We're Being Programmed To Hate Muslims

reply to post by jimmyx


I said nothing about "true Islam" merely commented on the thing closer to the source. In case you haven't noticed any thought or concept or whatever mankind has can be twisted to suit whatever at some point.

My point is simple, in the past Islam was FAR more tolerant than they are portrayed now.

The life of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is a classic example of tolerance, of pluralism, of love of humanity and of upholding human equality. So tolerant was he of other faiths that once as the prayer time came and the Christians of Nijran who were on a visit to Madina had no place of their own to worship he invited them to offer their prayers at Masjid-e-Nabwi

Is Islam accommodative of pluralism? The literal meaning of Islam is peace. When Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) proclaimed his prophet-hood, Jews and Christians were at loggerheads. In this environment of ill-will and polarisation, he preached goodwill and harmony to realise the Divine plan, “Constantly the Quran points out that Muhammad had not come to cancel the older religions, to contradict their prophets or to start a new faith. His message is the same as that of Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, or Jesus.”

This spirit of tolerance and freedom of thought is reflected in the later periods as well. For instance, when the Jews were facing persecution through Spanish Inquisition, they found protection and shelter in Ottoman Empire. While commenting on this state of affairs a historian of that age remarked: “There are but few countries, even among those which are considered the most enlightened and the most civilised, where Jews enjoy a more complete equality than in Turkey [the Ottoman empire]. His Majesty, the Sultan, and the government of the Porte display towards Jews a spirit of largest toleration and liberalism.” (State, Islam and Religious Liberty in Modern Turkey: Reconfiguration of Religion in the Public Sphere, by Talip Kucukcan.)

SOURCE

Tolerance In Islam

Phase I: The Early Caliphs and Umayyads (610-750)

Conversion initially was neither required nor necessarily wished for

"The question of why people convert to Islam has always generated intense feeling. Earlier generations of European scholars believed that conversions to Islam were made at the point of the sword, and that conquered peoples were given the choice of conversion or death. It is now apparent that conversion by force, while not unknown in Muslim countries, was, in fact, rare. Muslim conquerors ordinarily wished to dominate rather than convert, and most conversions to Islam were voluntary. (...) In most cases worldly and spiritual motives for conversion blended together. Moreover, conversion to Islam did not necessarily imply a complete turning from an old to a totally new life. While it entailed the acceptance of new religious beliefs and membership in a new religious community, most converts retained a deep attachment to the cultures and communities from which they came."

SOURCE

The Ottoman Empire

One of the successes of the social structure of the Ottoman Empire was the unity that it caused among its highly varied populations through an organization named as millets. The Millets were the major religious groups that were allowed to establish their own communities under Ottoman rule. The Millets were established by retaining their own religious laws, traditions, and language under the general protection of the sultan. Plurality was the key to the longevity of the Empire.

SOURCE

Interesting quote I found while digging up the research again:

"Jim Jones, David Koresh and Meir Kahane do not typify Christianity and Judaism in the eyes of the civilized West, but those same eyes are prone to see Osama bin Laden and Mullah Muhammad Omar as typifying Islam," Richard Bulliet 2

reply to post by Cythraul


i h8 muslims end of, nobody likes a terrorist, tbh i didnt even read your post, if your sticking up for them, i refuse to.

Right... here's hoping that the right people read this, as it's directed towards half a dozen or so who hate Islam and don't want to see it defended.

I'm not denying the wrongs of Islam - trust me!!!! That's exactly WHY I opened my original post with a statement about my own Nationalistic beliefs and my own mistrust of Islam. I do not want my country turned into an Islamic Republic and I will fight to prevent that from happening. But don't you see - that's exactly why this agenda is so easy for TPTB to push - because they KNOW there are people who dislike Islam and who will sacrifice liberty to see it ousted from their general vicinity.

I know what Islam teaches and I don't like it one bit, but Islam is not spreading across the globe through its own devices. It has been ALLOWED to spread because of the traitors who rule western nations. Without those traitors Islam would be a relatively benevolent Middle-Eastern religion/culture with little cause or means to influence non-Muslim nations.

