Steve wrote:you do see his point don't you ahmed? these people are killing others because they think its what their god wants, and its in his name that they are killing people. That is why they are called Islamic terrorists, because that's what they call themselves.

I get that, but you also realize that they are mistaken, just like the above mentioned "Christian" terrorists, and that they do not really represent Islam?

Hassan wrote:

Steve wrote:you do see his point don't you ahmed? these people are killing others because they think its what their god wants, and its in his name that they are killing people. That is why they are called Islamic terrorists, because that's what they call themselves.

I get that, but you also realize that they are mistaken, just like the above mentioned "Christian" terrorists, and that they do not really represent Islam?

Oh yes I totally agree with that, my point is that Islam is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make. You cannot blame the media for reporting on people killing in the name of a religion.

Oh yes I totally agree with that, my point is that Islam is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make. You cannot blame the media for reporting on people killing in the name of a religion.

Thanks for understanding, but I just wanted to clear that it is the terrorists who are associated with Islam (unfortunately) not the other way around.

Hassan you do know that the word Islam is now a synonym of the word ism, right? Why do you think this is?

Ahmed IV wrote:Hassan you do know that the word Islam is now a synonym of the word ism, right? Why do you think this is?

so that scholars can distinguish between Islam the faith and Islam the political ideology o.O

However an interesting historical note is that Islam was actually called Islamism (shortened from Mohammedanism) which was shorted to Islam as language developed.

There is no problem with Islam being a political ideaology. WHat si a problem is trying to get it by killing the innocent.

Umm, no lol , Islam is an Arabic word that means submission, or peace. It has always been called Islam, it is called Islam in the Qur'an...There is no such thing as "Mohammadism" or "Islamism"-Islam"ism" is just Islam with the "ism" suffix.

Ahmed IV wrote:There is no problem with Islam being a political ideaology. WHat si a problem is trying to get it by killing the innocent.

Umm, no lol , Islam is an Arabic word that means submission, or peace. It has always been called Islam, it is called Islam in the Qur'an...There is no such thing as "Mohammadism" or "Islamism"-Islam"ism" is just Islam with the "ism" suffix.

No =F used to translate to Islamism in English. Wikipedia agrees with me o.o

wikipeida wrote:The term Islamism was coined in eighteenth-century France as a way of referring to Islam or Mohammedanism, as the faith was often, if inaccurately, labeled as late as the 1970s. Earliest known use of the term identified by the Oxford English Dictionary is 1747. By the turn of the twentieth century it had begun to be displaced by the shorter and purely Arabic term Islam and by 1938, when Orientalist scholars completed The Encyclopaedia of Islam, seems to have virtually disappeared from the English language.

Are you claiming that the root word for Islam is 'al-Salaam'? because I am 90% sure that the root word for Islam is 'al-Silm' which literally means submission. The later has no mention of peace in its definition... but that is neither here nor there =F

And I didnt say there is anything wrong with Islam being the bases of a political ideology =F its just why the phrase is used now adays o.o

Oh, in English...I thought you were talkign about it changing names in Arabic.

Yes I am claiming so, Islam has the root words of submission which is "silm" as you said, and "salam"...it's hard to explain the grammer stuff in english.

Ahmed IV wrote:Hassan you do know that the word Islam is now a synonym of the word ism, right? Why do you think this is?

In my opinion, its nothing but propaganda. One only has to read the original text of Islam (the Holy Quran and the Sunnah) to understand it, but (of course) certain factors stop the media from presenting that, resulting in misinterpretation of Islam.

Hassan wrote:

Ahmed IV wrote:Hassan you do know that the word Islam is now a synonym of the word ism, right? Why do you think this is?

In my opinion, its nothing but propaganda. One only has to read the original text of Islam (the Holy Quran and the Sunnah) to understand it, but (of course) certain factors stop the media from presenting that, resulting in misinterpretation of Islam.

Thats just silly ¬_¬ srsly?

Really :doubt: how?

Hassan wrote:Really :doubt: how?

