To be honest with you i dont frown upon ALL muslims for something one did. Its just not right. I also find it wrong that the "GOOD" muslims arent speaking up and yelling at the world for being so IGNORANT! Seriously people are so close-minded and introverted towards muslims and not only muslims but middle eastern people EX. pakistan iraqui israeli... It really dose hurt me to see what this world has come to.

Just a few points.

(a) "Islama" means submission; "salam" means peace. They come from the same root, but essentially, at the very core of Islam is complete submission to God's will. Peace, however, is emphasized throughout the Qur'an.

(b) Regarding the term "Islamic fundamentalism"- I've spoken to Muslims who object to the association between terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism. The purpose of Islam, they say, is to follow the beliefs set forth in the Qur'an. Essentially, every true Muslim is "fundamental"--as in, they don't pick and choose what beliefs and rituals they follow for their own convenience.

© A lot of Muslims aren't actively combating the terrorist movement simply because they're not activists. I would say that about 20% of the population makes a deliberate effort, other than voting, to influence political decisions. It's the same with the Muslim population-- some are activists; most are not. It's not that Muslims "keep to themselves" any more than the rest of the population.

(d) The activeness of the Muslim population also depends on your geographic location. For example, I live in the DC area, so there are a lot of interfaith councils (even within my own high school) in which Muslims speak out against terrorism and emphasize the importance of peace. Once again, there are more activists in this area, and thus, there are more Muslims who are active in combating terrorism.

(e) Fear could also be an issue.. There was a Middle Eastern woman from California who criticized Islamic policies in an interview. She has received multiple death threats from officials and clerics in Islamic nations.

Personally, I don't think that Muslims are any less active than the rest of the population. I'm not exactly an expert on Islam, and I can't read Arabic, so unfortunately, I can't obtain a true understanding of the Qur'an in context... I realize that some Qur'anic suras contain controversial material, but that's something I need to investigate further before making a definite conclusion about the true nature of Islam.

I stand corrected. Thanks.

I'm sure I said it before, I don't hate Muslims, nor do I think all Muslims are violent. I have a Muslim friend that decided that he wanted to join the Airforce after 9/11.

I've come across this website, and it's led me to question how peaceful Islam really is. Check out how many civilians Islamic terrorists have killed this year (1,822) compared to the number of civilians that US soldiers have colaterally killed (23). But who is portrayed as the bad guy around the world? Why does the US military get accused of killing civilians and babies when the Islamic terrorists get only a slight condemnation?



Who is better, the person who convinces someone by using facts and historical events, or a person that holds a sword up to your throat and threatens to kill you if you don't convert?



I'm not saying the Crusades were barbaric. I'm saying the Christians were not the aggressors. The Crusades were by no means an unjustified offensive war. Muslims were waging war and attacking pilgrims (just a tidbit, the Stations of the Cross were made because it was impossible to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land due to the Muslims).

Calling the Christians evil for launching the Crusades would be like calling the Allies evil for undertaking the invasion of Normandy (trying to tiptoe around a Hitler reference to avoid invoking Godwin's Law ).



It's funny that you mention this, because Islam is trying to appeal to African Americans when Arab Muslims viewed Africans as second class. I have my doubts that they were motivated by nationalism simply because a fundamental part of Islam is sharia rule. Just because the Umayyads were elitists doesn't mean that religion had little to do with it.



I'm unsure what you mean by a "Rudy." If you mean a leader figure with political power, then who is Louis Farrakhan? I think he's too busy being anti-semitic and racist to complain about Islamic terror.

Or do you mean a "Rudy" as in a moderate leader? What about the Council on American and Islamic Relations (CAIR). Their goal is to promote understanding of Islam in America. Funny thing is, they've been criticized as having connections to terrorism.

Not too many Muslims live around here (a good friend who was Muslim converted to Christianity when we were in elementary school), but as I said earlier, my friend who wanted to join the Airforce is one of the nonviolent Muslims.

So the question is, who will stand up for Islam?



The next time I see a serial killer killing a woman in the alley, I'll call the police.

The next time Islamic riots occur, the good Muslims should inform their governments and clerics and authorities. Unless, the authorities tend to side with the rioters. Muslim countries boycotted Denmark over the cartoons. If the good Muslims truly are in the majority, why aren't they being represented in the government?



