I was just wondering, a supremely powerful God, why would it need you to do its' bidding for it? Wouldn't it have everything playing out to a grand master plan?

Do you think he would want you to go around killing and punishing 'his' enemies? Doesn't he get them back in the afterlife anyway? Or is Islam less pure than we are led to believe?

If the Islamic version was the right one, why would they be permitted to lie about their religion? Why would conversions be necessary? Don't the righteous find their own way? Why are people who leave the religion allowed to be punished by the living?

And then I hear about the satanic verses, where Mohammed admits he was influenced by satan, yet Muslims still consider him to be perfect and God's prophet. Jesus admitted that satan tried to tempt him, yet he rejected satan. So they are similar, in the sense they both encountered satan, yet one of them refused to allow satan to give him anything and resisted evil.

I mean, if you really want to take something, deemed as evil, down, wouldn't you need to get inside it to see just how bad it was before you could conclude it was bad, and then take it down from the inside? We all know an outsiders perspective is warped, which is why I am asking questions about Islam. I suppose that could be doing God's work, if you knew in your heart something was evil and had to be destroyed, but just looking at something from the outside, with no idea of its inner workings, how do you know you are getting the full story? What kind of group would want you going around destroying anything that opposes it and either removing it or bringing it under subjugation when it doesn't know what it is fighting? It's uninformed, just like all the non-Muslims on this site (allegedly).

What do the Muslims think? Anyone else too.

Quote:

And then I hear about the satanic verses, where Mohammed admits he was influenced by satan, yet Muslims still consider him to be perfect and God's prophet.

Not unlike the entire premise of this thread, the Satanic verses are a load of bollocks.


Quote:

Jesus admitted that satan tried to tempt him, yet he rejected satan. So they are similar, in the sense they both encountered satan, yet one of them refused to allow satan to give him anything and resisted evil.

Jesus (pbuh) is supposedly God, and God was tempted by the Devil? Now there's some bollocks for ya.

Well if the devil is a fallen angel, then quite clearly this angel would have had access to God as some point, therefore attempting to tempt God would be plausible.

Eg, you can tell me the sky is green, and try and convince me of it, yet I know it's not true. You can tempt me with lies and untruths but I can easily say no and see straight through your futile, pointless argument.

So the satanic verses were never a part of the Qu'ran and never ever existed?

easel wrote on Nov 11^th, 2008 at 9:15am:

Well if the devil is a fallen angel, then quite clearly this angel would have had access to God as some point, therefore attempting to tempt God would be plausible.

I think the temptation of Jesus betrays the fact that he was once not considered god incarnate. Attempting to deceive a god would be pointless if you were subordinate to that god, as in Jewish mythology, Satan once was.

Quote:

So the satanic verses were never a part of the Qu'ran and never ever existed?

That's right. Rushdie just thought it was a good way to get discovered.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 11^th, 2008 at 9:56am:

Quote: So the satanic verses were never a part of the Qu'ran and never ever existed? That's right. Rushdie just thought it was a good way to get discovered.

Here we have.....
abu, muslims, ISLAM, redefining the TRUTH again.



If Muhammad, [had] got a revelation saying the sky was green, all muslims subsequently, and up until this day, would be insisting that everyone else was wrong, and that muslims / ISLAM was correct.....

"......DUMB KUFFAR, THE SKY IS [really, really] GREEN!!!!"




++++++



The Koran clearly states that, 'those who reject Allah have no protector.'
....i.e. '....their blood may legally be spilled....'

"....those who reject (Allah),- for them is destruction, and (Allah) will render their deeds astray (from their mark).
....those who reject Allah have no protector."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/047.qmt.html#047.008
v. 8-11



BUT EVEN THOUGH YOU READ AND UNDERSTAND THAT LAST KORAN VERSE,
......ISLAM IS STILL PEACE.


You see,
It all depends on how you define the concept of 'peace'.

The point being, that ISLAM has its own definition of what 'peace' is.



As i have pointed out previously.....

