conspiracy surrounding Islam

Please help me to understand why people aren't allowed to say anything negative about Islam or even draw cartoons about it. Please read the whole thing to hear the conspiracy part. I don't want this to turn in to a "yeah but!" kinda of argument. I really think I am on to something here.

There was a obscene image of the virgin Mary and when Catholics complained about it we were told that "hey, that is a consequence of free speech. Get over it."

When someone used feces for "critical art" of catholicism again we are told we have to deal with it.

When a very small percentage of priests were (rightly accused and punished) of improper acts with children and, in some less nororious cases, adults, judgment was instantly passed against the whole catholic church and its members.

There have been other, similar things towards non Catholic Christians. Antiabortion wackos are instantly pounced upon as the example of all christians. If one dare suggests that perhaps these are extremists, that person is shouted down. Extremists apparently, only exist in Islam. The wackos are the exception in Islam, but apparently the norm in Christianity.

I think that there is a true conspiracy here, and it is not the one most people say it is.

Islam is submission. That is the true goal of the New World Order. Submission of everyone. We knew that religion was to be involved in the NWO takeover. We knew massive amounts of money were involved. We knew oil was involved. We all assumed it was the Christian Right and wrongly assumed it was our oil executives.

We've had it wrong all along, the NWO isn't European or Christian. It is Middle Eastern in origin and is using Islam to achieve it.

You know,actually you are stating something that I have felt since the whole 9/11 disaster. I think that Islam is very much a religion of control, and, of course, we all know that the NWO is all about control. Islam doesn't want any other religion to exist,much like some factions of Christianity; Islam and the Hindus have been fighting over Kashmir for ages.

Islam is anti-Christian, anti-Jewish; anti-Hindu;anti-Buddhist;anti-New age; they are against any beliefs that doesn't resemble their own. The coming world dictator, you probably would term him the anti-Christ, will also be this way. What better pedestal for him to stand upon other than Islam or extremist Christianity. Of course, from what I know of the coming dictator, he will probably hide behind the cloak of Christianity, but that is beside the point.

You made a good point OP.

[edit on 18-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by Marid Audran
Please help me to understand why people aren't allowed to say anything negative about Islam or even draw cartoons about it. Please read the whole thing to hear the conspiracy part. I don't want this to turn in to a "yeah but!" kinda of argument. I really think I am on to something here.

There was a obscene image of the virgin Mary and when Catholics complained about it we were told that "hey, that is a consequence of free speech. Get over it."

When someone used feces for "critical art" of catholicism again we are told we have to deal with it.

When a very small percentage of priests were (rightly accused and punished) of improper acts with children and, in some less nororious cases, adults, judgment was instantly passed against the whole catholic church and its members.

There have been other, similar things towards non Catholic Christians. Antiabortion wackos are instantly pounced upon as the example of all christians. If one dare suggests that perhaps these are extremists, that person is shouted down. Extremists apparently, only exist in Islam. The wackos are the exception in Islam, but apparently the norm in Christianity.

I think that there is a true conspiracy here, and it is not the one most people say it is.

Islam is submission. That is the true goal of the New World Order. Submission of everyone. We knew that religion was to be involved in the NWO takeover. We knew massive amounts of money were involved. We knew oil was involved. We all assumed it was the Christian Right and wrongly assumed it was our oil executives.

We've had it wrong all along, the NWO isn't European or Christian. It is Middle Eastern in origin and is using Islam to achieve it.

I think because Christianity some-what accepts... (or helps/tolerates) non-believers or back-sliders and the islamic faith does not tolerate any back-sliding or non-believing...

Its apparent that acceptance/tolerance is far more powerful for 'converting' than killing, or using violent words or nature.
Do you know what I mean?

Originally posted by Marid Audran
Please help me to understand why people aren't allowed to say anything negative about Islam or even draw cartoons about it. Please read the whole thing to hear the conspiracy part. I don't want this to turn in to a "yeah but!" kinda of argument. I really think I am on to something here.

The reason is fundamental: Most non-Islamic belief systems are morally centered around the concept of "good vs. evil" or "right vs wrong" while Islam's moral center focuses on the idea of honor vs. dishonor (this is where the practice of honor killings come from).