I'm not going to judge any religion based on the actions of a minority. I'm going to judge a religion based on what they teach. I think Islam gives too much leeway for violence, especially since the Koran commands Muslims to slay the infidels and conquer the world. Christianity does not teach people to bomb abortion clinics. Given the oppressive nature of many Islamic governments and the history of Islamic violence, forgive me if I'm a little worried.

I would think that a lot of Muslims do not support terrorism, and are just afraid to speak up. If you look at the Holocauste, people were basically forced to be Nazis because they were too afraid to say no.

i'm sorry kiddo i dont wanna burst your fantasy-bubble, but american soldiers have killed way more than 23 civilians. all i can say about that site is it is a straight up lie and propaganda that has obviously worked its purpose on u. how could we only kill 23 civilians when we were initially bombing whole f**kin cities?







ahhh u must be talkin about the indians and africans deemed savages who the white man had to save by converting them to chrisitanity, otherwise killin them?






well i wont pick u apart piece by piece but overall it seems u are pretty defensive of chrisitanity. this is fine, only it seems u dont really have a strong grasp of history. christians have had their share of slaughtering ppl just as muslims have and so on... islam gets a bad rap for spawning terrorists n wat not but christianity has spawned such violence as the KKK and hitler it just depends how u look at it

Post a legitimate source and I'll admit I made a mistake. I think you're misreading what I'm saying. What I said was this year, US forces are responsible for 23 civilian casualties. A lot of what you are probably reading says "after the US invasion, x amount of civilian deaths occured" when the majority of the deaths were caused by insurgents.

Back up your arguement with facts, or is this one of those subjective topics that can't be backed up?



How about YOU learn your history? Christianity was brought to Egypt by Mark (one of Jesus' disciples) in 60 AD. The king of Ethiopa made Christianity the official religion of the Ethiopian Empire. It was initially introduced by the Portuguese and he embraced it. Remember, this was even before the Roman Empire became Christian, so the Christians were being persecuted themselves. It wouldn't have been wise for them to be starting wars. In fact, Christianity was doing just fine for several centuries until the Muslims started conquering North Africa. Much, much later on, the White Man™ came in and started converting using force, but how much of this was connected to the Catholic Church (which is the Christianity that I'm defending).

And ROFL at saying Christianity spawned KKK and Hitler. The KKK persecuted Catholics. Let's see you explain how Christianity spawned Hitler. Just because Hitler was baptized Catholic (but not practicing) doesn't mean it's part of Catholic doctrine to do what he did. However, it's written in the Koran to slay the infidels.

OMG WHATEVER PROPAGANDA THAT YOU LISTENED TO OBVIOUSLY WORKED. STOP LISTENING TO STRAIGHT UP LIES OMG!

It would seem that the coalition is responsible for more than 23 civilian deaths.[1]

Dammit, why do we always have to bring Kansas into this?

i dont need a legitimate source to back my claims its just common sense, logic and a grip on reality that leads me to my conclusion. i kno u won't take it as a sufficient answer but it is wat it is. i don't need some stupid f**kin online web-site to tell me that US soldiers have killed more than 23 civilians this year. im not condemning US soldiers, or saying that we are evil for doing it, but if u believe that we aren't killing our fair portion of innocent ppl then u should wake up.


your pathetic attempt to insult my observation on arguments that were going nowhere on an extremely subjective topic in another thread has nothing to do with this argument, quite futile really


i see yur ready to break out the history book on this one and i dont feel like looking up every single point like u are prolly doin just to prove u wrong. Muslims may not be the most peaceful religion but thats their choice. not every faith will be perfect, the protestant reformation was started over the rampant corruption takin place in the catholic church, not to mention the church's dirty little not-so-secret-anymore secret of the disgusting relationship alot of priests have had w/ their choirboys



im not saying christianity is directly responsible for hitler and the KKK but the same can be said for islam and terrorists. u find it ridiculous to associate the religion of kkk members or hitler w/ their heinous actions, yet just b/c terrorists follow islam and claim religious reasons its their faith. i suppose u havent heard of religious extremists?

The statstic I stated was the number of civilians killed colaterally by US forces this year. Not for the duration of the war. Not from the entire coalition.

Even if you use the number that some of these groups are putting out, they still show that the Iraqi insurgency is doing most of the killing.



Learn how to argue. You can't argue without facts to base your arguement on. If you try to argue without any concrete facts, people will just laugh at you.



Just because it's their choice doesn't make it right. The Protestant Reformation (which wasn't really a reformation at all, as much as it was a schism, but I digress) changed things for the worse, not for the better. But this isn't the topic for it, so search for my "Questions for Protestants" topic if you'd like to continue arguing the matter.