ISLAM is a dualistic philosophy.

It defines all things / concepts, according to how ISLAM wants to view those things.

If the rest of humanity define those same things / concepts differently, then it is the rest of humanity that is in error,
......NOT ISLAM!!!!
/sarc off

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 11^th, 2008 at 9:56am:

Quote: So the satanic verses were never a part of the Qu'ran and never ever existed? That's right. Rushdie just thought it was a good way to get discovered.

Much the same as Ayaan Hisri Ali.
No disrespect to her, the woman has had a HARD life - but none of her struggles are due to Islam.

To answer the question 'could Islam be evil?" I must say no.
It is the one uncorrupted way of life, with no contradictions. Allah [swt] wishes the best for mankind and nothing happens but by His will.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 11^th, 2008 at 9:10am:

Quote: And then I hear about the satanic verses, where Mohammed admits he was influenced by satan, yet Muslims still consider him to be perfect and God's prophet. Not unlike the entire premise of this thread, the Satanic verses are a load of bollocks. ....

Quiet a few Islamic historians had written about it as matter of fact.

Daniel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2008 at 8:50pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 11th, 2008 at 9:56am: Quote: So the satanic verses were never a part of the Qu'ran and never ever existed? That's right. Rushdie just thought it was a good way to get discovered. ... Allah [swt] wishes the best for mankind and nothing happens but by His will.

Do you mean that Allah willed the Satan?

tallowood wrote on Nov 13^th, 2008 at 9:11pm:

Daniel wrote on Nov 13th, 2008 at 8:50pm: abu_rashid wrote on Nov 11th, 2008 at 9:56am: Quote: So the satanic verses were never a part of the Qu'ran and never ever existed? That's right. Rushdie just thought it was a good way to get discovered. ... Allah [swt] wishes the best for mankind and nothing happens but by His will. Do you mean that Allah willed the Satan?

Yes. He did.
We have to refrain from listening to his whispers. Very good, Tallowood.

:)

Daniel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2008 at 9:14pm:

tallowood wrote on Nov 13th, 2008 at 9:11pm: Daniel wrote on Nov 13th, 2008 at 8:50pm: abu_rashid wrote on Nov 11th, 2008 at 9:56am: Quote: So the satanic verses were never a part of the Qu'ran and never ever existed? That's right. Rushdie just thought it was a good way to get discovered. ... Allah [swt] wishes the best for mankind and nothing happens but by His will. Do you mean that Allah willed the Satan? Yes. He did. We have to refrain from listening to his whispers. Very good, Tallowood. :)

That means that it isn't inconceivable that Mohamed was deceived by Satan in the guise of Gab but later real Gab corrected him.

Then how is it inconcievable that those who have changed the Bible [time and time again] weren't inspired by Satan?

Daniel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2008 at 9:29pm:

Then how is it inconcievable that those who have changed the Bible [time and time again] weren't inspired by Satan?

That is very conceivable and makes Koran Satanic book as well.

Who says the real Gabriel corrected him?

Grendel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2008 at 9:41pm:

Who says the real Gabriel corrected him?

Islamic historians and that is where Rushdie differs from them


Quote:

Gibreel when he submits to the inevitable, when he slides heavy-lidded towards visions of his angeling, passes his loving mother who has a different name for him, Shaitan, she calls him, just like Shaitan, same to same, because he has been fooling around with the tiffins to be carried into the city for the office workers' lunch, mischeevious imp, she slices the air with her hand, rascal has been putting Muslim meat compartments into Hindu nonveg tiffin-carriers, customers are up in arms.

(c) SV by S. Rushdie

If you were the devil and wanted to create maximum chaos what would you do?

I'd create a rival religion.  One based on others but full of half truths and distortions.  One full of confusion and needing constant interpretation.  One that demands adherence and claims authenticity.  Etc, etc, etc...

All action, by all people, occurs within the scope of Allah (swt), shaitan is as much a servant of Allah (swt) as we all are, we just exist in different levels of acknoweledgement of this fact. That is why Imam Ghazzali defined the truest measure of disbelief as being whether or not an individual, when confronted with the evidence, called the Prophet (sws) a liar.