If Muslims percieve themselves to have been dishonored (Mohamed cartoons for example) then they must strive to regain their honor by compelling those who dishonored them to submit in one way or another. Forcing censorship of literature they deem un-Islamic and "offensive" is a kind of submission and I believe is very dangerous if it's allowed.

People need to realize that no one has the right NOT to be offended. It's virtually impossible to impose a right such as this because everyone has different levels of sentiment and it's impossible to know where one's "offensive" limit is.

The problem for Islam and, therefore Muslims, is that its/their honor is dependent upon the respect and recognition by others. In other words, non-Muslims are empowered to, and have control of, the honor or dishonor of Muslims; and the only way a non-Muslim can redeem himself is by submission to Islam or death.

In regard to my previous post, I offer this website wherein Islamic scolar, Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid, provides answers, with Islamic references, to many questions sent in by visitors. Here, he answers the question about what should be done to someone who criticizes or mocks the Prophet Muhamad:

The scholars are unanimously agreed that a Muslim who insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) becomes a kaafir and an apostate who is to be executed. This consensus was narrated by more than one of the scholars, such as Imaam Ishaaq ibn Raahawayh, Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Qaadi ‘Iyaad, al-Khattaabi and others. Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 2/13-16

The scholars are agreed that if such a person repents sincerely and regrets what he has done, this repentance will benefit him on the Day of Resurrection and Allaah will forgive him.

But they differed as to whether his repentance should be accepted in this world and whether that means he is no longer subject to the sentence of execution.

Maalik and Ahmad were of the view that it should not be accepted, and that he should be killed even if he has repented.

These are the kinds of things being taught in many mosques and madrassas in the US/Europe

Take the time to read some of the questions and answers from this site. Also; take note that when you go to www.devilsdeception.com you will be led to this Islam Q&A website. Non-muslims are regarded as "devils" in the eyes of many Muslims--even so-called moderate ones. It's no secret that Nation of Islam's leader, Louis Farrakhan, has refered to white people as "white devils".

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Islam is anti-Christian, anti-Jewish; anti-Hindu;anti-Buddhist;anti-New age; they are against any beliefs that doesn't resemble their own.

For someone named "Speaker of Truth," you sure do make false claims. Can you tell me why Surrahs in the Quran state:

Surah - 9:11 "But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor due, then they are your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge."

Surah - "Al Baqarah" 2:62 "Those who believe, Jews, Nazarenes (Christians) and Sabaeans - whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good deeds - shall be rewarded by their Lord; they have nothing to fear nor are they saddened."

[edit on 18-9-2006 by DJMessiah]

Originally posted by Marid Audran
Please help me to understand why people aren't allowed to say anything negative about Islam or even draw cartoons about it.

?
I don't know where you have been lately, but a heck of a lot of people are doing just that, and its perfectly legal.

There was a obscene image of the virgin Mary and when Catholics complained about it we were told that "hey, that is a consequence of free speech. Get over it."

I seem to recall those protections extending to criticising islam and making blasphemous images of islamic religious heros.

If one dare suggests that perhaps these are extremists, that person is shouted down.

Well, sure, the peopel called extreme insist that they're not, but the general public doesn't say such.

We've had it wrong all along, the NWO isn't European or Christian. It is Middle Eastern in origin and is using Islam to achieve it.

The problem is, Islam has inclusions in its regulations on the structure of an islamic society that require peacable interactions with members of other religions. It also requires that rulers not be tyrants and despots and puts the opinions of the community into the consideration of law, and is extremely, almost obsesively, concerned with 'justice'. That is all anti-NWO.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
If Muslims percieve themselves to have been dishonored (Mohamed cartoons for example) then they must strive to regain their honor by compelling those who dishonored them to submit in one way or another.

They are struggling against what you are calling the dishonoring act because it is perceived as evil. They are concerned with good versus evil, they consider islam to be good, and attacks upon islam, therefore are attacks on that which is good, and therefore de facto evil. The motivation is basically the same as in christainity or judaism. Satan is at work in the world, the muslims beleive, especially the shia, and he has to be resisted, this is just like the christians.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Islam is anti-Christian, anti-Jewish; anti-Hindu;anti-Buddhist;anti-New age; they are against any beliefs that doesn't resemble their own

That is patently and observably untrue. The middle east is one of the most religiously diverse places on the planet, and its religious communities are some of the longest lived. When the christians came into contact with the pagans, they stuffed snakes down their throats and killed them if they didn't convert. As a result, europe was practically exlcusively christian. When the muslims expanded, they simply did NOT wipe out every religion they came into contact with, and as a result, there are muslims, eastern christians, catholics, druze, yezidi, zoroastrians, hindus, jews, samaritans, and others. Saying that islam is violently anti-other religions is nonsense.