Well maybe I am reading between the lines but do you really think there are people in a dark room somewhere secretly stopping Islam from being respected or anything? ¬_¬

No, sam, that's not what I am saying. To begin with, there are numerous examples of people, Muslims and Non-Muslims alike, who have praised Islamic teachings just by reading the Text. What I am saying is that media, especially western media, has portrayed the terrorists more than, say, the pillars of Islam, and have created an overall negative image of Islam, especially in the west. People like President Bush have used this to their advantage.

Hassan wrote:No, sam, that's not what I am saying. To begin with, there are numerous examples of people, Muslims and Non-Muslims alike, who have praised Islamic teachings just by reading the Text. What I am saying is that media, especially western media, has portrayed the terrorists more than, say, the pillars of Islam, and have created an overall negative image of Islam, especially in the west. People like President Bush have used this to their advantage.

The western media has not painted Islam like that, the Islamic terrorists have painted Islam like that ¬_¬ but yeah I completely misunderstood what you were saying

he western media has not painted Islam like that

I will give you an example: A couple of years ago a Danish newspaper printed ridiculous, wrong, and just inflammatory pictures of the Holy Prophet Muhammad SA.W. Apart from the fact that Islam does not allow, very strictly, depicting the Prophets in pictures, the action was just wrong. The newspaper denied to apologize...

Then the current Pope, Benedict XVI, baptized an ex-Muslim, and the whole ceremony was all over news, tabloids, etc all over the world, knowing that it would be insulting for the Muslims. Religion, which according to Vatican, is personal, was made a show of competitiveness by its head. And the media played a great part in adverting it.

I am personally not a fan of all this. I just wrote to give you examples of what I said. But I do believe that doing this kind of propaganda is plain wrong, by any side,

Hassan wrote:

I will give you an example: A couple of years ago a Danish newspaper printed ridiculous, wrong, and just inflammatory pictures of the Holy Prophet Muhammad SA.W. Apart from the fact that Islam does not allow, very strictly, depicting the Prophets in pictures, the action was just wrong. The newspaper denied to apologize...

I remember...
edit - pictures removed, we have all seen them. No point making my post aggressive

Welcome to freedom of the presses ¬_¬ papers in the Middle East have offensive pictures of Jews and Christians all the time. (so many I can't pick one out of the thousands google has given me) Why should Islam get an apology when comedians crack jokes about all religions all the time? I get that you are saying its against Islamic beliefs to have pictures of Mohammad, but its not against anyone else's so why should a paper who has broken no law be penalized? You angry at it? Then don't buy that paper anymore and vote with your feet.

Then the current Pope, Benedict XVI, baptized an ex-Muslim, and the whole ceremony was all over news, tabloids, etc all over the world, knowing that it would be insulting for the Muslims. Religion, which according to Vatican, is personal, was made a show of competitiveness by its head. And the media played a great part in adverting it.

The Pope, the head of the worlds largest church baptized a man who has been a Muslim for 55 years, the deputy editor of a national newspaper and an author of various books and you don't think they should have been allowed to show it? Must have been a slow news day or something, again welcome to the free press, don't get butthurt, deal with it. You don't like it, don't read that newspaper anymore.

I am personally not a fan of all this. I just wrote to give you examples of what I said. But I do believe that doing this kind of propaganda is plain wrong, by any side,

Propaganda? Welcome to the media, feel free to make your own station or newspaper or website or anything else in which to say what you believe is newsworthy...you can't blame the media for being the media... and regulating what can and cannot be said is a VERY bad path to go down.

Also what do you mean by side? There are sides now?

I agree with Hassan. The media, as Hassan said, made terrorism look like a definition and Pilar of Islam.

Hassan I think the reaon for this is that the Christain missionaries could never convert a Muslim to Christianity, so by converting one, non-practing Muslim, who got pressured/influneced by his non-Muslim wife...Then that was a major accomplishment IMO.

But you know what Hassan. I sort of see the media's attack on Islam as having a reverse result...after 9/11 many Christains esp. in the West converted to Islam. The reason for this is that those ex-Chistians wondered, what is this religion that teaches terrorism. And that religion according to the media is Islam. So they researched on this religion and they soon found that it is the truth. The Middle East Media Research Institute reported that after 9/11, 34,000 Americans converted to Islam.