Mohammed (sws) was a perfect human being, not in that he had an absence of error, but that he had is possessing of no imperfection of intention, which in Islam is the measure of sin.

The above two are important ways in which Christianity and Islam differ. For Christians, many assume that God somehow does not control satan, and that the fall of humankind was a rebellion against God. For Muslims, a rebellion against God is impossible, for one cannot rebel against an all powerful being. We perform actions within the scope of Allah's (swt) creation, but not outside the Divine Will of God. Thus sin is willed by God (as shown in a hadith that refers to humankind being erased were it not to sin) as it is a reflection of one of His divine names: the Rahmen, as mercy cannot occur without action that deserves mercy.

The Christian conception of Christ is of a being without error and without sin, yet a being that questions his fate 'forsaken me', a 'part' of the 'one' that prays to himself.

The idea that God or Islam could be 'evil' is illogical. As 'evil' is not an 'objective' concept. If we accept that Allah (swt) is the one God, and the submission to this fact is the perfection of humanity, then it follows that what is not submission is evil, and what is, is good.

Similarly if one denies this fact, and creates his or her own gods and prophets, what is not alligned with that world view will be evil in turn. So yes, Islam could be 'evil' if 'evil' is defined as being that which a non Muslim is not.

Rintrah wrote on Nov 15^th, 2008 at 11:27pm:

... The idea that God or Islam could be 'evil' is illogical. As 'evil' is not an 'objective' concept. If we accept that Allah (swt) is the one God, and the submission to this fact is the perfection of humanity, then it follows that what is not submission is evil, and what is, is good. Similarly if one denies this fact, and creates his or her own gods and prophets, what is not alligned with that world view will be evil in turn. So yes, Islam could be 'evil' if 'evil' is defined as being that which a non Muslim is not.

That is fine example of circular argument therefore your premise that "The idea that God or Islam could be 'evil' is illogical" is wrong.

rintrah  :D

yes tallow...  gotta agree with that.

Grendel wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 12:30pm:

If you were the devil and wanted to create maximum chaos what would you do? I'd create a rival religion.  One based on others but full of half truths and distortions.  One full of confusion and needing constant interpretation.  One that demands adherence and claims authenticity.  Etc, etc, etc...

I would create Internet in general and forums in particular.



PS: Disclaimer _ I'm not saing that FD doing devil's work. :-X

Quote:

That is fine example of circular argument therefore your premise that "The idea that God or Islam could be 'evil' is illogical" is wrong.

I'm sorry, this misunderstanding must be me not expressing myself correctly. My argument was intended to emphasise that 'evil' is a subjective word and therefore when it is not defined adequately, anyone can say anything around it and will be valid.

What I did was define evil and then said whatever I wanted.

Am I expressing myself clearly here?

Rintrah wrote on Nov 16^th, 2008 at 11:45am:

Quote: That is fine example of circular argument therefore your premise that "The idea that God or Islam could be 'evil' is illogical" is wrong. I'm sorry, this misunderstanding must be me not expressing myself correctly. My argument was intended to emphasise that 'evil' is a subjective word and therefore when it is not defined adequately, anyone can say anything around it and will be valid. What I did was define evil and then said whatever I wanted. Am I expressing myself clearly here?

That's why your argumentation is invalid


Quote:

CIRCULUS IN DEMONSTRANDO This fallacy occurs when one assumes as a premise the conclusion which one wishes to reach.

for example
"We know that Allah exists because the Koran tells us so. And we know that the Koran is true because it is the word of Allah."

Quote:

My argument was intended to emphasise that 'evil' is a subjective word and therefore when it is not defined adequately, anyone can say anything around it and will be valid.

This was my point, rather than 'for example
"We know that Allah (swt) exists because the Qu'ran tells us so. And we know that the Qu'ran is true because it is the word of Allah (swt)."

