but I would be much more upset over the latter.

Suicide "Homicide" bombers have been brought up in this thread, but this is such a major topic I would like to inquire further on it.

Originally posted by: Sultan
The United States ITSELF is committing an act of terror in Iraq. So the difference is we use million dollar weapons, while the opposite side uses human bombs. I'd say the opposite side has move conviction and valor than our forces because they are fighting to free the land of an occupier.

On the news we see interviews with Palestinian parents whose child was a suicide bomber, they are proud of what their child has done. The whole community is supportive of them. If the religion of Islam says this behavior is evil, why is it so prevalent?

"All I can answer is that whatever God wants to happen will. Yes, my son Saeed died as a martyr. But every Palestinian who dies as a martyr is our son. All the people's children are our children and we are all responsible for one another. Everyone is important to us and every martyr who dies is as important to us as our son. If you ask my youngest son what he wants to be when he grows up, he will tell you that he wants to be a suicide bomber."
http://www.redress.btinternet.co.uk/yaghi24.htm

"The women swarmed around the Um Shadi, mother of Mahmoud Hamdan Kwasma, who carried out the suicide bombing on Wednesday in Haifa. They had come in order to praise her for the death of her son in the service of Allah." "The Um Shadi went on to say 'I am proud of my son's deed, we must fight for our faith and not for our nation.'"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/861590/posts

In multiple threads, you have been apologetic if not supportive of the terrorists. Comments like the quote above more than anything are what harm the opinion of Islam in my opinion. In this thread, you seem to state how you are a true follower of Islam, and yet you make comments like the above. How can we interpret this as anything other than Muslims supporting terrorism?
 

dszd0g

Golden Member
Jun 14, 2000
1,226
0
0
Originally posted by: Aimster
I will be the first Muslim on this thread to say it. Muslim = dangerous religion. It can be very peaceful and such a lovely religion to follow. It is a book of poetry. It is dangerous because different Mosque/Countries will preach to you different opinions of Islam. Egypt is a Muslim country. Christian, Jews go there every year. There are no problems because the government and the people believe in a peaceful Islamic state and are more than generous with Christians, etc. Turkey believes in their own version of the Quran and it has implemented it all around the country (You make fun of France for banning the headscarf. Did you know Turkey was the first country to do so?). Iran has a permanent Jewish member in their cabinet (You defend Iran?s government. The people are against it and you still support them). UAE, Dubai, Kuwait are countries where a Jew can visit and not feel threatened. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan are danger zones. They have created an evil religion.

Originally posted by: f95toli
Western democracy (including freedom of religion) has been around for less than 200 years, for 1800 years there was no freedom of religion in the west, during that same period jews and other minorietes could live in peace in muslim countries.

I know Jews who have visited Egypt without problems. I searched around and overall traveling to the Middle East prior to Iraq was a non-issue for an American Jew. As an example, the following page seemed to present a fairly unbiased view (at least it claims and seems to) for Iran:
http://www.dis.uu.se/~pierref/travel/iran.guide.html

As an alternative view:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrar...source/myths/mf15.html
In particular, see "The Situation Today". For example, for Iran that is presented fairly positively above:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrar...semitism/iranjews.html
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
New question.

As I'm a big fan of travelling, where in the Muslim street are there places that...
· I can see things of historical importance?
· I can see things that are interesting in a modern sense?
· I should avoid for safety reasons?
· I'm explicitly barred from visiting?
 

Sultan

Banned
Feb 21, 2002
2,297
1
0
Originally posted by: dszd0g
This post has not been responded to yet. I am not sure if it was intentionally ignored, if it got lost in the long thread, or if it has not been gotten to yet. If this post is not responded to, I will assume it is being intentionally ignored.

On the news we see interviews with Palestinian parents whose child was a suicide bomber, they are proud of what their child has done. The whole community is supportive of them. If the religion of Islam says this behavior is evil, why is it so prevalent?