What I'm saying is that even if you hate Islam, please realise that to blame Muslims, and Muslims only, is NEVER going to solve the problem. Furthermore, open your mind just far enough to consider just who is going to benefit from friction between Muslims and non-Muslims. Then ask yourself how and why it has come to this. Is it because Islam is an unstoppable force? No! It's because:

- YOUR GOVERNMENT left the borders wide open.
- YOUR GOVERNMENT gave them generous welfare.
- YOUR GOVERNMENT are killing them in their own lands, causing them to migrate to your land with little or no respect.
- YOUR GOVERNMENT are giving them special rights, such as the (EU) Human Rights Act.
- YOUR GOVERNMENT are in bed with the media outlets who go on and on about what Muslims are up to.

None of this would be happening without your government's support. WHY are your government supporting this? Why do they demand that you support their wars against Islam and in the next breath that you welcome Islam as your new master? How can they increase control over you? By helping you to love Muslims, or helping you to hate them and eventually commit violence against one another?

DIVIDE & CONQUER! It's the key.

The only chance ever of defeating Interolance is to give Tolerance first. Tolerance does not mean agreement, but it means being strong enough to grant others the right to exist.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The only chance ever of defeating Interolance is to give Tolerance first. Tolerance does not mean agreement, but it means being strong enough to grant others the right to exist.

...and to think differently,

right?

reply to post by Cythraul


Our founding fathers came to America, among other things for freedom of religion. Another way of looking at that is to get away from the church of England. Ironically, somehow we're up to our asses in these in your face muslims. So what is a nation? Culture, language and borders. I've had enough of the muslim culture, and damned if I'll be subject to sharia law. So they should take their culture and language and get it the hell out of our borders. And take that jihadist Obama with them.
One world government? Here's the deal. I won't be subject to it. That simple. Want my weapons? Come get them if you dare. Leave me the hell alone. Whats mine is mine. I'm Joe Anyguy, and I'm starting to get pissed. Thing is, there are millions more just like me. We aren't having it anymore. It starts in November and builds from there.
I think of John Wayne and the little man from the federal gummint comes to his ranch and tells him he's got to get rid of his cattle and pigs, because the muslims don't like it. Also, he'll need to inspect my barn to make sure it's free of pesticides. Not only that, he'd like to see my permit, and collect half my profits so that he can pay folks who decided not to work as hard, and hire more little men with glasses to hassle the other ranchers. I ask myself, what would John Wayne do? Then, I do it. That simple. I am a free man, and I will enforce my freedom should anyone try to take it away. What's this got to do with your post. Don't really know. Went off on a tangent there. But I'm pissed, damn it, and I'm sick of anybody who would dare to tell me how to live. Freedom is a right from god. I am free, and I will fight you over it. I think that's what the tea party thing is all about. Either way, I probably shouldn't have had that fourth cup of coffee. I'm free, damn it. Free.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


All religions are taken out of context and used for means of power, repression and propaganda. The Romans adoption of Christianity is a perfect example - The Roman Catholic Church contradicts the entire teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus preached against organised religion and individual spirituality.

If we removed the organisations and structures of religion, I guarantee there would be religious peace and harmony across the world. The problem is not religion, per say, it is organised religion that is the problem.

I had an interesting discussion with a Muslim friend on tolerance. He said it is best for us, who are raised in the Abrahamic religions, to refer to ourselves as "believers" instead of Christian, Jew or Muslim. As the Qu'ran states (which I have read and own)

2:62 Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

Of course, the media and TPTB will not quote you a Qu'ran verse that informs us that all believers, regardless of religion, will go to heaven.