Obviously there must be choice in order for their to be any value in belief. Given a choice between belief or disbelief, I choose belief and all that follows. I believed the debate in this thread was around 'evil' as expressed in the title. I intended to express my problems with an argument based around a word so subjective and not defined by the creator of the thread. If we are to debate evil, then how can we do so without being given an understanding of what exactly to the poster 'evil means'.

I am Muslim, I believe in Allah (swt) I have no proof that God exists and do not desire proof, that is not the point. I can argue on the internal validity of Islam under that assumption, I cannot argue upon the assumption itself. I though this was a discussion forum about Islam, not about more broadly the existance of God.

Anything I state about the Deen is coming obviously from the assumption of Shahada: I testify there is no God but God and Mohammed is His final Messenger. My explanation of the idea of Shaitan and choice in my particular Islamic world view was done with this assumption, I am a Muslim after all, how debate should follow is around the internal validity of what I have said, rather than simply saying well 'God doesn't exist and Mohammed (sws) isn't His messenger', as that somewhat defeats the purpose.

Apologies in advance if I am not making myself clear, if I say anything wrong I ask yourself and the Creator for forgiveness, God knows and I know not.

Personally i think any person of belief or non-belief has a fair idea what "evil" is without it having to be defined.

Mind you the reaction of some here to questioning and dissent and their reactions and descriptions of such does make one wonder.

Quote:

Personally i think any person of belief or non-belief has a fair idea what "evil" is without it having to be defined. Mind you the reaction of some here to questioning and dissent and their reactions and descriptions of such does make one wonder.

I would say that the question of the use of the word evil is one of the minor points I made, the major ones I posited have not been adressed. For the purposes of this I will re post my statments without the seemingly controversial point about evil:


Quote:

All action, by all people, occurs within the scope of Allah (swt), shaitan is as much a servant of Allah (swt) as we all are, we just exist in different levels of acknoweledgement of this fact. That is why Imam Ghazzali defined the truest measure of disbelief as being whether or not an individual, when confronted with the evidence, called the Prophet (sws) a liar. Mohammed (sws) was a perfect human being, not in that he had an absence of error, but that he had is possessing of no imperfection of intention, which in Islam is the measure of sin. The above two are important ways in which Christianity and Islam differ. For Christians, many assume that God somehow does not control satan, and that the fall of humankind was a rebellion against God. For Muslims, a rebellion against God is impossible, for one cannot rebel against an all powerful being. We perform actions within the scope of Allah's (swt) creation, but not outside the Divine Will of God. Thus sin is willed by God (as shown in a hadith that refers to humankind being erased were it not to sin) as it is a reflection of one of His divine names: the Rahmen, as mercy cannot occur without action that deserves mercy. The Christian conception of Christ is of a being without error and without sin, yet a being that questions his fate 'forsaken me', a 'part' of the 'one' that prays to himself.

Rintrah wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 11:58am:

Quote: My argument was intended to emphasise that 'evil' is a subjective word and therefore when it is not defined adequately, anyone can say anything around it and will be valid. This was my point, rather than 'for example "We know that Allah (swt) exists because the Qu'ran tells us so. And we know that the Qu'ran is true because it is the word of Allah (swt)." Obviously there must be choice in order for their to be any value in belief. Given a choice between belief or disbelief, I choose belief and all that follows. I believed the debate in this thread was around 'evil' as expressed in the title. I intended to express my problems with an argument based around a word so subjective and not defined by the creator of the thread. If we are to debate evil, then how can we do so without being given an understanding of what exactly to the poster 'evil means'. I am Muslim, I believe in Allah (swt) I have no proof that God exists and do not desire proof, that is not the point. I can argue on the internal validity of Islam under that assumption, I cannot argue upon the assumption itself. I though this was a discussion forum about Islam, not about more broadly the existance of God. Anything I state about the Deen is coming obviously from the assumption of Shahada: I testify there is no God but God and Mohammed is His final Messenger. My explanation of the idea of Shaitan and choice in my particular Islamic world view was done with this assumption, I am a Muslim after all, how debate should follow is around the internal validity of what I have said, rather than simply saying well 'God doesn't exist and Mohammed (sws) isn't His messenger', as that somewhat defeats the purpose. Apologies in advance if I am not making myself clear, if I say anything wrong I ask yourself and the Creator for forgiveness, God knows and I know not.

