Thanks for this post Muggaz it really needed to be posted. Islam does not support the kind of atrocities outline in Greywars article, they are the actions of a corrupt dictatorship and it's judicial system. You cannot say that the 1 billion practicioners of Islam are evil because the dictatorships who rule the Islamic world go against Islamic world to commit atrocities. And can you really blame people in Iraq or Iran for not speaking out against this. If they did, they would be killed. True, if the whole society spoke out against it, the government wouldn't be able to kill them all, but it's hard to be the first one to speak out. Saying that Islam is a bad religion because of what this dictatorship and its judges do is like saying that all black people are immoral because a few black people have committed violent murder. It just doesn't add up.

. Islam does not support the kind of atrocities outline in Greywars article

Islam as defined by the leaders of the religion, (the Imams and Ayatollahs) does  support these acts. Find a fatwa issued against hanging 16 yr olds, buggering little boys, kidnapping civilians, or suicide bombings. Aside from protests as issued by the folks on the excellent link provided by kingbee (all of whom are very low level clerics) you will find not one.

While Muggaz thinks they should issue an "edict" against me he has nothing to say about the edicts they don't issue. Childish.

No one is disputing your sentiments - but to point the finger directly at Islam based on the morons that run the theocracies is nothing short of disgusting.

I am not pointing the finger at them Muggaz, you know who I am pointing the finger at? The Muslims who dance in the streets when a suicide bomber blows kids to bits and those same Muslims who can't muster 50 people for a "moderate Muslim" protest march. Fuck the Imams, the followers of the religion itself are for the vast majority either outright or tacit supporters of these sorts of heinous crimes. Now thats disgusting.

Aside from protests as issued by the folks on the excellent link provided by kingbee (all of whom are very low level clerics) you will find not one

Let's go through this one by one.

buggering little boys

Sodomy is outlawed under most Islamic law codes, and is commonly punishable by execution with a sword.

hanging 16 yr olds

It's legal to execute a 16 year old in the US (the main reason the US refuses to sign the UN convention on the rights of the child) - surely you're not saying Americans are barbaric?

kidnapping civilians

see this link. It's an American site and I don't recognise the cleric's name, but you only ask for one. Link

suicide bombings

This one is less clear; like in Western and Japanese culture, where the sacrifice of the individual for the greater good is heroic, there is no consensus on the ethics of suicide bombing. As everyone is probably aware, the Saudi Grand Mufti, Sheikh Abdulaziz bin Abdallah Al-Sheikh, the highest religious authority in Saudi Arabia, has spoken against them as they come close, if not actually being, an act of suicide, and therefore against Islam. NU and Muhammadiyah agree, as I stated earlier. However it is easy to find opinions against this, so his view is not necessarily universal.

the followers of the religion itself are for the vast majority either outright or tacit supporters of these sorts of heinous crimes.

Firstly, what have you done to reduce civilian casualties in Iraq? If the answer is nothing, then ask yourself what normal Muslims should have done to limit civilian casualties from their attacks?

In any case, what possible purpose would marching for "moderate Muslim" serve apart from suggesting to you that they are possibly not that bad? Most Muslims don't have the same level of job security as in the west, and don't have a lot of free time. Should they lose their jobs so that you can believe?

"It's legal to execute a 16 year old in the US"

For having a sharp tongue?

People are just being silly now...

but you only ask for one

good find, I would say he is in the tiny minority though by a long shot.

Firstly, what have you done to reduce civilian casualties in Iraq?

Umm frankly if you knew anything about me then you would know that I do more in a single day to reduce civilian casualties in a war zone than you will ever do in a lifetime.

 

there is no consensus on the ethics of suicide bombing.

You need a fucking consensus to figure out that suicide bombing is bad? Are you retarded?

 

For having a sharp tongue?

I wasn't even going to dignify the absurdity of his reply to this.

Here is a another lovely chucnk of fatwa from that same page. Not exactly the model of consistency.

The situation of having concubines is related to several things: First, if the Islamic state exists. Second, if the Islamic state makes offers for other territories to join Islam or enter into treaties with them. Third, if those territories refuse all kinds of peace and amicable offers, or if they announce war. Fourth, during the time of war, both sides capture prisoners that are exchanged mutually, then there's no concubines. Fifth, if the prisoners have no possibility of being exchanged and they are kept under the conquered army, then the following things happen: Either they are killed, as what happened in Siberia, or they are put in prison where they are humiliated to death or the females are used as concubines.