"All I can answer is that whatever God wants to happen will. Yes, my son Saeed died as a martyr. But every Palestinian who dies as a martyr is our son. All the people's children are our children and we are all responsible for one another. Everyone is important to us and every martyr who dies is as important to us as our son. If you ask my youngest son what he wants to be when he grows up, he will tell you that he wants to be a suicide bomber."
http://www.redress.btinternet.co.uk/yaghi24.htm

"The women swarmed around the Um Shadi, mother of Mahmoud Hamdan Kwasma, who carried out the suicide bombing on Wednesday in Haifa. They had come in order to praise her for the death of her son in the service of Allah." "The Um Shadi went on to say 'I am proud of my son's deed, we must fight for our faith and not for our nation.'"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/861590/posts

In multiple threads, you have been apologetic if not supportive of the terrorists. Comments like the quote above more than anything are what harm the opinion of Islam in my opinion. In this thread, you seem to state how you are a true follower of Islam, and yet you make comments like the above. How can we interpret this as anything other than Muslims supporting terrorism?

I believe the above is the question... "How can we interpret this as anything other than Muslims supporting terrorism?" from the long thread. I apologize for not getting to it. I must have missed it. I cannot answer every single post, please bear with me.

This question is very much a current event question rather than a theological question. I will try to address it as best as I can.

Religiously speaking, martyrdom is a great achievement. Thats the first point.

That said, suicide bombings and homicide bombings are IMO different things. Bombing cafes with innocent civilians or flying planes into building are examples of terrorist actions. Suicide bombing against military targets is a valid form of offensive. I am POSITIVE that you would be willing to give your life for your cause and country. The only difference between us, and the suicide bombers is that we get big guns, big planes, big tanks, etc, whereas they have homemade explosives and nuts and bolts.

I am also POSITIVE that your parents and family will be proud of your achievements if you give your life serving your cause and country.

Therefore, the quotes you provide above are no different than what your parents and family would say regarding your giving your life away.

The above quote was mainly in reference to the Iraqi resistance. However, since you have also associated it with the Palestinian cause, I have no qualms. In both cases, I speak only of those who strike military targets, not civilian.

Many in this forum agree that the conflict in Iraq was completely wrong. So some stop far short of referring it to it as I do. Since you've been reading my other posts, I have defined terrorism using a direct reference to a dictionary and clearly pointed out how the Iraq conflict is by that very definition a terroirst action.

Islam has VERY strict rules of engagements in military conflicts. No unarmed civilian, aged men, women, children and EVEN trees is to be hurt.

I have tried my best to reference this answer to the current scenarios as well as the theological beliefs of Islam.

Thank you for asking, and I am happy you have taken a very civil approach when differing with my viewpoints. I would like to correct you, I offer no apologies, and no support to the terrorist actions of any race, religion or nation.
 

Sultan

Banned
Feb 21, 2002
2,297
1
0
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
New question.

As I'm a big fan of travelling, where in the Muslim street are there places that...
· I can see things of historical importance?
· I can see things that are interesting in a modern sense?
· I should avoid for safety reasons?
· I'm explicitly barred from visiting?

*things of historical importance?
I dont know where to point you. What exactly are you looking for? Religious architectural sites, scenic and picturesque locations or historical sites? Egypt is a very popular tourist destination. Northern Pakistan has natural beauty matching Switzerland.

*things that are interesting in a modern sense?
By modern you mean? There is a big misconception that the Muslim nations are very backwards. You know, they use electricity. :)

*avoid for safety reasons?
Apart from Afghanistan and Iraq, I would travel anywhere, and would be confident to take along a non-Muslim friend with me. I believe you would have no safety problems anywhere except the above two countries.

*explicitly barred from visiting?
except for Mecca, I believe there are no places that explicitly bar a non-Muslim from visiting.

 

dszd0g

Golden Member
Jun 14, 2000
1,226
0
0
Originally posted by: Sultan
Religiously speaking, martyrdom is a great achievement. Thats the first point.

Could you elaborate?