I am glad that you've come clear about fallacy of the statement "The idea that God or Islam could be 'evil' is illogical".
Yes, possibility of it exist.

Quote:

I am glad that you've come clear about fallacy of the statement "The idea that God or Islam could be 'evil' is illogical". Yes, possibility of it exist.

Indeed.. as I've previously stated: the idea of evil is a subjective idea, if you ask people what constitutes 'evil' in their minds, you will have as many definitions as you will individuals. So for some people Islam could be evil, similarily for some people giving candy to children is evil, or crossing the street without saying 'heeby jeeby 1-2-threeby' could be evil. Without a definition of what 'evil' is, we are merely fumbling in the dark...

like that dark under the bridge.

Rintrah wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 3:46pm:

Quote: I am glad that you've come clear about fallacy of the statement "The idea that God or Islam could be 'evil' is illogical". Yes, possibility of it exist. Indeed.. as I've previously stated: the idea of evil is a subjective idea, if you ask people what constitutes 'evil' in their minds, you will have as many definitions as you will individuals. So for some people Islam could be evil, similarily for some people giving candy to children is evil, or crossing the street without saying 'heeby jeeby 1-2-threeby' could be evil. Without a definition of what 'evil' is, we are merely fumbling in the dark... like that dark under the bridge.

Let's have some examples.
When some Moslem use suicide bombers including women and children is it evil or good according to Islam?

Quote:

Let's have some examples. When some Moslem use suicide bombers including women and children is it evil or good according to Islam?

As far as I can see we are not looking at what is evil or good according to Islam, for then the question would be 'is Islam evil according to Islam'. If I am wrong I am welcoming of correction.

I will however answer your question regardless: a suicide bombing of a civilian target violates various Muslim legal positions on warfare. Suicide and more importantly the killing of civilians is classified as an unlawful act. If we consider that which is unlawful as being 'evil' then yes, such an act IS evil.

Simply because such individuals call themselves Muslims and believe that they do something for the sake of God does not mean they do it as Muslims of for the sake of God. We cannot know what lies within their hearts, so we must look at what the consensus of the majority of both Muslims and Muslim scholars say on the issue. The four Sunni madhabs see such an act as Haram, and they represent the vast majority of Muslims.

It is not the place of everyday Muslims to be forced to justify the acts of their misguided brothers, for doing so is akin to demanding every Christian justify the Spanish Inquisition. Long has it been that evil has become more palatable when wearing the cloak of religion. This does not mean that said cloak is evil, merely that the one wearing it is doing so unjustly.

Rintrah wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 4:28pm:

Quote: Let's have some examples. When some Moslem use suicide bombers including women and children is it evil or good according to Islam? As far as I can see we are not looking at what is evil or good according to Islam, for then the question would be 'is Islam evil according to Islam'. If I am wrong I am welcoming of correction. I will however answer your question regardless: a suicide bombing of a civilian target violates various Muslim legal positions on warfare. Suicide and more importantly the killing of civilians is classified as an unlawful act. If we consider that which is unlawful as being 'evil' then yes, such an act IS evil. Simply because such individuals call themselves Muslims and believe that they do something for the sake of God does not mean they do it as Muslims of for the sake of God. We cannot know what lies within their hearts, so we must look at what the consensus of the majority of both Muslims and Muslim scholars say on the issue. The four Sunni madhabs see such an act as Haram, and they represent the vast majority of Muslims. It is not the place of everyday Muslims to be forced to justify the acts of their misguided brothers, for doing so is akin to demanding every Christian justify the Spanish Inquisition. Long has it been that evil has become more palatable when wearing the cloak of religion. This does not mean that said cloak is evil, merely that the one wearing it is doing so unjustly.

