Islam the Religion of Peace? I don't think so...

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by CrimsonKapital

 

Say I am the Taliban and you attacked me and I self defend myself does that make me violent? Dude the Taliban have a very dark history they aren't the victims like you make them out to be...

Ok I am USA and I attack you (taliban) as I am instigating as we have clearly determined

You (taliban) respond with 911

Then I (USA) respond post 911 with wars and then I say that you are violent as you have just stated.

That is incorrect because I (USA) hit you first and instigated first and everything after that is the fruit of the poisonous tree.

Dude the Taliban have a very dark history they aren't the victims like you make them out to be...

while this may be true does not mean that it is the Islamic ideology. If this was the case why arent all muslims in the world attacking us? Why only the taliban?

It is because we started and instigated these wars.

Good point - the small-minded people who think Muslim = Terrorist should be glad they're wrong. If 1% of Muslims were suicide bombers, then each one would only have to take out about 500 people to end humanity. The percentage of radicals is extremely small.

Now granted, terrorist percentages are probably rising. If the Chinese were occupying the U.S., I myself would be orchestrating attacks against the Chinese. (just an example.) yes, there are evil elements, and many of then want what the U.S. Wants in the middle east: control over natural resources.

modern Jihad existed prior to any U.S. involvement in the Islamic world, and that the Koran was used to justify this ideology.
As we see from this example in 1776 the same year as the founding of USA

Islam is the agessor

en.wikipedia.org...

Text
anti-American terrorism predated the rise of the United States as a global power and is justified by the Quran. This is exemplified by the events leading to the First Barbary War. Muslim pirates of Algiers, Morocco, Tunis, and Tripoli Barbary Coast had attacked, enslaved and held American merchant sailors for ransom, soon after the establishment of the United States of America in 1776 (see First Barbary War). These terrorist-type attacks predated any U.S. involvement in the islamic world and occurred before the US had been involved in any overseas military action. In 1786, future U.S. Presidents Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli’s envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman in an attempt to negotiate an end to the piracy. Adams and Jefferson summarized their meeting in a letter dated March 28, 1786 to John Jay, the United States Secretary of Foreign Affairs:
"We took the liberty to make some enquiries concerning the ground of their pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador [of Tripoli] answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (muslims) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise."[20]
These diplomatic engagements suggest that a modern Jihad-like ideology existed prior to any U.S. involvement in the Islamic world, and that the Koran was used to justify this ideology.

Thus, according to critics of Islam, islamic terrorism is linked to the practice of divinely sanctioned warfare against apostates.[21][22] Many Muslim groups including the Council on American-Islamic Relations argue that references to violence in Muslim sources have been taken out of context.[23][24][25] They argue that these Koranic ayahs are only for self-defense when non-believers endanger Muslim life. While a debate may exist on the proper interpretation of Koranic verses, the terrorist actions leading to the First Barbary War and the justification provided by Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, provide an early example where the Koran was used to justify anti-American terrorism. These events occurred at a time where the U.S. had yet to intervene in the Muslim world and argue against U.S. policy as a fundamental cause of islamic terrorism. On the contrary, the historical timeline demonstrates that the very first U.S. engagement with the Muslim world was an American response to Islamic terrorism

edit on 8-6-2012 by redneck13 because: n

reply to post by CrimsonKapital


Islam is not only a religion of peace but it is the only religion where you will find true peace. Ask any Jew, Christian, Atheist and other people who have reverted to Islam and that's what they will tell you. I am one of them, and we are the guardians of our religion, because we believe it is God's religion.

Your list, I know is meant to make the Muslims appear as violent people instead of being a peaceful men of God. But it is only according to your view, because bias is clouding your reason, or you could have focused your research on the good qualities of Islam. Muslims may always seem to be in one fight or another, but are they the aggressor or are they the oppressed? It is against the teaching of Islam to be the aggressor in any battle, but it is the teaching of Islam to fight and retaliate to the people who are fighting us in religion.

The death of any Muslim fighting for his God is a sacrifice in the eyes of God, because they die while defending His Unity, but the people who kill Muslims commit a sacrilege in the eyes of God, because they are fighting for their false gods, power, greed, world control.. list goes on!

Muslims are the casualties in these wars, they are the victims of an agenda. But who will believe that? These people make sure that the people in the west and everywhere else only see Islam as a religion of terror, of war...but who are the real terrorist?

There are a lot of unrest right now within the Muslim nation, they fight for Justice and end to tyranny...that doesn't make them any less a religion of Peace, just because they fight..they fight to regain Peace in their land.

There are powers that are afraid to see Muslims unite, because when they do, nobody can be victorius over them. Divide and conquer that's their motto.

So don't be quick to judge this religion that you know nothing about except what they feed you and want they want you to think..

I suggest everyone do more research into Islam the religion of peace.
I found a list of Islam’s peaceful activities.
Everyone should lean more about Islam
en.wikipedia.org...

Text
This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced entries.

The following is a partial list of acts of terrorism committed by Muslims for the purpose of achieving varying political and/or religious ends. The list uses the same inclusion criteria as the article Muslim terrorism and includes failed attempts that qualify these criteria. In total, there have been

over 18,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 2001

Originally posted by redneck13

modern Jihad existed prior to any U.S. involvement in the Islamic world, and that the Koran was used to justify this ideology.