Here is a good site of what I mean:
http://www.riseofislam.com/islam_in_america_02.html

@Sam: Those are the smae 5 pictures that I see everywhere on the net...

All those that said to kill, slay are agaisnt Islam because the cartoons were an intellectual attack, nad not a physical attack. However, the one that said Islam will domiante has some truth, as most studies say that by 2025 there will be more followers of Islam than Christianity, making Islam the biggest religion on Earth. The oen that said for freedom to go to hell, well I compeletly disgaree!! Freedom is good and is part of Islam, however it should not be abused like what the Dansih cartoons have done.

Could you show me one of these pictures that make fun of Jews or Christains, in the mid-east news? I doubt that is true beceuase the mid-east has lots of Christains and some Jews. Also make sure to not get one that was a reply to the offensive Pope remarks or the Danish offensive cartoon.

Also I think Hassans point, is that the West always talks about how religion is a personal thing and so forth. So why was it world-wide pronounced of this man converting or so?

I found that last post rather derogotory and insulting if I am honest...

Hassan I think the reaon for this is that the Christain missionaries could never convert a Muslim to Christianity, so by converting one, non-practing Muslim, who got pressured/influneced by his non-Muslim wife...Then that was a major accomplishment IMO.

Especially this... I mean I know its hard for someone in your part of the world to convert without fears of being attacked or ridiculed but people actually convert to a faith without being forced to by the sword or by being forced to pay money to their Muslim overlords all the time over here.

And about those offensive cartoons... take a pick... there are loads... just google image search;


From Al-Yawm (Saudi Arabia)


Jews drinking the blood of children From Al Ahram (Egypt)




Iran

Well we are debating, Sam, so there might be contradicting ideas. But anyhow what I did say is a valid idea.

You mean in the mid-east? You see, that could eaily be avoided, they just need to travel to Europe or America, and they could convert there. Converting out of Islam isn't really an obstacle. However, that 55 year old man, is the only one that I ever saw to, truly, convert out of Islam.

Islam was never spread by the sword. Proof of this is that there are still large amounts of non-Muslims and old Chruches and Temples still in the Muslim world to this day.

The Qur'an said: "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things." (2: 256)

The wisdom behind the tax/jizyah paid by non-Muslims to the Islamic state was fairness. This is for two reasons:

First, Muslims were paying zakah (the annual charity) to the Islamic state, which was used for all sorts of services and social welfare. Zakah is an Islamic act of worship, but it is only for Muslims. It was fair to make non-Muslim citizens of the same state pay a similar (in fact, smaller) amount as a tax, since zakah is not taken from them as it is taken from Muslims. Jizyah was calculated in different ways throughout different eras (a certain amount of money, certain percentage of the crops, etc), but it was consistently less than the zakah, which every Muslim had to pay anyway.

In addition to that, this tax was paid in exchange of protection of these non-Muslim communities (i.e., military protection) and exemption of their men from joining the Islamic army. At that time, this was a necessary and fair measure given all the wars that the Islamic state was going through based on religious divides. It was not fair to ask these non-Muslim citizens to fight with Muslims against fellow believers of their same religion.

As for the cartoons, I noticed that all fo them neither had to do with Christaintiy or Judaism (the religion). Rather it had to do with the "zionist state of israel"

The prmime minister of isral earlie this year, said himself that "if the rockets don't stop comign from Gaza, we will give Gaza its holocaust" with these same words.

So I see it as only factual and real. Not false and lies like the danish cartoons.

Ahmed IV wrote:Well we are debatign Sam, so there might be contradicting ideas. But anyhow what I did say is a valid idea.

You mean in the mid-east? You see, that coudl eaily be avoided, they just need to travel to Europe or America, and they could convert there. Converting of of Islam isn't really an obstacle. However, that 55 year old man, is the only one that I ever saw to, truly, convert out of Islam.

Islam was never spread by the sword. Proof of this is that there are still large amounts of non-Muslims and old Chruches and Temples still in the Muslim world to this day.