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Can you tell me why Surrahs in the Quran state:

Surah - 9:11 "But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor due, then they are your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge."

This is saying they are brethren in religion ONLY if they comply with the requirements of Islam repent by Islam, worship in acordance with Islam and pay the Jizya tax (pay the poor due).

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Surah - "Al Baqarah" 2:62 "Those who believe, Jews, Nazarenes (Christians) and Sabaeans - whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good deeds - shall be rewarded by their Lord; they have nothing to fear nor are they saddened."

Uh huh....by their lord. And as long as they were in line with the Prophet all was well. But as soon as they brok treaty:

2-64. Then, even after that, ye turned away, and if it had not been for the grace of Allah and His mercy ye had been among the losers.

2-65. And ye know of those of you who broke the Sabbath, bow We said unto them: Be ye apes, despised and hated!

Yep. This si the part where the Jews are considered to have turned into apes.

And then there is this little admonition from the Qur'an:

5-51. O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
This is saying they are brethren in religion ONLY if they comply with the requirements of Islam repent by Islam, worship in acordance with Islam and pay the Jizya tax (pay the poor due).

Incorrect. Repent means if they ask God for forgiveness for any sins they commit. It's a basic teaching of any faith. I had already covered the Jizya tax in another thread where I said:

Since Muslims paid Zakaat (Charity), non Muslims were not required to pay it. Instead the jizya was only for non-Muslim men who were capable of enlisting in the Army, but chose not to. With the jizya, the men were protected by the Muslims armies in the lands and were not required to fight along side the Muslims. The jizya was only a protection tax, and only given to able bodied men who were capable of fighting in the army, but chose to pay for protection.

Uh huh....by their lord. And as long as they were in line with the Prophet all was well.

Incorrect once again. The name Allah is also used in Christianity and Judaism. The Jews have been using the term "Allah" (and through their writting as "Ellah") to refer to "One God." In Aramaic, God is pronounced "Allah" as well. This holds the same meaning in that Allah in arabic means "One God," hence the English translation using the capital "G" to denote a singular God.

But as soon as they brok treaty:

2-64. Then, even after that, ye turned away, and if it had not been for the grace of Allah and His mercy ye had been among the losers.

2-65. And ye know of those of you who broke the Sabbath, bow We said unto them: Be ye apes, despised and hated!

Incorrect again. Why not post what was written before it? It has nothing to do with a peace treaty with Muhammad. Read 2:63 and you will see it is reffering to when Moses came back down from the mountain and saw that some of the "jews" were worshipping a golden calf:



Surrah 2:63-65. And remember We took your covenant and We raised above you (The towering height) of Mount (Sinai) : (Saying): "Hold firmly to what We have given you and bring (ever) to remembrance what is therein: Perchance ye may fear Allah." But ye turned back thereafter: Had it not been for the Grace and Mercy of Allah to you, ye had surely been among the lost. And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected."

Clearly, this is the response to the ones who broke the Sabath and worship the golden calf. It says they are like apes, who are despised and rejected.

Yep. This si the part where the Jews are considered to have turned into apes.

Where does it say they turned into apes? It says they are like apes who are despised and rejected.

And then there is this little admonition from the Qur'an:

5-51. O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.

You're misquoting. Read further and you will see that it only denies friendship with Christians and Jews who betray the Muslims as friends.

5:51-53 O you who believe, do not take certain Jews and Christians as allies; these are allies of one another. Those among you who ally themselves with these belong with them. GOD does not guide the transgressors. You will see those who harbor doubt in their hearts hasten to join them, saying, "We fear lest we may be defeated." May GOD bring victory, or a command from Him, that causes them to regret their secret thoughts. The believers will then say, "Are these the same people who swore by GOD solemnly that they were with you?" Their works have been nullified; they are the losers.

Ask me more questions, please, and I will do what can to help. Salaam.