And yes, the Church has had its share of scandal. But it's clearly been blown way out of proportion. I wouldn't doubt that the ratio of molesting priests is lower than the ratio of molesting teachers, yet people are calling for death to the Catholic Church, but not to education. Weird, huh?

We've even had some terrible Popes in the past. Pope Alexander VI was a really, really bad Pope. He had a bunch of children, among other crazy things. But for some reason, he made no ex cathedra statements that harmed Catholic Doctrine.

The important thing to take out of this is that none of this is in Catholic Doctrine. There is no "Thou shall molest" commandment. However, the Koran states: Fight and slay the Unbelievers wherever ye find them. Seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war. Sura 9:5



Hitler didn't kill because his religion (or lack thereof) told him to. He killed because he was a maniac. Similarly for the KKK, they didn't do what they did because their religion told them to.

However, Islamic extermists are using using that quote as an excuse to kill people. We have Muslim clerics who have said that the only way to peace is for the world to accept Muslim rule. Why are these people leaders of a supposedly peaceful religion?

do u have a legitimate source for this? Learn how to argue. You can't argue without facts to base your arguement on. If you try to argue without any concrete facts, people will just laugh at you.

There may be a higher ratio, i'm not gonna say one way or another cuz i wouldnt know, yet its not about numbers b/c teachers aren't supposed to take a vow to honor the Church's code, which I'm pretty sure condemns the molesting of little boys. Dont bring teachers into it anyways we're talking about priests, so you're really reaching on that one.






I never said it was right, i just said its their choice and who are we to say whether or not its wrong? Yeah in THE BIBLE it says violence is wrong, but so wat? How can you use the standards of your religion to judge someone else, it just makes no sense.


Besides, i guess you are choosing to neglect the famous Angel of Death which god sent on the Egyptians... i'm sure most have heard of it, it was what spawned the holiday passover... so this wasn't god condemning violence? Sure it may not be written in the bible, but violence is used in christianity all the time... protestants used to kill witches in early america in the name of the bible, "heathens" and "savages" who wouldn't convert were slayed...

Soon, I will be interviewing an imam at Georgetown University, and I'm planning to respectfully raise some of these questions. Not knowing the entire Qur'an is essentially detrimental to me, the inquirer, since Muslims often respond to controversial passages by arguing that they are taken out of context. However, since I don't know the passages in context, I have no way of further investigating these issues..

In addition, here's a question:
Do you believe that some of the Qur'an's meaning is twisted through translation?

I knew you were going to try to pull this one.

So let's see you justify your claims with some kind of source, instead of using the "it's all subjective" arguement.



And it's not against a teacher's contract to molest children? Both contracts forbid it.



I was defending against the statement you made against priests, which is a very common misconception. I was putting things in perspective, to correct some of the propaganda you may have heard.



God's laws apply to everyone, believer or unbeliever. As an analogy, pretending the police aren't there doesn't mean the law doesn't apply to you.



First of all, you're confusing justice with violence for the Angel of Death. Second, you neglect that it is God who decides if we live or die. We don't decide, which is why murder is condemned.

Finally, I don't think I can, nor do I want to) defend what the Protestants did. It doesn't really affect my belief because I am not a Protestant, and I believe the Protestants are wrong on issues outside of what they did to the Native Americans.



I looked at Sura 9:5 and the surrounding verses, and it looked pretty much in context to me. I checked out some Islamic websites that say that the context is in wartime, but doesn't this justify jihadists who are declaring holy war on the infidels?



Possibly. I don't know Arabic either, so I can't read the real Koran. But I've checked out various websites offering different translations, some offering side by side translation, and all pretty much say the same thing (although some say it in "nicer" words, the main idea is the kill unbelievers or enslave them).

Thanks for passing on these questions!

How does Islam define "unbelievers"? I'm pretty sure that there is another passage in the Qur'an that acknowledges Christians and Jews as fellow "People of the Book." Did this tolerance decline throughout history?

I googled for "Islamic Dictionary" and came up with this from the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Endowments, Da‘wah and Guidance Website.

He who does not believe in Allah or His Messenger (PBUH)or denies any of the five pillars of Islam
‏كافر : من لا يؤمن بالله ولا بمحمد رسول الله , أو من ينتقص من مقام الله تعالى ورسوله أو ركن من أركان الإيمان

(interesting note, I was trying to highlight the Arabic, but forgot that Arabic reads right to left, so I was sitting there for a few seconds trying to highlight it left to right).