Interesting to view the Abu Ghraib scandal in that light?

Islam does not condone those acts. Everytime a link is posted that contains condemnations of acts such as those by Muslims, you (greywar) dismiss those as not being in the majority. You have no idea how many of the billion or so Muslims in the world condone such heinous acts. Muslims in Arab countries do not protest because they could be killed by their governments. They don't exactly have the same freedoms and protections that we have here. It is clear that it is the perpetrators of crimes against humanity as described in your original article are the ones who should be punished. I don't know why, but you seem unwilling to place the blame on those who actually hanged that girl and instead must put the blame on an entire religion.

Right now in Africa there are countless civil wars being engaged. Children as young as eight are forced into military service by both governments and rebel groups. Or if they refused, they are killed. Women are raped by both sides. None of this is done in the name of religion. What will you place the blame for that on?

What the previous poster was attempting to point out by stating that it is not agreed upon that suicide bombing is wrong is that it is not a main belief of Islam. They do not all believe that it is a justified act. It is the same with the killing of abortion doctors in the US, albeit on a smaller scale. most christians think that killing an abortion doctor could never be justified, but some do. That does not mean Christianity condones such a thing. The difference is that the leaders of Christianity do not support such acts. Some of the leaders of Islam support the actions of extremists. But the leaders of a religion are not immune to being corrupt and falling out of line with their religion. An easy to point out example of this is the crusades. The leaders of the catholic church organized ignorant masses of men to raid the land that was once Israel, pillaging, raping, and destroying what they found there. And this happened several times. Does this mean that Christianity condones entering the lands of those unfriendly to us and taking their possessions, burn their houses, rape their women, and kill their families? Certainly not. It is the same with the actions of the leaders of Islam today.

I wouldn't copy/paste someone else's post, but I would suggest all the bleeding hearts go look at Kupe's post on greywar's blog. Revisionist history isn't helping anyone. Lumping the good with the bad is destructive BOTH ways. There are people who are practicing Islam peacefully, but you have to understand that it isn't the same Islam as many/most of the Middle East. It is as different as modern/medeival Christianity.

To say that there is no problem with Islam is to ignore the problem with the worst parts of it. Granted, ignoring the problem often does seem like the liberal thing to do, but...

I'm new to this board, and just in the spirit of jumping in feet first, I have a few points to make about this thread.

Religions by themselves are, like science, a way for us to understand our world. most religions are founded on ideals of peace, not hate Including both Islam and Christianity. Islam is supposed to respect the followers of Judaism & Christianity, even going so far as to teach that Jesus was the messiah, but that Mohammad was the last true prophet of God. Jesus, of course, taught us a very non-violent message when he spoke. The proplem does in fact lie with the people who twist the meanings of particular religions to suit their own purposes, and fanatics who believe so fervently in their faith that the fact that someone does not share their beliefs is a personal affront, and needs to be corrected with violence. The interesting thing is that these are problems of human nature, and not problems inherant in religion. So one can extrapolate easily and see these same problems rearing their ugly heads in other "religions" such as science, liberalism, conservatism etc... If you don't think that I'm correct, try arguing the many inconsistancies and problems with major scientific theories such as evolution, and global warming to someone whose beliefs have been shaped around them, and see if you don't see the same unwillingness to reason.

The thing that irritates me about both of these posts is that they are both written from an ignorant perspective. You can quicky scan through the Old Testament and find many verses pertaining to things such as stoning of childen advocated there as well. The difference is that there is really no-one who is advocating that strict of an adherance to the Bible, as there appears to be is some small camps in the Islamic world. So also to characterize the western response to this as ignorant is in itself ignorant. The one thing that I have consistantly been surprised by in the U.S. after 9/11 is our complete unwillingness to engage in a hatred of Islam. Yes, there have been a few examples of small-minded people terrorizing some local mosque, and yes, our government did detain some folks who were here illegally anyway. But the fears of mass retaliation have been greatly exaggerated.

I have read several posts from the author of this thread, and wonder if he asks himself the right sort of questions about where he gets his information about America and the rest of the world, does he think that he is getting any more of the whole story than we do? is he getting more balanced information? Or is he just choosing to believe a different pack of lies because it makes him feel better?

Bravo Shawn You just got an Insightful!

I find it iteresting that people can actually manage to argue over whether terrorist attacks, whether in the name of religion, politics, or any other cause are excusable and understandable. I personally know a few muslim people from the Middle East, not very many I admit, but some 5 or 6. They are in no way supportive of these extremists and do not rejoice over senseless killings. They will be quick to tell you that these extremists do not represent Islam, but, in their words, pervert Islam.