That said, suicide bombings and homicide bombings are IMO different things. Bombing cafes with innocent civilians or flying planes into building are examples of terrorist actions. Suicide bombing against military targets is a valid form of offensive. I am POSITIVE that you would be willing to give your life for your cause and country. The only difference between us, and the suicide bombers is that we get big guns, big planes, big tanks, etc, whereas they have homemade explosives and nuts and bolts.

Yes, I would be willing to die for my country. However, my definition of what is defending my country and my government's definition for the last few decades are very different.

I am also POSITIVE that your parents and family will be proud of your achievements if you give your life serving your cause and country.

Yes, my brother was in the marine reserves and they were proud and supportive.

Therefore, the quotes you provide above are no different than what your parents and family would say regarding your giving your life away.

Maybe I left out the context of the above stories. Those were people killing civilians.

The first case involved bombing a discotheque and killing 20 teenagers.
http://www.israelinsider.com/c.../articles/sec_0049.htm

The second case involved blowing up a bus with women and children on board, the link I provided showed pictures of some of the victims (scroll down):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/861590/posts

My parents told me once if I ever commited a serious crime they would be the first in line to turn me in to the police. I believe they would be ashamed and horrified if I did a crime like the above.

Why are whole neighborhoods proud of these murderers?

The above quote was mainly in reference to the Iraqi resistance. However, since you have also associated it with the Palestinian cause, I have no qualms. In both cases, I speak only of those who strike military targets, not civilian.

From my understanding, Israel is crawling with Israeli troops. If someone wants to strike a military target one is not hard to come by. I can understand Palestinians who throw rocks at Israeli soldiers and tanks in the occupied territories.

If the Palestinians only attacked military targets in the occupied territories, the Israelis would pull out of the occupied territories maybe with the exception of right around Jerusalem. The problem is that the Israelis are being forced to do something to defend themselves. They should be more careful about cutting down the civilian casualties.

Which reminds me,
Another question, what is the religious significance of Jerusalem to the Muslim religion? Arafat wanted to be buried in Jerusalem. Palestinians make as big of a deal about Jerusalem as the Jews do, but I am not aware of any reason for this other than not being willing to make any compromises and not wanting to let the Jews have what they want. For Jews, Jerusalem is a bigger deal than Mecca is to Muslims, but is it of any religious import to Muslims?

Many in this forum agree that the conflict in Iraq was completely wrong. So some stop far short of referring it to it as I do. Since you've been reading my other posts, I have defined terrorism using a direct reference to a dictionary and clearly pointed out how the Iraq conflict is by that very definition a terroirst action.

I am against what we are doing in Iraq. I am willing to call the Iraqis going after our troops freedom fighters. The ones who are targetting Iraqi civilians are terrorists (I can't figure that one out?).

Islam has VERY strict rules of engagements in military conflicts. No unarmed civilian, aged men, women, children and EVEN trees is to be hurt.

Unfortunately this does not seem to be the Islam that is being taught to a number of Muslims, is it? What do you think the US should have done? (I have had my ideas, but I am curious to hear yours first).

Thank you for clarifying.
 

Shimmishim

Elite Member
Feb 19, 2001
7,504
0
76
As a Christian, let me say how great this is to have a thread to help people under stand muslims and Islam.

I applaud your (everyone's) efforts on this thread.
 

dszd0g

Golden Member
Jun 14, 2000
1,226
0
0
How do you interpret the following passages from the Quran on this page?

http://www.middleeastfacts.com/Koran.html

I will quote the above link first. Followed by the site given earlier:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran

Comparing their interpretation and what USC has, they seem to be stretching it a bit. However, I cannot see verse 017.104 interpreted as anything other than saying that Israel should be for the Jews. When you take 5.20 and 5.21 together it is pretty clear too. So as a follower of the Quran do you believe that Israel belongs to the Jews? Or are these passages being misinterpreted?

"Sura 2:190
A case could even be made that Israel's victory over the Arabs in the 1948 war was a judgement by Allah against the Arabs for their apostasy in opposing the Zionists. This would be their just reward for transgressing Sura 2:190, which says, "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities."

"002.190
YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
PICKTHAL: Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
SHAKIR: And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits."