reply to post by Skyfloating


It ain't about tolerance. It's about boundries. This generation has had it rammed down they're throat. Tolerance. Diversity. Blah blah blah. Here's the deal. In my house, in my building, I don't have to tolerate sh#t. I decide what to tolerate. It's called freedom. And if I don't want a muslim goat herder in my front yard, he'd better stay the hell out of my front yard. Diversity? I have a business. My idea of diversity is having several employees, each with a different skill set. That's diversity. That's meritocracy. Damned if I will hire somebody of a different race so I can make a politician "feel good". Want a job. Get some skills. I am free to decide what to tolerate and what kind of diversity, if any, I require. This is supposed to be a free country. What they meant by all men are created equal is that they, at birth, possess the same god given right of freedom. Doesn't mean they all stay equal. Let's face it. There are people who are extremely overpaid at $7.25 per hour. The federal gummint was intended to uphold the constitution and raise an army. That's pretty much it. Enforce your freedom. Stay the hell out of mine.

reply to post by astrogolf


honestly, thank you for proving the OP's point

[edit on 6-9-2010 by infinite]

reply to post by astrogolf

Listen, astrogolf. I'm sympathetic, I genuinely am. You and I want the same thing (just a little easier for you to get it over there in the land of the free, whilst I'm stick here in '1984' Britain ).

I'm not telling you you should accept Islam, or Muslims, or any group of people for that matter. I'm actually asking you not to dishonour the thing you love most - liberty! I believe your government and my government are going to use Muslim immigration, and the subsequent friction caused, to introduce new laws which will steal everyone's liberties. Yes, that includes Muslims, but it also includes you. All I'm asking is that whilst you're ducked behind that wall shooting away at x number of Mohammeds, you keep one eye firmly on what your government are getting out of it all.

[edit on 6/9/2010 by Cythraul]

reply to post by Skyfloating


Here's the deal. I am free to tolerate whatever the hell I want. And to not tolerate whatever the hell I want. Here's the deal. Spend a million opening an engineering firm, then go staff it with three musliims and three illegal mexicans, none of which speak english or know anything about modern american engineering. Hope you tolerate failure well. Tolerance my butt. It's about freedom. I don't have to support anybody. Don't even have to like them. I only have to not shoot them. That's tolerance, baby. American style. Diversity is when the gummint stays the hell out of my hiring practices and I get people with various skill sets, as opposed to incompetent suit filers looking for free benefits and a place to say "that's not in my job description" or "It's because I'm black ( brown, green yellow whatever) isn't it? The federal government should have about 500 employess and an army of about 5 million. Congress should meet about once a year, or whenever there's a real threat from our true enemies, China and Russia. Congressmen shoud make about $200 per day, for a total of no more than 1k per year. Then, we would be a great free country.

Most of the people hating Muslims never even left the US...so their whole viewpoint is based on biased "opinion shows" in the media. Which is why Beck & Co., who are 100% clueless shills, are such a danger to the US. Their whole paranoia show is based on lack of knowledge/education, faith based opinions, and $$$.

reply to post by Cythraul


I feel your pain, and if I were you, I'd get the hell out of England. It's not a free country. Maybe the colonies will be free again one day. People over here aren't buying what they're (the government) selling. Your government is out of control, even more so than ours. Time for folks to make a stand and impose freedom within the borders. Raise a little hell. For the love of god, you guys can't even own a hand gun. That's crazy. How the hell do you defend yourself against a home invasion? It's a crazy world. Too many laws, way to much government. Time to make a stand.

I think we are being programmed to dislike religion in general. And I honestly don't see a problem with that. I've had a love hate relationship with religion most of my life, but being challenged to make it work I have found peace in what I believe. Now I believe more in Christ than ever before. But I recognize my religion is made by man in accordance to God's word. Sure I believe the Bible is true 100% but how people interpret it, and worst off how they force that interpretation, is troubling.

I think it is very good that we are being trained to be unwelcoming to religion for religion has to be the best of humanity, not the worst. If the Muslims get the short end of the stick for this, perhaps it is time for a reformation.

I think hate is a strong word however, because only the few people overboard actually hate. I simply am unwelcoming towards it. But I don't hate it. There is certainly a discipline in faith to be learned from it. But that does not mean I welcome it. I am skeptical to all things made by man. And in accordance to that, Islam to me is made by man, so I am skeptical.

reply to post by astrogolf


It`s about the intensity-level of intolerance. I understand your pains.