That said, it seems senseless and highly unrealistic to to try to claim that the particlular perversion of Islam that these fanatics practice is not to blame for the actions they carry out. It is at the very heart of their cause and their primary justification for them. No, they are not main-stream muslims, but there are a great number of people who do follow this perverted form of Islam and they can't be dismissed as just a "small group" of radicals, unless one calls several hundred thousand people a "small group".

No, not all muslims are to be blamed for the actions of these people, but the particlular form of Islam these people practice is definately at the root of their actions. It is a complex and difficult problem which can't possibly be explained, expressed, or solved in a few short paragraphs on the internet. If it could, it would have been solved a long time ago and a great many main-stream muslims as well as westerners would not have been killed by these fanatics. Remember, that these fanatics have killed far more main-stream muslims than thay have westerners.

I believe that a great deal of the problem, both the situation itself and the debates like the ones here, is a lack of true understanding. Most westerners don't really understand true Islamic law any more than most muslims understand western culture and law. This huge chasm of misunderstanding is likely not a small part of the overall problem. If more westerners understand main-stream Islam, they wouldn't be so quick to judge them by the actions of these zealots. If more muslims understood western culture and values, the young men wouldn't be so easily swayed by the lies told to them by these fanatical extremeists to the point of blowing themselves up in the name of a perversion of their religion.


Mugz, you and I don't always agree but we are usually civil. I find the remark about dismissing the statements of religious people out of hand to be both offensive and somewhat unintelligent. Just doesn't seem like your style on this one. One can't and shouldn't dismiss someone's ideas or statements just because they hold to a different belief system than our own. The statements should be evaluated based upon their merit and not simply ignored because the person making them doesn't see the world in the same way that you do.

That also being said, I think this is a pretty darned good article for airing some pretty energy-charged ideas.

Ok, How do I respond without being childish, or ignorant or prejudiced as I am reported to be...

Ok - I digress - I dont hate religion - I hate the actions it brings people to commit - Religion is the single biggest killer of Man ever, not religion per se - but acts made in the name of religion, When people like Greywar insult Islam as the religion, rather than the radical fundamentalists that he was wrting about - it's easy to see why that is the case - there is obvioulsy a lot of hatred created. I know Greywar doensn't necessarily think that about Islam, he was perhaps sensationalising for the sake of readership - that is up to him to do, but if you entitle an article the way he did, expect the necessary rebuttals.

The thing that irritates me about both of these posts is that they are both written from an ignorant perspective.

You are always going to get an ignoratn perspective from either side of the fence when it comes to any article, I try not to be ignorant, and allow for both sides of the article - I just cant agree with Greyways reporting that the 5 pillars of Islam are as he stated - I found it so offensive, and I am not even a Muslim - ask yourself if you were a Muslim how you would feel if you saw an article entitled thus.

I have read several posts from the author of this thread, and wonder if he asks himself the right sort of questions about where he gets his information about America and the rest of the world, does he think that he is getting any more of the whole story than we do? is he getting more balanced information? Or is he just choosing to believe a different pack of lies because it makes him feel better?

Perhaps you can tell me what kind of question to ask mate? I dont know anything about you, but based on that little comment, I can safely assume you know everything about everything, so whenever I want any answers at all - you are the man to see... what lies am I beleiving exactly? Is it a lie that some western people happily spread hatred and Vitriol directed towards Islam? thats all I am reporting agains here mate... In the interests of personal development, I wouldn't mind a little help as far as all the other articles of mine you are referring to!

Obviously, your hatred of Christians and Americans eclipses your hatred of "all" religion, enough so for you to once again express your sympathy with those who would kill us all. EVEN to the point of identifying with a suicide bomber wanting to kill grewar for his fucking opinion. You never cease to disgust me, Mugz, never.

Sabrina, I dont hate Christians or Americans - that means I would hate my own mother, and many friends I hold dear... Maybe you shouldn't bother reading what I write, It would be apparent there is a red mist clouding your vision when it comes to anything I say, so you dont pay attention anyway... I can certainly Identify with the Muslims for wanting to kill Greywar... if you knew anything about Islam at all, you would know they take their religion very seriously, and Greywar has not only insulted the religion, he has spat and shit all over it - have you no concept of pride Sabrina? What you dont realise is that with Greywar spreading such attitudes, it only leads to more terrorism etc, the very thing I would like to prevent.

BAM!!!