That is correct.

Between 1795 and 1799 the USA was paying a 1/5 of the entire annual income of the United States government to Muslim Barbary coast pirates to prevent them from attacking American ships and enslaving the crews.

What brought the game to end for the Islamic pirates was a new President, John Adams, who objected to a demand for $10,000 additional tribute by the Pasha of Tripoli.

He informed President Adams that it was customary when a great man passed away for a tributary state to make a gift to the crown of Tripoli.

At that time the US Navy was very small, perhaps 3 frigates, but they were used with considerable effect against the pirates, nothwithstanding the fact that the Islamic pirates captured one and enslaved the crew..

This article on the subject is very readable.

Terrorism In Early America

A Map of Barbary Pirates Bases


As I stated, the Barbary pirates enslaved Christians.

In fact, the Muslim Barbary Corsairs, between the 16th & 19th centuries, enslaved between 1 million to 1.25 million Europeans by seizing them from as far away as Ireland & Iceland.

Link

The Ottomans also enslaved large numbers of Europeans either directly through their imperial colonial wars of conquest or as required tribute from already conquered European territories.

For instance, the famous Ottoman Janissaries were Christian Greek, Albanian, Serb, Bosnian, Ukrainian and Southern Russian slaves bought as young boys.

Link

The Koran was used to justify such enslavement as Muhammad both enslaved people for sale in the slave markets and kept female slaves himself.

reply to post by ollncasino


That implies that the very first aggressors against the United States were Muslim and they used the Quran, the so-called holy book of the peaceful religion of Islam, to justify slavery, robbery, and murder as the first crimes perpetrated against the United States of America.

If we study Islam, there is so much to learn

Originally posted by queenofangels_17
It is against the teaching of Islam to be the aggressor in any battle, but it is the teaching of Islam to fight and retaliate to the people who are fighting us in religion.

Isn't it unfortunate that almost everywhere Muslims live, they are aggressed against and are forced to retaliate?

Since 9/11 Jihadi Muslims have been forced to carry out terrorist attacks (in self defence) in

India
Sudan
Algeria
New York
Pakistan
Israel
Russia
Chechnya
Philippines
Indonesia
Nigeria
England
Thailand
Spain
Egypt
Bangladesh
Saudi Arabia
Turkey
Morocco
Yemen
Arkansas
France
Uzbekistan
Gaza
Tunisia
Kosovo
Bosnia
Mauritania
Kenya
Eritrea
Syria
Somalia
California
Kuwait
Virginia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Jordan
United Arab Emirates
Louisiana
Texas
Tanzania
Illinois
Australia
Pennsylvania
Belgium
Denmark
East Timor
Qatar
Maryland
Tajikistan
Netherlands
Afghanistan
Chad
Canada
China
Nepal
Maldives
Argentina
Mali
Angola
Ukraine
Uganda
North Carolina
Germany
Arizona
Lebanon
Iran
Kazakhstan
Sweden
Azerbaijan
Iraq
Scotland
Macedonia

Link

I'm just glad that Islam is the religion of peace.

Image the length of that list if Islam allowed Muslims to be aggressive?

Originally posted by redneck13
reply to post by ollncasino

 

That implies that the very first aggressors against the United States were Muslim and they used the Quran, the so-called holy book of the peaceful religion of Islam, to justify slavery, robbery, and murder as the first crimes perpetrated against the United States of America.

If we study Islam, there is so much to learn

Care to provide any proof?? (or should we just thrust you?)

Originally posted by redneck13

That implies that the very first aggressors against the United States were Muslim and they used the Quran, the so-called holy book of the peaceful religion of Islam, to justify slavery, robbery, and murder as the first crimes perpetrated against the United States of America.

That is correct.

The Koran demands that Muslims live in the way of Muhammad.

According to the Hadith Muhammad

• Was a slave owner and trader

• Captured slaves in battle

• Had sex with his female slaves.

• Instructed his men to do the same

The Koran demands 91 times that Muslims imitate Mohammed in every way.

Statistical Islam

The Barbary pirates who enslaved over a million Christians (including Americans) Link were indeed doing as the Koran demanded - emulating Muhammad and enslaving Kaffirs and their women and children.

This Link introduces some of the verses in the Koran and Hadith dealing with slavery.

Originally posted by redneck13
That implies that the very first aggressors against the United States were Muslim and they used the Quran, the so-called holy book of the peaceful religion of Islam, to justify slavery, robbery, and murder as the first crimes perpetrated against the United States of America.

Originally posted by SuperFrog

Care to provide any proof?? (or should we just thrust you?)

Easily supplied.

In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.

LInk

The original source is Thomas Jefferson Papers," Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651–1827, Library of Congress

Link

So Thomas Jefferson, who was the diplomat on the spot, stated that the Barbary pirates justified their enslavement of Kaffirs (that's you and I) on the basis of the Koran.

I see a good opportunity to get rid of all holy books, would you agree?