Thanks for straight answer.

IMHO, Spanish Inquisition was and is completely unjustifiable without any reservations. It was evil and stupid just as suicide bombings are.

Quote:

Thanks for straight answer.

it is a pleasure to have it recognised as such.


Quote:

IMHO, Spanish Inquisition was and is completely unjustifiable without any reservations. It was evil and stupid just as suicide bombings are.

Indeed, though it was acceptable at the time by the authorities of the day, something which Suicide bombings are not. In fact when it came time to enforce religious orthodoxy in the 'Indios' in New Spain, the authorities drew influence from the Maliki Islamic School of Thought in saying that an inquisition was not just, as it is a condition of conversion that the individual enters into a conversion willingly. This argument (based in Islamic law) ended the 'Indian inquisition' in Mexico, and caused the Bishop in charge of it to be prosecuted by the colonial authorities. Crazy stuff eh?

Rintrah wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 4:53pm:

... Quote: IMHO, Spanish Inquisition was and is completely unjustifiable without any reservations. It was evil and stupid just as suicide bombings are. Indeed, though it was acceptable at the time by the authorities of the day, something which Suicide bombings are not. In fact when it came time to enforce religious orthodoxy in the 'Indios' in New Spain, the authorities drew influence from the Maliki Islamic School of Thought in saying that an inquisition was not just, as it is a condition of conversion that the individual enters into a conversion willingly. This argument (based in Islamic law) ended the 'Indian inquisition' in Mexico, and caused the Bishop in charge of it to be prosecuted by the colonial authorities. Crazy stuff eh?

It was acceptable only by authorities of Spain because of their religious blindness even Italians were feeling uncomfortable with it and Pope sent his legate to investigate abuses of the faith. Other Christian rulers had outright denounced it.
Also note that this was few hundred years ago while Islamic suicides are current.

Quote:

It was acceptable only by authorities of Spain because of their religious blindness even Italians were feeling uncomfortable with it and Pope sent his legate to investigate abuses of the faith. Other Christian rulers had outright denounced it. Also note that this was few hundred years ago while Islamic suicides are current.

It was sanctioned by the pope as far as I am aware. It was an acceptable means of encouraging unity in the emerging Spanish nation. A demonisation and descrimination against minorities for their 'otherness' either religiously or culturally has long been used as a means of promoting national unity.


Quote:

Also note that this was few hundred years ago while Islamic suicides are current.

Again, I would be very hesitant to call any suicide 'Islamic'. This gives people the idea that they are somehow sanctioned by the majority of Muslims, which they are not.

good grief...  you let rin get away with too much tallow...

be that as it is...

If suicide bombing is un-Islamic...  what are you and the rest of the faith doing about it?

Quote:

If suicide bombing is un-Islamic...  what are you and the rest of the faith doing about it?

I would have thought its declaration as illegal and its public denouncement to all and sundry would have been enough?

Its funny, the group that are the main supporters of suicide bombings as legitimate martyrdom come from Saudi Arabia, they are a group called the 'Salafis' with their roots in Wahabism. Now Wahabism was a fringe sect in Islam, with no validity or scholarly support, until a certain Kingdom of Saud was installed in Saudi Arabia. Guess who installed it? Guess who backs it to this day? One could well ask you the same question, why exactly are your governments supporting it?

Why did the US support the Taliban in the first place? Or the Shah in Iran (which led to the revolution)? Why did they send US special forces to shoot unarmed protestors in Jordan? Why do they back dictators like Mubarak in Egypt who tortures hundreds of people that oppose him?

If you want to stop people doing crazy things in the name of Islam, then maybe the governments of the developed world should stop paying them?

Astafirghillah for my tone, it just frustrates me when people say things like 'what have you done' or 'why aren't such acts denounced' when we are denouncing them, it is just that you are ignoring us.

Quote:

If you want to stop people doing crazy things in the name of Islam, then maybe the governments of the developed world should stop paying them?

