Muslim Discussion

[wicked]

that's a lot of assumptions there Gip. I happen to know several Muslims who play here.

[Beastly]

I'm half Muslim half Christian.

[MeDeFe]

I'm half Muslim half Christian.

How does that work out?

[heavycola]

Hum-Allah-Hum-Allah-Hum Allah by Pharaoh Sanders is a brilliant tune. Brilliant.

[Fruitcake]

How does that work out?

One could say a "mini truism clash" I suppose

[DaGip]

I'm half Muslim half Christian.

How does that work out?

It doesn't, you have to be one or the other, otherwise you are neither. You might as well start your own religion then. Muslims believe in La Illha Illa Allah, Muhammad Rasool Allah which is obligatory, and you are not considered a Muslim unless you believe this in your heart (There are no gods worthy of worship but Allah, and Muhammad is His messenger). This belief encompasses fully that their should be NO other gods except Allah (basically the first commandment of the ten commandments), and that worshiping Jesus (or any of the other prophets) is akin to idol worship and polytheism/paganism.

Christians, on the other hand, believe that Jesus was a god and can be worshipped and asked favors through praying to him. One god = Three gods? You have to understand the Muslim argument on this issue.

So one person cannot be half and half, it just won't work out per each other's faith. Now, Muslims can marry Christians, but they must keep true to their faith, but that doesn't make the offspring half Christian or Muslim. Under Islamic belief ALL children are born Muslim (as the term refers to the submission to God's will) and then they are taught other ways by their parents, who have free will to choose to rebel against the laws of Allah.

[Napoleon Ier]

I'm half Muslim half Christian.

How does that work out?

It doesn't, you have to be one or the other, otherwise you are neither. You might as well start your own religion then. Muslims believe in La Illha Illa Allah, Muhammad Rasool Allah which is obligatory, and you are not considered a Muslim unless you believe this in your heart (There are no gods worthy of worship but Allah, and Muhammad is His messenger). This belief encompasses fully that their should be NO other gods except Allah (basically the first commandment of the ten commandments), and that worshiping Jesus (or any of the other prophets) is akin to idol worship and polytheism/paganism.

Christians, on the other hand, believe that Jesus was a god and can be worshipped and asked favors through praying to him. One god = Three gods? You have to understand the Muslim argument on this issue.

So one person cannot be half and half, it just won't work out per each other's faith. Now, Muslims can marry Christians, but they must keep true to their faith, but that doesn't make the offspring half Christian or Muslim. Under Islamic belief ALL children are born Muslim (as the term refers to the submission to God's will) and then they are taught other ways by their parents, who have free will to choose to rebel against the laws of Allah.

One God, three persons. Our human understanding of God is limited, so we can only conceive of him using reductionist schemas such as the Trinity concept, but it'svery important you don't think we believe in three Gods.

[muy_thaiguy]

Christians, on the other hand, believe that Jesus was a god and can be worshipped and asked favors through praying to him. One god = Three gods? You have to understand the Muslim argument on this issue.

More of the Mormon out look on it then Christian. Christians believe that Jesus was basically God in human form on Earth, and the Holy Spirit sent by God to help people become stronger in Faith, mind, and body. Not 3 seperate entities, but one being (work with me here on this one) with 3 parts.

[wicked]

I changed the title of this thread to more accurately describe the topic at hand. Plus I didn't like "bashing" in the title. Thanks for keeping the discussion civil.

[brooksieb]

how does wicked post if the website say's she's not on?

stealth boy......stealth.....

[tzor]

Actually nobody blows the random dice generator, it blows all on its own.

You know aside from the obvious sexual references there are other references with that statement, and suddenly Frank Sinatra started singing in my mind.

A lady never leaves her escort
It isnt fair, it isnt nice
A lady doesnt wander all over the room
And blow on some other guys dice

Lets keep this party polite
Never get out of my sight
Stick with me baby, Im the guy that you came in with
Luck be a lady tonight

Now I will constantly associate wicked with luck.

[MeDeFe]

From the senseless banning and locking recently I would rather associate her with a powertrip.

[Jock Bomb]

i think you misconstrue me slightly.. my only problem with terrorism is when its used to further selfish ends. -SNIP-

If thats your only problem with terrorism I wonder how Special Branch would view your comments?

All terrorism is wrong whether for selfish ends or otherwise and that is quite an admission in todays current climate both in the UK and USA.

[Jock Bomb]

I'm not the one who brought up Muslims in the thread or referenced "their grubby little paws"

The thread was provocative and would've gone downhill quickly, hence the lock.

I am 'kind' of at a loss here. I have read some seriously foul comments on this forum. Aggressive, abusive and outright unacceptable in public society in all terms of the laws of most countries, from which they are posted.

But 'muslim bash' as you put it, and it gets locked? I serious think you need to consider what is abusive and what is not. There cannot be one rule for one and another rule for another.