But whats your intensity-level? Where does dislike become hate? And where does hate become violence? And where does violence become war? And where does war backfire on you?

reply to post by Cythraul


Since I´m someone who has posted critically of Islam and Muslims before on ATS, I will hereby say that I fully agree with you. I dont care for Islam much. But I dislike our own bigots and racists even more.

[edit on 6-9-2010 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Gorman91
I think we are being programmed to dislike religion in general.

I agree, that is the ultimate goal. But (aside from Judaism) Islam is still quite formidable and orthadox. Those of a Muslim culture are not ready for Atheism yet like the Christians have been for some time. And that's one of the very reasons why Muslims must be westernised through encouraged mass-migration. Islam is used as a weapon against Europe and the west, but once that has succeeded, it'll be time to turn on the Muslims - and we're already being prepared for that now.

reply to post by MrXYZ


You can always count on some pinhead liberal to claim that the only reason anybody disagrees with them is because we're so damn ignorant. Guys like you wouldn't have any idea what to do in a free country, without the government to feed them. They're basically cowards who wish to use government policy to bring everyone down to their level so they don't feel so damned inadequete. Just the way it is. Sack up. Let me tell you why I don't like muslims, and by that, I don't mean all muslims, just the ones who stone women to death and blow up children. (unfortunately, that means most muslims, becuase even if they haven't done it , they support it for the most part).
They wish to impose sharia law, and are afraid of farm animals,except at bedtime.
They blow up children.
They stone women to death.
They believe that my daughter shouldn't get an education.
They aren't free and don't want you to be.
They rarely bath.
They cut the genetalia off of women of age.
They are compulsive liars (more a cultural issue)
They chop the heads off of my jewish brothers (christ was a jew)
They rarely shave.
They wish to impose their religion on everyone, and kill those who won't submit (Islam means submission)
They suck at sports
They are such cowards that they won't wear a uniform.
They are members of a murderous death cult and don't value or appreciate the gift of life.
They would be well advised to stay the hell off of my property.
And Finally, (this is a repeat) they kill children, or as liberals call it, abortion.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The only chance ever of defeating Interolance is to give Tolerance first. Tolerance does not mean agreement, but it means being strong enough to grant others the right to exist.

I understand the spirit of your post Skyfloating... but the way it see it is:

Tolerance is a ticking time bomb. Essentially what tolerance means to me is one turning a blind eye to/or pretending not to care about/or feigning apathy towards something they fundamentally disagree with. It has it's limitations and life spans. It's a band aid solution that ultimately cannot last. The veneer of tolerance wll eventually loose it lustre.

I think what we need to find is common middle ground and things that both parties can fundamentally agree upon. Maybe it's the continual magnification of those positive aspects that will one day diminish or reform the negative sticking points.

I don't know about the benefits of tolerance over the long term. It's kind of an ambiguous blanket solution to something far more intricate/delicate.

Finally, for tolerance to work, even as a stop gap solution, it takes equal dedication from all parties concerned, otherwise it's just a hollow platitude.

I don't intend my post to come across as negative... or contrary..

just my two cents worth.

IRM

[edit on 6/9/10 by InfaRedMan]

reply to post by Skyfloating

That's your opinion. I'm not violent, but could be if it were necessary. Here's a clue. They hate you. They will violate you. It would be helpful to you to be prepared and able to respond. In response to violent agression, violence becomes necessary. It's simple. If a man threatens your wife with a baseball bat, violence would serve you well. You may reason with him, but I have less faith in those who have proven to be unworthy of all that logic, so I would shoot the perp.
But that's why we have borders. I stay on my side, they stay on their side. They can do whatever the hell they want within their borders and I don't give a rip. Shoud our troops be over there. Na. We should have blown everything above ground to bits, then let it be.
These are my borders. I won't be imposed on. Not by muslims. Not by some pinhead politician. Not by a burgler. I am free. All I wish is to be left alone. It's really that simple. In return, I respect your right to do whatever the hell you want in your home, as long as I don't have to pay for it. I have my own dependents, and they are by my choosing. Again, I am free. I will enforce my freedom within my property.