So you're another one who blames the faults and vileness of Islam on the west. Find a new record, that one is well worn out.

Rintrah wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 7:16pm:

Quote: It was acceptable only by authorities of Spain because of their religious blindness even Italians were feeling uncomfortable with it and Pope sent his legate to investigate abuses of the faith. Other Christian rulers had outright denounced it. Also note that this was few hundred years ago while Islamic suicides are current. It was sanctioned by the pope as far as I am aware. It was an acceptable means of encouraging unity in the emerging Spanish nation. A demonisation and descrimination against minorities for their 'otherness' either religiously or culturally has long been used as a means of promoting national unity. [quote]Also note that this was few hundred years ago while Islamic suicides are current.

Again, I would be very hesitant to call any suicide 'Islamic'. This gives people the idea that they are somehow sanctioned by the majority of Muslims, which they are not.[/quote]

The degenerate suiciders claim that they do it for glory of Islam this days the same way as Spanish authorities and a Pope according to you claimed Spanish Inquisition for glory of their faith. Therefore epithet Islamic very apt in conjunction with suicide bombers.

Rintrah wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 7:47pm:

... Why did the US support the Taliban in the first place? ...

USA don't support Taliban any more, in fact USA killing them now so you should be happy with USA actions NOW. Aren't you?

Quote:

So you're another one who blames the faults and vileness of Islam on the west. Find a new record, that one is well worn out.

I could reply sarcastically and rudely, but I shall not. There is no way that I could answer such a statement other to say that the way of rebutting a statement is actually refuting it... rather than simply implying that what is being said has been said before. If it has been said before, I am sure you will have no problem showing me how the US and Britain don't back the Saudi Government? Or maybe that the US didn't back the Taliban? Or Sadaam? Or Musharraf, Mubarak, Pinochet, the Contras?

Maybe it is said alot because it is true? Wake up and smell the napalm, that sickly sweet smell is the burning flesh in Mai Lai. Or feel free to actually answer my critique logically?

Quote:

USA don't support Taliban any more, in fact USA killing them now so you should be happy with USA actions NOW. Aren't you?

The glorious U S of A has created Afghanistan as the number one producer of opium in the world. Has backed another regime similarly brutal in the place of the Taliban, and has killed hundreds of thousands in the process.. am I supposed to rejoice at this?


Quote:

The degenerate suiciders claim that they do it for glory of Islam this days the same way as Spanish authorities and a Pope according to you claimed Spanish Inquisition for glory of their faith. Therefore epithet Islamic very apt in conjunction with suicide bombers.

Indeed, and yet I would (despite the fact that it was allowed by the pope) NOT claim that the inquisition was caused by Christianity. And yet when it is reverse it is seen as perfectly legitimate to blame a religion that likens the killing of one innocent to killing all of humanity, for such actions.

Rintrah wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 8:33pm:

... Quote: USA don't support Taliban any more, in fact USA killing them now so you should be happy with USA actions NOW. Aren't you? The glorious U S of A has created Afghanistan as the number one producer of opium in the world. Has backed another regime similarly brutal in the place of the Taliban, and has killed hundreds of thousands in the process.. am I supposed to rejoice at this? [quote]The degenerate suiciders claim that they do it for glory of Islam this days the same way as Spanish authorities and a Pope according to you claimed Spanish Inquisition for glory of their faith. Therefore epithet Islamic very apt in conjunction with suicide bombers.

Indeed, and yet I would (despite the fact that it was allowed by the pope) NOT claim that the inquisition was caused by Christianity. And yet when it is reverse it is seen as perfectly legitimate to blame a religion that likens the killing of one innocent to killing all of humanity, for such actions.[/quote]

Afghanistan was producing opium under the Taliban as well as a matter of fact USA trying to curb opium production lately but Taliban offers protection to opium traders for money of course. USA backed democratically elected government of Afghanistan even though that government isn't perfect it is much much better then Taliban.
I don't blame Islam in general for suicides but I don't shrink from saying that suiciders were Moslem as I don't shrink from saying that Spanish authorities of the Inquisition's time were Christian. We all should learn from our past mistakes.