No, that means that Islam allowed some of them not to be killed. The fact of the matter is from the moment Mohammad marched into Mecca with an army and destroyed the idols at the Kaaba he had started a long line of destroying the religion of the people and supplanting it with his own.

The Qur'an said: "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things." (2: 256)

Verse 193 of the same Sura instructs Muslims to "fight with them (non-Muslims) until there is no more persecution and religion is only for Allah." care to talk about that?

The wisdom behind the tax/jizyah paid by non-Muslims to the Islamic state was fairness. This is for two reasons:

First, Muslims were paying zakah (the annual charity) to the Islamic state, which was used for all sorts of services and social welfare. Zakah is an Islamic act of worship, but it is only for Muslims. It was fair to make non-Muslim citizens of the same state pay a similar (in fact, smaller) amount as a tax, since zakah is not taken from them as it is taken from Muslims. Jizyah was calculated in different ways throughout different eras (a certain amount of money, certain percentage of the crops, etc), but it was consistently less than the zakah, which every Muslim had to pay anyway.

Ah, okay... so then an act of charity is no longer an act of charity if you have to pay it anyway o.O and a different tax system based on peoples beliefs is wrong no matter what way you want to swing it.

In addition to that, this tax was paid in exchange of protection of these non-Muslim communities (i.e., military protection) and exemption of their men from joining the Islamic army. At that time, this was a necessary and fair measure given all the wars that the Islamic state was going through based on religious divides. It was not fair to ask these non-Muslim citizens to fight with Muslims against fellow believers of their same religion.

Listen... you can't make everything about religion and then complain when the Western media do the same... thats being a hypocrite. Demanding protection money from people who don't share the states beliefs and then using the money to fund armies to kill people with the same beliefs seems even more unfair than the last quote tbh... I don't care how you try and swing it, it is wrong. If Britain started taxing people for being Muslim would you not be a little annoyed?

As for the cartoons, I noticed that all fo them neither had to do with Christaintiy or Judaism (the religion). Rather it had to do with the "zionist state of israel"

No. They are anti Jewish. See the big noses and orthodox hats....

The prmime minister of isral earlie this year, said himself that "if the rockets don't stop comign from Gaza, we will give Gaza its holocaust" with these same words.

Thats in relation to things like this I am sure

So I see it as only factual and real. Not false and lies like the danish cartoons.

I'm sure there are many who saw the Danish cartoons as factual ¬_¬

edit - like to say I didnt see them as factual =F I think they were highly based on opinion but so is everything tbh

I am trying to answer some of sam's inquries:

Welcome to freedom of the presses .

The question is not freedom of press. The question is respect. I would just like to ask you whether you see this civil liberty as "with limitation" or not?

Also what do you mean by side? There are sides now?

I mean I think it is wrong to use such insulting and biased images (whether cartoons or not) by any side, a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew, an 'atheist'.

Verse 193 of the same Sura instructs Muslims to "fight with them (non-Muslims) until there is no more persecution and religion is only for Allah." care to talk about that?

You just took this out of contest.Read from the beginning:

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.
Clear?

Ah, okay... so then an act of charity is no longer an act of charity if you have to pay it anyway o.O and a different tax system based on peoples beliefs is wrong no matter what way you want to swing it.

If the state is based on religion, as in a Islamic state where all are treated in an equal but particular manner, than it is necessary to do this so that harmony among different religious groups maintains. One of the beauties of Islam!

edit - like to say I didnt see them as factual =F

Thanks for saying that. I really appreciate that!

Pagans don't have "religions".

Pagan

1. One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion.
2. One who has no religion.

And this is what happens when Prophet Muhammad and his army conquered Macca:

On the eve of the conquest, Abu Sufyan adopted Islam. When asked by Muhammad, he conceded that the Meccan gods had proved powerless and that there was indeed "no god but Allah", the first part of the Islamic confession of faith. In turn, Prophet Muhammad (SAW) declared Abu Sufyan's house a sanctuary:

"Who enters the house of Abu Sufyan will be safe, who lays down arms will be safe, who locks his door will be safe".