So apparently, by that definition, I am an infidel since I do not believe that Mohammed (Peace Be Upon Him, as he is regarded by Muslims) as a prophet of God.

I'm sorry but to me a special report defending Catholic Priests that is done by the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights doesn't prove to be a legitimate source. It may be true that they use numbers, but the data is a little skewed. For example, they do not cite a consistent source throughout the report. They also jump around in years; when talking about teachers they use numbers from 1986 and 1994. Its a nice little essay you dug up but would you really expect a report by the same ppl verifying priests nasty habit?

But all of this is besides the point anyways. You are right about teachers not supposed to touch students but who is held in higher esteem? Not all teachers are religious, priests have a very distinct order of living. Teachers shouldn't even be brought into this argument, so you are saying since priests don't molest boys as much as teachers its not so bad? hmm...





I love how you try to twist someone's words against them when it doesn't even make sense. You were putting what into perspective? That according to a Church-related group priests aren't 'as bad' of molesters as teachers? Here's some perspective, if it happens once or twice it could be considered isolated incidents. It's a trend though, which has to lead one to ask what the problem is, there is certainly no mention of touching little boys in the Bible.





This is exactly the point I think Silla was trying to prove. God's law TO YOU applies to everyone, even if they don't believe it. But if someone doesn't believe in God then that's their opinion and you should respect it, you can't expect them to follow the laws of a faith they don't follow. I don't mean to bust your bubble but you don't have proof that your God exists. No one does of any religion. It's not like ignoring the police because there is no definitive God. How are you gonna compare God to the police? That's a horrible analogy.

I'm not saying that Muslims killing other ppl is right and justified, I'm saying that for you to sit there and condemn another's religion is just ignorant. Especially when every faith has it's faults.

Clearly, Muslims are not pacifists, and they are willing to wage war in order to ensure the survival of their faith and their people. However, Islam itself is not deliberately militant, either. This passage seems fair (parts of it even reflect the norms of modern diplomacy), but it relies too much on human judgment to decide when violence is appropriate and when it is not. For example, what is "oppression"? What constitutes the end of "tumult and oppression"? When does one "transgress limits"?

Thus, if one judges Islamic militancy by this passage, it's really human judgment that is flawed, not Islam itself. This reliance on human judgment is rather surprising, however, since Islam emphasizes the flawed nature of human beings by asking its followers to submit to the word Allah without question.

Before I answer, please drop the charade with your account and save yourself some embarassment. You're not fooling anyone.

The facts in that document speak for themselves. They use the data that is available, YOU can make the comparisons using the various data they give. Data is data, who uses the data has no bearing on whether the data is truthful or not. It's how the data is used, and the comparisons in that article look valid to me.



Wasting your arguement on a strawman, I see.

Your arguement:



My rebuttal:



You're twisting my arguement into a strawman. Debate MY rebuttal, not something that you're trying to put in my mouth.



See arguement above. I already said it was wrong, and the Church is not denying it is wrong, but you're misrepresenting my position.



You state that if someone refuses to believe in a law (or in the enforcer of a law), they should not have to follow it because it's their own opinion. Think about this one for a second. If you don't agree with the law, or with the person who makes/enforces/interprets the law, do you have the right to ignor the law? Absolutely not.

Just like the person in the analogy, your refusal to accept the legitimacy of established law does not make it any less legitimate. Even if a person doesn't believe that dealing drugs is illegal, or that the police doesn't exist, at the end of the day, the person is going to be in jail.



Argumentum tu quoque. This does not address the arguement at hand, but instead condemns the person arguing. Is it wrong for smokers to tell kids not to smoke because the are guilty of what they are trying to prevent?

Furthermore, if you think the Catholic faith has faults, start a new topic arguing them, or you can argue them here.

Don't make me go fallacious on YOU.

The argument on priests' pediphila is irrelevant. Let's do away with that and focus on this.

Basically you are completely ignoring any possibility that the God outlined in Christianity may not actually exist, that its possible there is another god in another religion. So to me, this analogy you give is not really too efficient. It has glaring flaws. The God you follow is not definitive. Government is. You cannot sit there and say that God is the same as government, because what if Christianity is wrong? What if Islam really is the governing religion of life? Then I guess according to you, you've been breaking laws your whole life and at the end of the day you are going to jail. You can't decide what government to follow in a country but you can decide what religion you do, and each religion has its own set of laws. Just like you wouldn't expect someone living in Bangladesh to follow American laws, you shouldn't expect someone who follows Islam to practice Christian beliefs.