"Sura 5:21
Moses is quoted as telling the Jews to "enter into the Holy Land which Allah has assigned to you". While Mohammed later condemns the Jews for their sins and their refusal to accept his message, he never says that, as punishment, Allah has revoked our title to the Holy Land. Therefore the title still stands, and Muslim anti-Zionists are apostates."

"005.020
YUSUFALI: Remember Moses said to his people: "O my people! Call in remembrance the favour of Allah unto you, when He produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave you what He had not given to any other among the peoples.
PICKTHAL: And (remember) when Moses said unto his people: O my people! Remember Allah's favour unto you, how He placed among you prophets, and He made you kings, and gave you that (which) He gave not to any (other) of (His) creatures.
SHAKIR: And when Musa said to his people: O my people! remember the favor of Allah upon you when He raised prophets among you and made you kings and gave you what He had not given to any other among the nations."

"005.021
YUSUFALI: "O my people! Enter the holy land which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin."
PICKTHAL: O my people! Go into the holy land which Allah hath ordained for you. Turn not in flight, for surely ye turn back as losers:
SHAKIR: O my people! enter the holy land which Allah has prescribed for you and turn not on your backs for then you will turn back losers."

"Sura 9:5
?Then when the Sacred Months have passed, kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and observe the Islamic lifestyle, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful.? - Does this sound like a peaceful religion to you?"

"009.005
YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

"Sura 16:126
"If ye punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith ye were afflicted." Yet Ariel Sharon's nonviolent, if provocative, visit to the Temple Mount was met with rioting,
including the use of firebombs and AK-47's."

"016.126
YUSUFALI: And if ye do catch them out, catch them out no worse than they catch you out: But if ye show patience, that is indeed the best (course) for those who are patient.
PICKTHAL: If ye punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith ye were afflicted. But if ye endure patiently, verily it is better for the patient.
SHAKIR: And if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted; but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient."

"Sura 17:4
"And We [Allah] gave (clear) warning to the children of Israel in the Book, that twice would they do mischief on the earth and be elated with mighty arrogance (and twice would they be punished)!" The succeeding verses tell us that the punishment referred to was banishment from the land. But "twice" means twice, not three times; hence the Jews, having been banished from the land once by the Babylonians and a second time by Rome, will never again be banished from the land. According to the Qur'an, Israel is an eternal nation.

Moreover, 'twice would they do mischief on the earth' means twice, not three times; hence the Jews will never again do mischief on the earth. In particular, the Jews cannot bear moral responsibility for the Palestinian refugee problem."

"017.004
YUSUFALI: And We gave (Clear) Warning to the Children of Israel in the Book, that twice would they do mischief on the earth and be elated with mighty arrogance (and twice would they be punished)!
PICKTHAL: And We decreed for the Children of Israel in the Scripture: Ye verily will work corruption in the earth twice, and ye will become great tyrants.
SHAKIR: And We had made known to the children of Israel in the Book: Most certainly you will make mischief in the land twice, and most certainly you will behave insolently with great insolence."

"017.005
YUSUFALI: When the first of the warnings came to pass, We sent against you Our servants given to terrible warfare: They entered the very inmost parts of your homes; and it was a warning (completely) fulfilled.
PICKTHAL: So when the time for the first of the two came, We roused against you slaves of Ours of great might who ravaged (your) country, and it was a threat performed.
SHAKIR: So when the promise for the first of the two came, We sent over you Our servants, of mighty prowess, so they went to and fro among the houses, and it was a promise to be accomplished."

"017.007
YUSUFALI: If ye did well, ye did well for yourselves; if ye did evil, (ye did it) against yourselves. So when the second of the warnings came to pass, (We permitted your enemies) to disfigure your faces, and to enter your Temple as they had entered it before, and to visit with destruction all that fell into their power.
PICKTHAL: (Saying): If ye do good, ye do good for your own souls, and if ye do evil, it is for them (in like manner). So, when the time for the second (of the judgments) came (We roused against you others of Our slaves) to ravage you, and to enter the Temple even as they entered it the first time, and to lay waste all that they conquered with an utter wasting.
SHAKIR: If you do good, you will do good for your own souls, and if you do evil, it shall be for them. So when the second promise came (We raised another people) that they may bring you to grief and that they may enter the mosque as they entered it the first time, and that they might destroy whatever they gained ascendancy over with utter destruction."