He also declared:

Allah has made Mecca a sanctuary since the day He created the Heavens and the Earth, and it will remain a sanctuary by virtue of the sanctity Allah has bestowed on it until the Day of Resurrection. It (fighting in it) was not made lawful to anyone before me. Nor will it be made lawful to anyone after me, and it was not made lawful for me except for a short period of time. Its animals (that can be hunted) should not be chased, nor should its trees be cut, nor its vegetation or grass uprooted, nor its Luqata (most things) picked up except by one who makes a public announcement about it.'

Then along with his companions Muhammad visited the Ka'aba. The idols were broken and the stone gods were destroyed. Thereupon Muhammad recited the following verse from the Qur'an:"Say the Truth is come and falsehood gone; Verily falsehood is ever vanishing."

The people assembled at the Ka'aba, and Muhammad delivered the following address:

"There is no god but Allah. He has no associate. He has made good His promise that He held to his bondman and helped him and defeated all the confederates. Bear in mind that every claim of privilege, whether that of blood or property is abolished except that of the custody of the Ka'aba and of supplying water to the pilgrims. Bear in mind that for any one who is slain the blood money is a hundred camels. People of Quraish, surely God has abolished from you all pride of the time of ignorance and all pride in your ancestry, because all men are descended from Adam, and Adam was made of clay."

Then Muhammad turning to the people said:

"O ye Quraish, what do you think of the treatment that I should accord you?"

And they said, "Mercy, O Prophet of Allah. We expect nothing but good from you."

Thereupon Muhammad declared: "I speak to you in the same words as Joseph spoke to his brothers. This day there is no reproof against you; Go your way, for you are free." Muhammad's prestige grew after the surrender of the Meccans. Embassies from all over Arabia came to Medina to submit to him.
===========================

Why don't you continue the verse Sam?

"And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression. " (2:193)
===========================
The Christains's and Jews's Jizyah/Tax was just a Tax to the state, and not charity. The Muslimsn were the ones taht had to give charity, and it was more than the Jizyah/Tax that the Christians and Jews payed.
===========================
The money wasn't used to "kill people". The money was used in other conquests and the advancement of the state/country/empire. How am I being a hypocrite again?
You doin't get it, do you? The Muslims were paying taxes too, and that tax was charity. So it would be wrong to tax them even more. However, the Chrsiatisn and Jews did not have to give Charoty, that was up to them. Therefore they had to pay the state a tax in some way and that was the Jizyah.
============================
I don't know about the big noses, maybe thats how he draws (He is a cartoonist not an artist) and well whats the probelmw ith drawing the hat that they wear? They are Jews afterall, and they do wear it...
============================
Nope, I meant things like this.
============================
This only supports my stand. The western media has repeated a lie so many times that some people know see it as true.

The Danish cartoons has no truth to it at all, whatsoever. And opinions are never facts (truth).

Hassan wrote:

The question is not freedom of press. The question is respect. I would just like to ask you whether you see this civil liberty as "with limitation" or not?

I actually don't think there should be limitations o.o I believe in total and utter freedom of speech and press.

I mean I think it is wrong to use such insulting and biased images (whether cartoons or not) by any side, a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew, an 'atheist'.

I think its wrong too if I am honest but I don't think it is something that should be forced. I think (like I said) if you don't like it and enough people don't like it they should stop buying the newspaper or watching the show so they stop doing it ¬_¬

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.
Clear?

In my eyes that is just as bad and as violent o.O

If the state is based on religion, as in a Islamic state where all are treated in an equal but particular manner, than it is necessary to do this so that harmony among different religious groups maintains. One of the beauties of Islam!

I think that a religion should have very limited power when it comes to state matters and what you are talking about is not harmony... its forcing people to give money for believing something different. In my eyes there is no possible way of justifying that... it is wrong.

Thanks for saying that. I really appreciate that!

I didnt say it for your benefit, I just didnt want you to get the wrong impression that I think Islam is a bad thing. I don't... though I really really don't agree with some of the systems ¬_______¬

Sam answer mines please.

Before I answer, can you do me a favor. Answer the above from an unbiased, practical approach.