[edit on 19-9-2006 by DJMessiah]

DJMessiah;

You can answer all the questions you like until you are blue in the face. The fact is that it's not me nor those like me you need to convince but rather, those Muslims, such as that scholar I pointed out; and other fundamentalists and literalists who moderate Muslims, such as yourself, proclaim are hijacking your religion. You need to point out thoses mosques and madrasas that preach and teach this virulent form of Islam and take back those Mosques from the "extremists".

You, as a "moderate" Muslim, should be writing letters to the editor of as many in the media you can to denounce the actions of "extremists" and, to give yourself more credibility, proclaim your support that Israel has the right to its own statehood. You should include in your communication your disgust with Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and what they represent. If you know of a mosque the foists fundamental Islam (there are many) you should be out front with your bull horn denouncing what's being preached inside.

Until "moderate" Muslims do these basic things there will constantly be those like me who highlight the ugly side of Islam. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to do these things.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Until "moderate" Muslims do these basic things there will constantly be those like me who highlight the ugly side of Islam. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to do these things.

You can't imagine how many times I've answered this on here and in real life.

The problem isn't that "moderate" Muslims are not speaking, the problem is that we have no media outlet to speak through. There are plenty Muslim Imams/Mullah/scholars who denounce terrorism, violence, and any inhuman treatment of any human all over the world. In Georgia alone, every Mosque I've visited, the Imam preached only love. They asked the Muslims not to give into hate, but to teach peace instead. The problem is that the media will not focus on us. They make money off of showing the same violent act over and over again, but not once will they show a person condeming the act. I've been searching for a very long time now to find a Muslim who has an extremist view and have a theological debate with them, but haven't found any. I will however speak with the Imam from that site you posted. I can say without a doubt that when people misquote the Quran or try to hurt Islam, they don't remedy the problem, only worsen it.

If you want to help fix the problem, don't misquote the Quran, but read it and know what to say to the Muslims who do have an extremist view. I would suggest reading these threads to see my replies on where the Quran states that Muslims are only to defend, not commit any offences, and give peace when peace is asked:

Here and here.

[edit on 19-9-2006 by DJMessiah]

Hi all I thought this topic would be interesting but I think the views expressed are a bit distorted. The only thing that gives Islam a bad name is the fundamentalists and the extremists having said that I think the general Muslim people then get brainwashed far too easily and start doing silly things like burning american flags etc...

Originally posted by Marid Audran
Please help me to understand why people aren't allowed to say anything negative about Islam or even draw cartoons about it. Please read the whole thing to hear the conspiracy part. I don't want this to turn in to a "yeah but!" kinda of argument. I really think I am on to something here.

There was a obscene image of the virgin Mary and when Catholics complained about it we were told that "hey, that is a consequence of free speech. Get over it."

I think any religion should be more open to criticism especially the major religions. However it was not long ago when Monty Pythons "Life of Brian" was deemed blasphemous and banned in a few British cities - so it would seem that catholics have a thorn in their ass as well and like to get their own way.

Its a good job we have freedom of speech isnt it.


G

I agree that religions should be more open to criticism more of a laugh for everyone, some real funny gags to be had

The difference between life of brian and danish cartoons is that I don't recall catholics around the world rioting and killing people over it.

Freedom of speech means just that and for everyone. You have the right to say whatever you want about my faith. I have the right to say whatever I want in response to that. I don't have the right to cause damage to property or hurt people. That's the fundamental difference here.

DJMessiah - I appreciate what you are saying, however, those who share your beliefs are largely silent on the world stage. I am not saying whether it is a silent majority or a silent minority (or a willful act of disinformation). Simply that what comes out of mosques around the world isn't so reconciliatory.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Saying that islam is violently anti-other religions is nonsense.

Surely you can't honestly believe this? Islam is violently us vs. them (note that I mean "us" as in we, not US as in united states). Look at the violence between sects of Islam. Shia vs. Sunni for instance.

It is this "us vs. them" mentality that, in my opinion makes Islam the right choice for a new world order. The necessity to divide people up in order to unify under one supreme power is absolute in the domination of humanity.

Just as some examples, the entire Sikh faith was born out of islamic intolerance of hindu.

