Just had this emailed to me:

History of Muslim wars that might surprise a few:
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/muslimwars/articles/yarmuk.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquest

Interesting and bizarre view on the crusade but does help explain the side
of an argument you might not agree with:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm

That context set, this current war adds up even less. But lets not forget
that George W Bush is a Fundamentalist Christian whose far right Christian
views are pushing through laws to make abortion illegal in the USA and
condemns Gay rights.

Bush and Fundamentalist Christians:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/cohen_24_4.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity

Bush's abortion bill:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3232601.stm
Bush and Gays
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6086922.stm

As well as the money and oil theories for invading Iraq, doesn't this
further put in to question the motives for the man in charge of the 'free'
World, and declaring wars that our government follows on our behalf? The
people of this country never wanted Britain to go war and the people of this
country want our troops out of Iraq. If our government made a statement by
withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan the shape of the World would
most probably change, fuelling compassion for the countries invaded in the
wake of an admitted mistake.

I don't want to live in a country that's views are getting more hard line to
the right and our civil liberties are constantly being eroded in the UK all
with blanket banner of fighting terrorism. These laws are doing more to
divide society at home and feed the fuel for international disgust for the
war in Iraq, which, understandably is turning the Muslim community against
the West.

Make your presence and voice felt tomorrow and help keep the pressure on to
get our troops out. If we don't make a stand, will they think the war has
our  seal of approval?


Anti terror bill basics:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1708097.stm


Don't forget to watch The Conspiracy Files BBC2 9PM - a documentary looking
into the death of David Kelly, the government scientist and weapons
inspector who died in suspicious circumstances after the 'sexing up' scandal
concerning WMD and the reason to go to war with Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6213898.stm

Fascinating reading of David Kelly's timeline leading up to his death
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6380231.stm

And please forgive my poor spelling. Rushing around lots to do !

I wrote the emailed quote in reply 16, and want further that thought:

I think what has to be remembered here is that hard liners and fundamentalists (Puritans) tend to be intolerant and often violent. By their very nature, they only believe in their own point of view and in some cases (not just with Fundamentalist Muslims), they incite violence. Very few actually follow through, but of those who do, it's shocking. You have to look at the history of the Klu Klux Klan in the US or the National Front in the UK, to understand that this behaviour is common within the spectrum of many groups, fortunately the behaviour is usually hot-headed shouting and angry letters and graffitti, but in my opinion, anybody causing harm to others in any context is unacceptable. But the way we are fighting violence with War and aggression  is ridiculous, violence only breeds violence, bloodshed breeds bloodshed.  If we react to anger in an angry way, we are only fueling anger.

Let people have their opinion, and if they spill into violence, deal with that violence in the context of the Law. But if we don't engage and try to argue down a hard liners' point of view, chances are they end up shouting by themselves. But the more preemptive laws that are put into place to deal with potential violence of a few people, the more we all suffer. I went to a "Stop the War" protest in London this weekend, and found the Police taking photographs of 'known troublemakers as evidence in case there was any trouble'. I asked them if they will destroy the photos after the event if the peaceful protest went by without any trouble, and was told 'No, they are kept on file'. Meanwhile the UK Government is trying to push through a bill to make street photography illegal.

Is Islam inherently violent? or: Are humans inherently violent?

The moral values of Islam are the same as any major religion: Mercy, Compassion and Peace. These are the values that Muslims affirm in Prayer five times a day. There is a huge vacuum and confusion within Islam. Within the last hundred years, hard line Puritan Muslims have broken down the historic structure of Islam. There is no High Priest or "Head" of Islam. This is because historically Laws and trails were conducted by a panel of Intellectuals (including women), each of which had a specialism in a different area of Law. An issue would be debated and a decision made. Much of this fair and compassionate system has been thrown into disarray by Puritanical Muslims, but inherently I would suggest that Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people. The Hard liners, who declared Jihad on anybody who doesn't follow the Qu'ran to the letter (including Muslims), are inherently violent.

I highly reccomend reading 'The Great Theft: Wrestlimg Islam from the Extremists', written by Khaled Abou El Fadl, professor of Islamic law at UCLA and Bush appointee to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Why Bush has gone so wrong is a totally different issue!

Do you think I'm black because my name is Leon? 
No that's not me. What do you think of my comments?

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2007 at 9:26am:


i'm guessing that they were taken out of context. after re-reading some of them, i realised they aren't as bad as what donaldtrump made them out to be. let me explain:

"Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2"

the part that jumped out to me is the part that said "if they attack you, then kill them". to me, that's saying that if they attack you, then u can fight back, i.e. u can fight in cases of self-defence.

"If the unbelievers do not offer you peace, kill them wherever you find them. Against such you are given clear warrant. 4:91"

this quote starts off with if they do not offer u peace, then kill them. so if peace is on the table, then war is forbidden to them. that's not too bad. 

"Cut off the hands of thieves. It is an exemplary punishment from Allah. 5:38"

from the looks of it this punishment only applies to thieves. so don't do the crime, then u won't get the punishment. the only thing u can argue here is that the punishment is harsh, but that doesn't make the religion a violent one since that punishment only applies if one commits a crime.

i'm not sure about the other two quotes though, but if the ones above were twisted to make islam look evil and violent, then i'm guessing the other two quotes have been taken out of context as well. 

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Feb 27^th, 2007 at 3:07pm:


Actually, christians believe the Bible to be the true word of God as well.

Also, we acknowledge that some verses of the Bible are subject to interpretation, like the quote i provided earlier from Matthew 10:34. From my understanding, that's the same with every religious scripture which is why every major religion has so many different denominations since they disagree on the interpretation on particular verses.

Quote:


Yep. I think this is true.