"Sura 17:104
The Jews' return from 19 centuries of exile is actually the fulfillment of Islamic prophecy. Sura 17:104 says that 'And we said to the Children of Israel afterwards, "Go live into this land. When the final prophecy comes to pass, we will summon you all in one group."'"

"017.104
YUSUFALI: And We said thereafter to the Children of Israel, "Dwell securely in the land (of promise)": but when the second of the warnings came to pass, We gathered you together in a mingled crowd.
PICKTHAL: And We said unto the Children of Israel after him: Dwell in the land; but when the promise of the Hereafter cometh to pass We shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations.
SHAKIR: And We said to the Israelites after him: Dwell in the land: and when the promise of the next life shall come to pass, we will bring you both together in judgment."

"Sura 60:9
Moreover, Sura 60:9 forbids aiding the enemies of the Muslim people. Contrast this with the Palestinians' continued support of Saddam Hussein, whose hands are red with the blood of Iranian, Kurdish, and Kuwaiti Muslims."

"060.009
YUSUFALI: Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.
PICKTHAL: Allah forbiddeth you only those who warred against you on account of religion and have driven you out from your homes and helped to drive you out, that ye make friends of them. Whosoever maketh friends of them - (All) such are wrong-doers.
SHAKIR: Allah only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of (your) religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust."

"Sura 83:1
'Woe to those that deal in fraud'; yet Yasir Arafat reneged on his promise to guard Joseph's Tomb in Nablus after the Israeli troops withdrew."

"083.001
YUSUFALI: Woe to those that deal in fraud,-
PICKTHAL: Woe unto the defrauders:
SHAKIR: Woe to the defrauders,"
 

dszd0g

Golden Member
Jun 14, 2000
1,226
0
0
Originally posted by: Sultan
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Sultan, I have a question for you. Do you believe in "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and what do you think its impact has been on Islamic religious teachings and culture?

I have not read this protocol, nor aware of its contents. I am sorry to not be able to answer your question. Hopefully I will get a chance to read this, sooner than later.

Originally posted by: cwjerome
If you are not aware of the contents of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" then I think you're not qualified to speak with any authority on this OP. :(

These documents do not directly have anything to do with Islam. The only relationship I see to Islam is the anti-semitism that is still rampant in the middle east.

"The Encyclopædia Britannica describes the Protocols as a 'fraudulent document that served as a pretext and rationale for anti-Semitism in the early 20th century.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P..._of_the_Elders_of_Zion

"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a forgery made in Russia for the Okhrana (secret police), which
blames the Jews for the country's ills. It was first privately printed in 1897 and was made public in 1905. It is copied from a nineteenth century novel by Hermann Goedsche (Biarritz, 1868) and claims that a secret Jewish cabal is plotting to take over the world."

http://skepdic.com/protocols.html
http://www.adl.org/special_rep...ls/protocols_intro.asp

This is a document to be aware of, but you are not missing anything by not reading it, Sultan. I hope cwjerome does not believe the documents. I assume he is implying that because some of the Arab world still believes the documents are true, is why some people think poorly of those people.

More recently, the Egyptian state-owned publisher al-Ahram editorialized in 1995 in a foreword to a translation of Shimon Peres' book The New Middle East:

"When The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were discovered, some 200 years ago, and translated in various languages, including Arabic, the World Zionist Organization attempted to deny the existence of the plot, and claimed forgery. The Zionists even endeavored to purchase all the existing copies, in order to prevent their circulation. But today, Shimon Peres proves unequivocally that the Protocols are authentic, and that they tell the truth."