There must be a level playing field otherwise you create great resentment. I never read the other post as quite frankly I am not interested in religion it only causes aggression and wars. But it does anger me when one race/type/creed/group receive additional attention and/or protection.

As with any police force, they 'should' treat everyone as equals, that should go for the policing of this forum.

All I have read on the first page of this is a guy asking why and a muslim replying saying terrorism is acceptable at certain levels not for selfish means. Thats appears to be ok? I find that extremely offensive considering we have soldiers and civilians being murdered both home and overseas by muslim extremists, acting on some crazy notion Allah and the Koran have asked for this!

I am anything but racist and spend several months a year in Thailand and mix with both buddhists and muslims alike.

Anyway thats my contribution Probably get shot down in flames but just felt impulsed to reply when i read the first page.

[greenoaks]

isn't guy fawlkes day a celebration of an attempted act of terrorism ?

[Jock Bomb]

isn't guy fawlkes day a celebration of an attempted act of terrorism ?

No its the celebration of STOPPING an act of terrorism ... LOL

[DaGip]

i think you misconstrue me slightly.. my only problem with terrorism is when its used to further selfish ends. -SNIP-

If thats your only problem with terrorism I wonder how Special Branch would view your comments?

All terrorism is wrong whether for selfish ends or otherwise and that is quite an admission in todays current climate both in the UK and USA.

Terrorism is an extreme political tactic that has been around since the civilizations first started clashing. The Greeks provoked the Persians into attacking Greece (thusly the story of the Spartans and the famous 300 scenerio). The Persians were the equivalent of the United States at the time and the Greeks were a little piss ant country that took terrorist pot shots here and there. Persia finally got pissed off and decided that they were going to wipe Greece off the face of the planet.

Americans talk like this too. Now we are involving ourselves in a Persia vs Greece scenerio and our leader's arrogance is breaking our country.

Most terrorists wouldn't consider themselves selfish, I reckon. It is our own selfishness that describes them us such. Under today's guidelines, The Boston Tea Party would be considered an terrorist act.

I am not condoning terrorism, but I do think perspectives are important if we ever want to achieve peace with our enemies.

Terrorists are not specifically associated with Muslims. There are other terrorist organizations out there. The CIA being one of them:

http://www.copi.com/articles/guyatt/gladio.html

You might want to keep in mind the recent bombing of NY Recruitment Center. How convenient that a terrorist like act would occur during an election year where the Dems are perceived to be ahead of the Republicans in the polls? This little act of terrorism is just the first attempt to shift public opinion to the right. If this little scare tactic doesn't influence the American populace, you can bet on a bigger one that will actually hurt or kill a few people.

[icedagger]

i think you misconstrue me slightly.. my only problem with terrorism is when its used to further selfish ends. -SNIP-

If thats your only problem with terrorism I wonder how Special Branch would view your comments?

All terrorism is wrong whether for selfish ends or otherwise and that is quite an admission in todays current climate both in the UK and USA.

Terrorism is an extreme political tactic that has been around since the civilizations first started clashing. The Greeks provoked the Persians into attacking Greece (thusly the story of the Spartans and the famous 300 scenerio). The Persians were the equivalent of the United States at the time and the Greeks were a little piss ant country that took terrorist pot shots here and there. Persia finally got pissed off and decided that they were going to wipe Greece off the face of the planet.

Americans talk like this too. Now we are involving ourselves in a Persia vs Greece scenerio and our leader's arrogance is breaking our country.

Most terrorists wouldn't consider themselves selfish, I reckon. It is our own selfishness that describes them us such. Under today's guidelines, The Boston Tea Party would be considered an terrorist act.

I am not condoning terrorism, but I do think perspectives are important if we ever want to achieve peace with our enemies.

Terrorists are not specifically associated with Muslims. There are other terrorist organizations out there. The CIA being one of them:

http://www.copi.com/articles/guyatt/gladio.html

You might want to keep in mind the recent bombing of NY Recruitment Center. How convenient that a terrorist like act would occur during an election year where the Dems are perceived to be ahead of the Republicans in the polls? This little act of terrorism is just the first attempt to shift public opinion to the right. If this little scare tactic doesn't influence the American populace, you can bet on a bigger one that will actually hurt or kill a few people.

The Boston Tea Party was a terrorist act, and it was pretty much organised by the tea smugglers. Not many Americans realise it happened because the British took the tax off tea

[Jock Bomb]

i think you misconstrue me slightly.. my only problem with terrorism is when its used to further selfish ends. -SNIP-

--- SNIP ---
Terrorists are not specifically associated with Muslims. There are other terrorist organizations out there. The CIA being one of them:

--- snip ---

That in itself is a very extremist and offensive thing to say! What then gives you the right to poke fun and and miscall a western organisation over ... say someone poking fun at an Islamic icon, such as the Danish did with their cartoon scenario?

I am ex military and cop, and to call an official body such as CIA, MI6, or special forces terrorists is nothing short of insane. They co-exist to fight fire with fire.