So you are saying that one mans words will inspire mass murder???

So you are saying that one mans words will inspire mass murder???

Not at all mate... It doesn't exaclty inspire religious tolerance though. We dont have to be tolerant of fundamental regimes, but we have to be tolerant to a religion with 1 billion faithful, and obviously pay it the due respect, otherwise you are disrespecting those 1 billion people... It might inspire mass murder on the other side though - i.e. September 11.

BAM!!!

Actually, I can think of multiple examples of men who caused mass murder. One specific example is a young man who learned a hatred of a particular religion and those who followed it and managed to gain control of a nation and the support of the people of his nation in a quest to destory those of that particular religion, along with millions of others. do you really think that one person has no effect on the world?

MasonM makes a good point that is a perversion of Islam that is at the root of most of the terror. But that is not the Islam of the majority and should not be treated as such, like greywar is doing.

Actually, I can think of multiple examples of men who caused mass murder. One specific example is a young man who learned a hatred of a particular religion and those who followed it and managed to gain control of a nation and the support of the people of his nation in a quest to destory those of that particular religion, along with millions of others. do you really think that one person has no effect on the world?

I didn't want to bring that man up - merely because I know Greywar, at the end of the day, is a good person... and to compare the two would be outright wrong.

Thanks for your comments though

BAM!!!

Yeah, I wasn't comparing them. but really, I wonder why he seems to hate Islam so much. Just because some people are using it as an excuse for horrific acts. Hell, I could get a lot of people together and we could kill people and lie to ignorant people that they'd join us and then claim it was because the buddhist law told us to, but who'd really believe that buddhism was to blame?

So, you agree that the penalty for insulting Islam should be death

You cant twist my words like that... All I said was why I could see why a Muslim would want to kill Greywar... I dont want a muslim to kill Greywar, I like Greywar!!! I agree that the penalty of insulting Islam should be retribution amongst your peers... Muslim's may tell you otherwise though.

When you have a religion like Islam amongst you, recognising that it need's re-interpretation, do you think slamming it is the best way to achieve these goals? There is no question that there are many savages running the show behind the scene - but by the same token, there are many moderate Muslims, and how do you think they would feel if they saw Greywars article? Disenchanted is one word that comes to mind immediately - these moderates are the ones we need to work with, and nothing is gained by insulting their faith. I am sorry you think otherwise.

BAM!!!

if islam is the problem (and after reading nearly 150 posts at the lgf thread greywar provided in his article, that's the only sensible conclusion) why choose saddam's relatively secular regime as the one to change first?  no matter how many benefits may flow from that decision, our actions pretty much guarantee iraq will wind up being one more islamic entity no?

why choose saddam's relatively secular regime as the one to change first?

Terrorist haven Saudi Arabia should have "went first." But that's an entirely different discussion.

But that's an entirely different discussion

youre right gene.  i posed the question on greywar's islamic pillar thread after reading your response.   muggaz, please delete it if you wish to do so. it really is offtopic here    (although gene's answer seems correct to me )

Terrorist haven Saudi Arabia should have "went first." But that's an entirely different discussion.

Again, ti is like the North Korea thing. Anti-Bushites seem to think that invasion is the only method of change, unless they are arguing the other way. Sure, we could decimate North Korea, and we could do the same to Saudi Arabia. At this point in time popular belief is those nations can be changed without the inevitable millions of casualties.

Millions, you say? Yep. If you think a Shiite shrine in dirtwater Iraq is important to people of the region, how important would you say MECCA is. That's the reason we had Arab backing to stop Hussein in the first war.

Anyway, Iraq wasn't going to change, not at least for another generation ot two AFTER Hussein. Given his sons had as much or more propensity for genocide as he did, and how our "allies" were straining at the leash to rearm them, I think it was safe to say Iraq would remain a threat. We had the ability to invade and create change there with very few casualites on the usual scale of war. N.Korea and Saudi Arabia are vastly different prospects.

I am not religious, so people like Greywar don’t have the benefit of judging me based on my faith.

All men have a Christian desire burning within their hearts, it is the duty of men like myself to fan the flames of this English protestant flame.

All of the world's citizens should become members of the C of E, for the good of England and St George!

Terrorist haven Saudi Arabia should have "went first." But that's an entirely different discussion.

Absolutely. 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, and much of the money trail links back to the Saudis. Add to that the praise for 9/11 in many Saudi mosques, the bombing of the USS Cole in neighboring Yemen, and there you have it...the second gunman on the grassy knoll.