It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by koji_K
I agree to an extent, but when you have these things with any race throughout history, combined with people in positions of authority who are willing to take advantage of the situation, you have always gotten violence and destruction, regardless of race or religion.
I'm not defending the actions of these Muslims, but if it seems like I am, it's only because I'm calling it like I see it. I don't believe there is something inherent to Islam which causes this behaviour, the fault lies deeper, in the traits that all humans share and under the right circumstances will be brought out. Perhaps if there is a fault with Islam in particular, it is only that it is a young religion for its size, but I think it's naive to think that just because a group of people isn't Muslim, they aren't capable of violent riots and the like.
What demographic in human history hasn't had a phase marked by violence?
Originally posted by intrepid
Sounds like a text book answer to me. I lived through those times and some of it was about rights. Most weren't.
Originally posted by James Daniel
Text book answer? It's reality!
Anyway, you proved my point to a certain extent; however, you care to show me the ones that "weren't" about rights/freedom and that were caused significant destruction/unrest i.e. one race/religion affecting many people/races/countries?
Originally posted by James Daniel
What I am asking, is do you have proof to back up your opinion that these were for other reasons (similar to the Muslims reasons now) and that they caused significant destruction/upheaval (just like the Muslims today)?
Originally posted by James Daniel
No doubt Islam is a young religion. Unfortunately, it still promotes violence and destruction, which has been removed from most other religions. The Westerns leaders are not to blame for this, but the leaders of Islam itself. If you can show me evidence proving that Western leaders are taking advantage of this and promoting violence within Islam, please do show me.
Originally posted by jsobecky
Then they should have been rioting against those things. Also, these problems are present worldwide, yet only the fanatical muslims are rioting because of them.
Originally posted by T0byI'm glad the 'stop hating muslims' talk has mostly stopped now
Originally posted by Nakash
Christian militias in Africa commiting Genocide. The injustice of that sentence simply appals me. Christian minorities in Africa are genocided daily only so a Muslim propagandist can come and say it's the opposite. Hey, does Sudan ring a bell Jam?
Black African Muslims of Darfur have reportedly come under systematic bloody attacks by their Arab brethren. The United Nations estimates that up to 50,000 African Muslims of Darfur have died in the hands of an Arab militia known as Janjaweed reportedly backed by the government of Sudan.
Originally posted by James Daniel
If this is true, then why must we give in to their demands? Why must we put up with this behaviour? Does this mean we should allow this to escalate, as it seems to be doing? And most importantly, can you really be a Muslim, yet not follow the righten laws/rules?
Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
As far as the question of whether a muslim can be a muslim without following all the various sectarian tenants, I can't say if the Chrisitan parellels are acurate...
The Foundational Doctrines of Christian Reconstructionism
1. "God's covenant with Adam required him to exercise dominion over the earth and to subdue it (Gen. 1:26 ff) under God according to God's law-word."
2. "The restoration of that covenant relationship was the work of Christ, His grace to His elect people."
3. "The fulfillment of that covenant is their great commission: to subdue all things and all nations to Christ and His law-word."
The size of the group is unknown. Most Reconstructionists are active on the social and political front rather than affiliated with a particular denomination. The character of the movement is also difficult to pin down since it is more an intellectual trend than organizational. The difficulty of determining the size of the group has compounded especially in recent years. Many Reconstructionists will admit that the movement has been defunct since 1985, splintering into several factions. Another complication is the fact that many Reconstructionists would only recognize it politically, and not necessarily religiously. For example, Pat Robertson's views have always been characterized as Reconstructionist in theory, yet he repeatedly denies allegiance to the movement.