If terrorism never existed so would the requirement for such bodies diminish. As for 'other' terrorist organisations, yes they are and I have looked down a weapons sights at them. This thread was relating to muslims and terrorism as indicated by the replies on the first page.

The Uk is quite used to futile acts of terror for decades from the IRA, Spain with ETA etc etc etc..... But there is no mention of these groups in this thread so I saw no point in referring to them

Personally I dont think this is the place this should be discussed. This is a game forum ...........

[DaGip]

i think you misconstrue me slightly.. my only problem with terrorism is when its used to further selfish ends. -SNIP-

--- SNIP ---
Terrorists are not specifically associated with Muslims. There are other terrorist organizations out there. The CIA being one of them:

--- snip ---

That in itself is a very extremist and offensive thing to say! What then gives you the right to poke fun and and miscall a western organisation over ... say someone poking fun at an Islamic icon, such as the Danish did with their cartoon scenario?

I am ex military and cop, and to call an official body such as CIA, MI6, or special forces terrorists is nothing short of insane. They co-exist to fight fire with fire.

If terrorism never existed so would the requirement for such bodies diminish. As for 'other' terrorist organisations, yes they are and I have looked down a weapons sights at them. This thread was relating to muslims and terrorism as indicated by the replies on the first page.

The Uk is quite used to futile acts of terror for decades from the IRA, Spain with ETA etc etc etc..... But there is no mention of these groups in this thread so I saw no point in referring to them

Personally I dont think this is the place this should be discussed. This is a game forum ...........

Game discussions are in General Discussion.

The CIA trained and funded Al Quada. It's not a big secret that the CIA and other secret organizations either perform or encourage terrorist activity, as such activity furthers certain specific political goals. In the case of 9-11, we are looking at American global domination and the final establishment into a one world government system that will be the image of the United States itself, just as the European Union has modelled itself after the US.

Operation Gladio actually existed, and the CIA was one organization that was involved in it.

All I am saying is that every country has a terrorist organization of some sort that is not explicitlly associated with Islam.

[bedub1]

I never really understood this cartoon

[got tonkaed]

ive never really understood the need by people to show or make images of the prophet. Obviously free speech is free speech, but its hard to understand how you could wish to make an image (likely knowing what that means) out of anything other than a hateful gesture. While i certainly dont condone that large scale riots that often end up as a result, it sort of seems like one of those things where you want to question what went wrong with those people down the line to cause them to be so hateful toward such a large group of people.

I mean it doesnt seem to be only fundamentalists who are deeply offended by the image, it seems many more moderate and civil individuals are hurt by it as well. It just seems awful unnecessary to do.

[Guiscard]

I mean it doesnt seem to be only fundamentalists who are deeply offended by the image, it seems many more moderate and civil individuals are hurt by it as well. It just seems awful unnecessary to do.

Well it's a fairly deep part of the Islamic religion, isn't it... Every Muslim, pretty much, will be offended by images of the Prophet. I don't condone the bollocks that goes on around the issue, and I think non-Muslims should be able to publish images and satirical cartoons but, crucially, not when the purpose is specifically to inflame or provoke a reaction.

[got tonkaed]

I mean it doesnt seem to be only fundamentalists who are deeply offended by the image, it seems many more moderate and civil individuals are hurt by it as well. It just seems awful unnecessary to do.

Well it's a fairly deep part of the Islamic religion, isn't it... Every Muslim, pretty much, will be offended by images of the Prophet. I don't condone the bollocks that goes on around the issue, and I think non-Muslims should be able to publish images and satirical cartoons but, crucially, not when the purpose is specifically to inflame or provoke a reaction.

I guess its just one of those things where it doesnt seem like that smart or decent of an idea, and pretty unclassy. The way i see it, with all the things you could talk about with Islam or Muslims in general, it takes something of a hack to resort to having to go down that road.

Certainly people should have the right to do those things. But if there is such a thing as an ought, people ought not to do something that is almost going to be universally seen within the faith as highly offensive.

It just seems to me to be a rather infantile gesture.

[Snorri1234]

ive never really understood the need by people to show or make images of the prophet. Obviously free speech is free speech, but its hard to understand how you could wish to make an image (likely knowing what that means) out of anything other than a hateful gesture. While i certainly dont condone that large scale riots that often end up as a result, it sort of seems like one of those things where you want to question what went wrong with those people down the line to cause them to be so hateful toward such a large group of people.

I think most of the cartoons are just a way of making fun of things. The real problem here is the fact that those muslims are easily butt-hurt. Many christians are offended by jokes about Jesus too, but here at least they don't go on the streets en-masse. (Allthough, it's very likely that the riots you see on tv are just set up by a fundamentalist group to make it appear as if many people are angry. The fact they are able to burn swedish flags speaks for that, as it's almost impossible to buy one there and they're expensive if you do find one.)