Genocide committed in the name of Allah: 3,000,000 Bangladeshi Hindus Killed during the Pakistan-Bangladesh war in 1971. From 1894 to 1896 Abdul Hamid, Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, killed 150,000 Armenian Christians. In India, Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur along with his disciples was burned to death by the Moghul ruler Aurangzeb in 1675. Another Sikh, Bhai Mati Das was sawn into right and left halves while he was still alive. In July 1974, 4,000 Christians living in Cyprus were killed by Fahri Koroturk, president of Turkey and his Islamic army. From 1843 to 1846 10,000 Assyrian Christians including women and children were massacred by the Muslims. From 1915 to 1918 750,000 Assyrians were killed in the name of Islamic Jihad. In 1933 thousands of Assyrian villagers were murdered by the Iraqi soldiers in Northern Iraq. Since 1990 more than 10,000 Kashmiri Hindus have been brutally murdered by Islamic fundamentalists. Over 280,000 Ugandans killed during the reign of Idi Amin from 1971 to 1979. Over 30,000 Mauritanians have been killed by the Islamic dictators since 1960. In 1980, 20,000 Syrians were murdered under the rule of Hafez Al-Assad, President of Syria. Since 1992 120,000 Algerians have been murdered by the Islamic fundamentalist army.

That was only back to the year 1675. If we go longer back in time you might wanna know how the Hindu Kush (Hindu Slaughter) got the name.

[edit on 19-9-2006 by Marid Audran]

Originally posted by DJMessiah


I will however speak with the Imam from that site you posted. I can say without a doubt that when people misquote the Quran or try to hurt Islam, they don't remedy the problem, only worsen it.

If you want to help fix the problem, don't misquote the Quran, but read it and know what to say to the Muslims who do have an extremist view. I would suggest reading these threads to see my replies on where the Quran states that Muslims are only to defend, not commit any offences, and give peace when peace is asked:

[edit on 19-9-2006 by DJMessiah]

how are you so sure you are interpreting the quran correctly and the extremists aren't?
the answer cannot be founded on absolute truth.. .only on "faith".

the truth is... there are two prominent sides to isalm (moderate and extreme) and both believe they are interpreting the Quran correctly. However it is only one side that is having serious issues with modernity and giving those living assimilated in modernity more trouble then any extremist in any religion in again modernity.

today the extremist muslims pose more of a problem then christian extremists (abortion clinic bombings do not outweigh what the extremists muslims are doing).

how can i make that judgement? world war 3.

however... this just might be a large conspiracy.

so im open to other intepretations.




[edit on 19-9-2006 by krossfyter]

Originally posted by Marid Audran
That was only back to the year 1675. If we go longer back in time you might wanna know how the Hindu Kush (Hindu Slaughter) got the name.

I'd be curious to see your source. For example, I know the Armenians and Ottomans was not a matter of religion, but a matter of the Armenians attempting to break away from the Ottoman Empire with help from Russia. And your interpretation of Hindu Kush is also misleading...

The origin of the term "Hindu Kush" (and whether it translates as "Hindu Killer") is a point of contention. The earliest known use of this name was by the famous Muslim Berber traveller, Ibn Battūta c. 1334, who wrote: "Another reason for our halt was fear of the snow, for on the road there is a mountain called Hindūkūsh, which means "Slayer of Indians," because the slave boys and girls who are brought from Hind (India) die there in large numbers as a result of the extreme cold and the quantity of snow."

There are others who consider this origin to be a "folk etymology", and put forward alternate possibilities for its origin:
.....

en.wikipedia.org...

Here are the references you have requested
www.hindunet.org...

I prefer older, pre-"politically correct" revisionist histories.

to paraphrase some of the sources mentioned on that page:

# Encyclopedia Britannica, 15 th Ed, Vol.5, p.935, 1987
# Encyclopedia Britannica, 15 th Ed, Vol.14, pp.238-240, 1987
# Encyclopedia Britannica, 15 th Ed, Vol.13, pp.35-36, 1987

# The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great (as described by Arrian, Q.Curtius, Diodoros, Plutarch & Justin), By J.W.McCrindle, Methuen & Co., London, p.38, 1969

#An Advanced History of India, by R.C.Majumdar, H.C.Raychaudhuri, K.Datta, 2nd Ed., MacMillan and Co, London, pp.182-83, 1965

#The Cambridge History of India, Vol.IV - The Mughul Period, by W.Haig & R.Burn, S.Chand & Co., New Delhi, pp. 98-99, 1963