Bible does not explicitly condemns slavery, and I believe we all know who brought slaves in states... So what do you say? Let's get rid of them. (for good of all humankind )

Originally posted by SuperFrog
I see a good opportunity to get rid of holy books, would you agree?

I do.

I am no fan of any religion, apart from perhaps Buddhism, but even that has a violent past, certainly in Japan and to a lesser extent China.

Whether the religious leaders who are pulling the strings for the sake of power actually believe any of the stuff they preach, I think it depends on the individual. Some do.

It's the poor saps at the bottom who are blowing themselves up who are, in a sense, victims themselves.

They are being manipulated for the benefit of others higher up.

This peaceful religion of Islam is so very interesting
I thought I would check into slavery
OH MY GOD
I had no idea

Muslim SLAVERY TODAY




How can anyone claim to be muslim and be proud of it
deny ignorance

islam the religion of #,
second line

Hope not off topic?
But a nice way to end this thread here,a woman and her harp.

This thread didn't take long to de evovle into a religion bashing thread..

Religion does not cause war POWER HUNGRY PEOPLE CAUSE WARS

HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE PEOPLE TO GET IT THROUGH THICK SKULLS

If you rid the world of religion some other retarded thing will take its place... like maybe umm captialists vs socialist,,, democracy vs a dictatorship... pure unadulterated nationalism .....

You people who think... world peace can be brought about by ridding the world of religion are very dense or naive both..

Think people think......

reply to post by ollncasino


Hey sorry I didn't go into more depth this morning, had just had 6 hours sleep in 2 days! I felt like a zombie replying to that lol.

My main argument was about the disposition of the masses on the street. There will always be opportunists trying to take advantage of poltiical upheaval - the Brotherhood could be seen as doing this, but so could the West's dream canididate ElBaradei.

Most importantly, if we look at Syria - the public took to the streets and endured storms of bullets, rockets and torture for about a year before showing signs of being scared. The reciprocal violence in Syria stems from military members, probably a Sunni majority, who are sick of killing their own people for a leader they do not feel indebted to.

In Libya, the revolution started out peaceful. Then other countries, eager to get rid of Gaddafi for a multitude of reasons (another story entirely), decided to take advantage of the situation and put guns in hungry hands. Moreover, they shipped in violent extremists to stir things up and also launched a full scale assassination war. That's not to say some of the violent resistance was not disingenuous, but public discontent was way to fragmented for such a wide scale consensus to form without external influences. Many Libyans were fiercely loyal to Gaddafi, many indifferent, and of course many discontent - to varying degrees.

I do not view the Muslim Brotherhood, who are Islamic extremists, being poised to win the Egyptian elections a positive outcome of the Arab Spring.

They are Wahhabi. Almost all Islamic terrorists come from the Wahhabi or Salafi schools of Islam.

I would not view it as a positive outcome either. However, not all Wahabi or Salafis interpret religion the same.

Egypt is historically and currently a progressive state, the public would not want extremist Sharia law to take precedence over that. And they've shown loud and clear that they're not going to take any nonsense any more.

Before I specifically deal with the media sources your provide - may I point out that they are largely imperialist media corporations. They are dominated by their owners, advertisers and other stakeholders' agendas, which are post-enlightenment capitalist ideals of profit maximisation and the presentation of development as economic growth.

The sources they select are hand-picked, whether consciously or unconsciously, to propagate that same agenda. For example, they will go to UN 'experts' because they want the 'official' opinion - so as to appear objective.

On the points you raise, the Muslim Brotherhood are bound to be blamed for everything negative under the sun in Egypt - especially what is easy to link to them. I'm not saying that they aren't involved, but we need more than the 'suspicions' of post-enlightenment sources to validate the claims. They too have many enemies at the moment, both internally and externally. Within Egypt, they have poltiical competitors vying to fill the same power vaccuum the Brotherhood hope to fill. Externally, the West doesn't want an anti-Zionist government in power, not after so many years of appeasement.

It is also worth noting that the conflict between Copts and Muslims in Egypt is fairly mutual, the Copts happen to be in the minority so they are much more vulnerable. Such is the nature of ignorant sectarianism, not Islam specifically.

With Tunisia, I couldn't possible make a strong comment but I would suggest the possibility of foreign influences on that riot (i.e. extremist groups). Remember, new leaderships are always shaky, especially after such large-scale upheaval - there are bound to be people trying to get their hands dug into Tunisian soil, hearts and minds.

Libya is a mess, but that isn't the result of the natural protest - it is the result of the West's imperialistic invasion of the country. They destroyed the government and ran back out. Again, a power vacuum arises, especially in country with such strong tribal culture. The next government is most likely going to be representative the strongest tribe, or at least thats what some will think.

Yemen - again, the power vacuum aspect. That is an externally induced problem, not internal. Yemenis don't want that nonsense going on in their country - they just wanted equality, a fair say, affordable food and jobs.

I merely put such ideas forward for the sake of debate, not to be antagonistic.

The OP and many like him seem to have joined ATS and done nothing but post Extreme racist remarks.

Why haven't these guys been banned? It obvious its not about "deny ignorance' just trolling and spewing hate.
Just look at the OPs posts history its amazing...