Sorry! I forgot to respond to your post. Ok here I go:



Which brings us back to the topic at hand. If human judgement is relied upon to guide Islam, then why aren't Muslim leaders being more vocal against Islamic terrorism? I can't understand how Islamic leaders can issue death sentences and launch boycotts over books and cartoons, but sit there when people make their faith look bad.



Good call, it was a mistake for you to bring it up to begin with.



I know God exists because I can talk to God through prayer. Although I have absolutely no way of proving this to other people, it's proof enough for myself to know that there is one true God.



How can a god be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc. if he is not the one true God?

I could try to refute Islam, which would be out of scope for this topic, but I'll leave it at this. Muslims believe, although Jesus is not God, that Jesus is one of God's greatest prophets. However, Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. How come one of God's greatest prophets contradict Islamic teaching?

The problem with your statement about my analogy (and what you're failing to see) is that God is universal. It doesn't matter if you believe in him or not, He is still your God. If I was to sit here and claim that where I am sitting is an independent country and can claim my own laws, I could still get arrested for breaking US laws even though I claim that I'm part of my own country.

Oh, one more thing, your private message to me:



So let's see the mistakes here. You open up with an ad hominem. You say I should "brushen up" my debating skills. You claim I contradict myself and ignore points made by others, even though I do my best to quote other people and address each point they make.

In fact, I think that YOU are the one guilty of what you are accusing me of. You (sillakilla420) are hiding behind another user. I already warned you to drop the act.

So, I'll give you the honor of asking the other posters here who is making better points between the two of us.

Well, no, it's not that. I just wanted to use the word "fallacious" because you were practically screaming "FALLACY!" at the top of your lungs.

I was talking to my friend yesterday (she's Muslim), and she said that one looks toward the hadith for specific examples of how Muhammad handled certain situations, so Islam isn't completely reliant on human judgment. She said that in Islam, if someone attacks you physically, you fight back physically, as well. But if someone attacks you verbally or politically (e.g. Muhammad cartoon controversy), you should use your passion and your words to defend yourself and your faith.

By the way, I took Intro to Logic at Johns Hopkins two summers ago, and we did indeed enjoy screaming "FALLACY" all over campus.

You say I am SillaKilla? Haha. Why just because I am continuing an argument that he stopped? I can't agree with another member? If I am really SillaKilla why wouldn't I just use that account?



This argument is pointless. I am going to stop because I don't want to argue with someone who's opinion cannot be changed. You are obviously a stout Christian very devoted to your religion. You keep repeating the same things without ever addressing what I really stated. You won't even admit that there's a possibility that God doesn't exist. All you say is you know it because "you pray to him". Well, if I pray to a mythical god and I believe he responds to me that doesn't mean that he really exists. I actually am a Chrisitian too, but I am willing to accept that there may be alternative supreme beings. I don't BELIEVE that there are, I'm just open to the fact that it is possible. Let me ask you this... did you really CHOOSE to follow Christianity, or is it just the religion you were raised to follow? Be honest too, because I'm curious.


You 'warned' me? What is that supposed to mean?

Since when did this turn into a theological debate?

Kryo, you're using lingo like "staw man" and "ad hominem abusive." Okay, you know your fallacies, but other posters might not. It seems as if you're trying to intimidate through the use of language so that you come out on top. But if you really wanted sillakilla, teenage wasteland, and the rest of the members to understand and adopt your point, you wouldn't be so impatient and quick to apply this lingo.

Teenage_Wasteland, there's no need to start attacking kryo's religion and/or challenge his personal faith like you did. That's just crossing the line. There's a distinct difference between respectfully questioning what one doesn't understand about a faith and just being offensive. You say that his "argument is pointless;" so why are you still attempting to rebut it?

We're talking about the application of religion, not whether or not a religion proclaims the truth. And questioning kryo's personal connection to his faith? That's even more irrelevant. This whole thread is disorganized and basically messed up. Here is the conclusion that I've drawn from reading these posts:

1. Proclaimed followers of both Christianity and Islam have committed immoral acts.

2. The Qur'an specifically mentions situations in which violence is acceptable; the Bible does not.

3. "Peaceful" Muslims generally do not speak out against terrorism because (a) they're afraid, and (b) they're just not politically active.

Please post if:
A- You would like to challenge one of these conclusions,
B- If you would like to draw a new conclusion, or
C- Bring up a new relevant point.