An article in the Egyptian state-owned newspaper al-Akhbar on February 3, 2002 stated:

"All the evils that currently affect the world are the doings of Zionism. This is not surprising, because the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which were established by their wise men more than a century ago, are proceeding according to a meticulous and precise plan and time schedule, and they are proof that even though they are a minority, their goal is to rule the world and the entire human race."

In 2002, Egyptian state-owned television, as well as numerous Arabic satellite television stations, aired an Egyptian-produced 41-part historical drama entitled Horseman Without a Horse, featuring the Protocols as a major plot element.

Many Arab governments fund the publication of new printings of the Protocols, and teach them in their schools as historical fact. See Arabs and anti-Semitism for more information.

The American retail chain, Wal-Mart, was criticized for selling a The Protocols of the Elders of Zion on its website -- with a description that suggested it might be genuine. It was withdrawn from sale in September 2004, as 'a business decision'.

"Thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands, of Jews have died because of this infamous forgery."

http://ddickerson.igc.org/protocols.html
 

dszd0g

Golden Member
Jun 14, 2000
1,226
0
0
Originally posted by: Aimster
Facts on Jesus:

* that the Jews planned to kill Jesus but Allah had promised to save him from death (Surah 3:55-56)

"003.055
YUSUFALI: Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.
PICKTHAL: (And remember) when Allah said: O Jesus! Lo! I am gathering thee and causing thee to ascend unto Me, and am cleansing thee of those who disbelieve and am setting those who follow thee above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then unto Me ye will (all) return, and I shall judge between you as to that wherein ye used to differ.
SHAKIR: And when Allah said: O Isa, I am going to terminate the period of your stay (on earth) and cause you to ascend unto Me and purify you of those who disbelieve and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the day of resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, so l will decide between you concerning that in which you differed.

003.056
YUSUFALI: "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
PICKTHAL: As for those who disbelieve I shall chastise them with a heavy chastisement in the world and the Hereafter; and they will have no helpers.
SHAKIR: Then as to those who disbelieve, I will chastise them with severe chastisement in this world and the hereafter, and they shall have no helpers."

Is that how that is interpreted?

That is definitely not a fact. There is a lot of historical evidence that it was not the Jews who wanted Jesus crucified and that the crucifixion can only be blamed on Pontius Pilate, the Roman Pro-Consul of Palestine. However, the Roman Catholics were not going to accept this blame, so it is easier to just blame it on the Jews. If you mean by fact, what the Quran says, please say so. I mean no offense by this, but I do not accept any holy book as fact as it has no scientific basis.

A lot of biblical scholars believe the gospels assign blame to the Jews to win favor with the Romans. As stated in this thread, one has to look at what was happening at the time. Pope John Paul II has called the age-old anti-Semitic theology that the Jews bear responsibility for the death of Jesus an "unjust and erroneous interpretation of Christian scriptures."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4371832/
http://www.texnews.com/1998/religion/passion0411.html

Almost all scholars believe that the Flavius Josephus account of Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews in 93 is at least modified by Christian scribes if not completely added as it does not hold up to modern analysis. "The consensus in 2004 is that the passage is mainly genuine, but has suffered corruption, whether deliberate or accidental." This leaves the question open whether the Jews had any involvement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

This leaves the main other historical source as Tacitus a Roman orator, lawyer, and senator (55-115 C.E.) from the Annals, XV: 44.

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.11.xv.html

Another historical source is the Nicene Creed which also assigns blame to Pontius Pilatus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

That "Pilate was personally convinced of Jesus' innocence but was weak and cowardly and vacillating and yielded to the pressure of the crowd" does not stand up to historical evidence either. Philo's Legatio which is a surviving contemporary work refers to Pilate as "a man of inflexible, stubborn, and cruel disposition,... a spiteful and angry person" and describes "his venality, his violence, his thefts, his assaults, his abusive behaviour, his frequent executions of untried prisoners, and his endless savage ferocity." The examples given in Legatio do not represent a man who would yield to a crowd.

Also, if the Jews had wanted him dead they had their own religious law enforcement where the capital punishment was stoning rather than crucifixion. There was no reason they would have gone to Pontius Pilatus to punish a Jew. It just does not add up.

http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?id=749

How does Islam now explain the historical sources that say that Jesus was crucified?
 