Quote:

Afghanistan was producing opium under the Taliban as well as a matter of fact USA trying to curb opium production lately but Taliban offers protection to opium traders for money of course. USA backed democratically elected government of Afghanistan even though that government isn't perfect it is much much better then Taliban. I don't blame Islam in general for suicides but I don't shrink from saying that suiciders were Moslem as I don't shrink from saying that Spanish authorities of the Inquisition's time were Christian. We all should learn from our past mistakes.

Why do you say that the government of Afghanistan is democratic? When Karzai is representative of a group of warlords, and is himself a warlord who was responsible for the massacring of hundreds of unarmed POWs following the capture of Kandahar (I believe the method they used was herding the men into shipping containers and then using Kalishnakovs on the sides).


Quote:

Afghanistan even though that government isn't perfect it is much much better then Taliban.

In order to make this assertion you must have information about this? Something that shows that it is better? Where do you get this from?

A recent report:


Quote:

However, James Bays said that residents he met in Badakhshan, northern Afghanistan are growing wheat and sweet potatos for food, but opium is grown for money. Hussain Ahmed said: "In Islam, if there is no food, we can eat pork. We know that opium is worse than pork, but we have no choice but to grow it." While Jama Khan, a village elder said: "If we don't keep the poppies, our children will die of hunger."

also:

Quote:

Afghanistan's production of poppies is expected to hit a record high this year and will produce nearly all of the world's opium, a United Nations report is expected to reveal. The report is also expected to criticise the international community and the Afghan government for failing to tackle the country's drug problem. It will be the sixth consecutive year that opium production has increased, despite hundreds of millions of dollars given to programmes to halt cultivation, processing and trafficking.

What happened Six yours ago you may ask? I don't mean to patronise but the correlation is not hard to pinpoint.

Rintrah wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 9:04pm:

Quote: Afghanistan was producing opium under the Taliban as well as a matter of fact USA trying to curb opium production lately but Taliban offers protection to opium traders for money of course. USA backed democratically elected government of Afghanistan even though that government isn't perfect it is much much better then Taliban. I don't blame Islam in general for suicides but I don't shrink from saying that suiciders were Moslem as I don't shrink from saying that Spanish authorities of the Inquisition's time were Christian. We all should learn from our past mistakes. Why do you say that the government of Afghanistan is democratic? When Karzai is representative of a group of warlords, and is himself a warlord who was responsible for the massacring of hundreds of unarmed POWs following the capture of Kandahar (I believe the method they used was herding the men into shipping containers and then using Kalishnakovs on the sides). [quote] Afghanistan even though that government isn't perfect it is much much better then Taliban.

In order to make this assertion you must have information about this? Something that shows that it is better? Where do you get this from?

A recent report:


Quote:

However, James Bays said that residents he met in Badakhshan, northern Afghanistan are growing wheat and sweet potatos for food, but opium is grown for money. Hussain Ahmed said: "In Islam, if there is no food, we can eat pork. We know that opium is worse than pork, but we have no choice but to grow it." While Jama Khan, a village elder said: "If we don't keep the poppies, our children will die of hunger."

also:

Quote:

Afghanistan's production of poppies is expected to hit a record high this year and will produce nearly all of the world's opium, a United Nations report is expected to reveal. The report is also expected to criticise the international community and the Afghan government for failing to tackle the country's drug problem. It will be the sixth consecutive year that opium production has increased, despite hundreds of millions of dollars given to programmes to halt cultivation, processing and trafficking.

What happened Six yours ago you may ask? I don't mean to patronise but the correlation is not hard to pinpoint.[/quote]

Six years ago Taliban started to protect opium traders which they still do while USA is trying to curb opium trade NOW.

You assertion about election methods in democratic Afghanistan are less true then the stories about how Taliban used to coerce people in blind obedience by threatening life and well-being of their children.