Sultan

Banned
Feb 21, 2002
2,297
1
0
Originally posted by: dszd0g
Originally posted by: Sultan
Religiously speaking, martyrdom is a great achievement. Thats the first point.

Could you elaborate?

Please read the concept of Shahada (martyrdom) here: Shahada

Therefore, the quotes you provide above are no different than what your parents and family would say regarding your giving your life away.

Maybe I left out the context of the above stories. Those were people killing civilians.

The first case involved bombing a discotheque and killing 20 teenagers.
http://www.israelinsider.com/c.../articles/sec_0049.htm

The second case involved blowing up a bus with women and children on board, the link I provided showed pictures of some of the victims (scroll down):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/861590/posts

My parents told me once if I ever commited a serious crime they would be the first in line to turn me in to the police. I believe they would be ashamed and horrified if I did a crime like the above.

Why are whole neighborhoods proud of these murderers?
I dont know. I am not supportive of their actions. I was also not aware of the target of their suicide attack. I believe after 50 years of living under occupation, watching their family and friends die against an overwhelming power, these people have had their nuts come lose. I see it as an act of crime and/or venegence. It does not have anything to do with Islam.

A case these neighborhoods may make if they wish to link it to Islamic teachings would be that Israel practices conscription. Every male above the age of 18 has to undergo military service. I still dont see how bombing a discotheque or a bus would fall within Islamic teachings.

The above quote was mainly in reference to the Iraqi resistance. However, since you have also associated it with the Palestinian cause, I have no qualms. In both cases, I speak only of those who strike military targets, not civilian.

From my understanding, Israel is crawling with Israeli troops. If someone wants to strike a military target one is not hard to come by. I can understand Palestinians who throw rocks at Israeli soldiers and tanks in the occupied territories.

If the Palestinians only attacked military targets in the occupied territories, the Israelis would pull out of the occupied territories maybe with the exception of right around Jerusalem. The problem is that the Israelis are being forced to do something to defend themselves. They should be more careful about cutting down the civilian casualties.

This is a military strategy and a political debate. I wish this conflict would be resolved somehow. I dont see the actions of Palestinians who bomb discotheques and buses as anything but terrorism.

Which reminds me,
Another question, what is the religious significance of Jerusalem to the Muslim religion? Arafat wanted to be buried in Jerusalem. Palestinians make as big of a deal about Jerusalem as the Jews do, but I am not aware of any reason for this other than not being willing to make any compromises and not wanting to let the Jews have what they want. For Jews, Jerusalem is a bigger deal than Mecca is to Muslims, but is it of any religious import to Muslims?

Jerusalem is the second holiest city after Mecca for the Muslims. It was the site of the first Qibla before the site became the Ka'aba in Mecca. Please read more here: Al-Quds

Many in this forum agree that the conflict in Iraq was completely wrong. So some stop far short of referring it to it as I do. Since you've been reading my other posts, I have defined terrorism using a direct reference to a dictionary and clearly pointed out how the Iraq conflict is by that very definition a terroirst action.

I am against what we are doing in Iraq. I am willing to call the Iraqis going after our troops freedom fighters. The ones who are targetting Iraqi civilians are terrorists (I can't figure that one out?).

I agree with your viewpoint. I also stand by what I said about the US Forces.

Islam has VERY strict rules of engagements in military conflicts. No unarmed civilian, aged men, women, children and EVEN trees is to be hurt.

Unfortunately this does not seem to be the Islam that is being taught to a number of Muslims, is it? What do you think the US should have done? (I have had my ideas, but I am curious to hear yours first).

Thank you for clarifying.

The US should not do ANYTHING. I dont understand why the US should act as an influencing force in everything. Read Osama bin Laden's speech. He asks if we think he hates the West and the ideals of freedom, etc, why do you think he didnt attack a country like Sweden? Why the USA? Ask that to yourself. Let me know what answer you come up with.

Btw, I'm most impressed by your discussion and factual representation of claims. Thank you.