Pledge “hateattacks”
"I will use any opportunity to speak out against racism and hate against Muslims sparked by the London bombings. I will offer support to my Muslim brothers and sisters, regardless of my own faith but only if 100 other people will do the same."
— Cheryl
Deadline to sign up by: 13th August 2005
101 people signed up (1 over target)
This pledge has now closed; it was successful! You might be interested in these other pledges:
- donate $10 every month for Chris L. to manage the FSP administration
- give a percentage or more of the Canton Free TV project of $4000
- stay clean for ever!
- Help to stop bullying
See more pledges, and all about how PledgeBank works.
Things to do with this pledge
Current signatories (
= they've done it)
Cheryl, the Pledge Creator, joined by:
- Sandra
- mohmed patel
- Nigel Gibson
- Alex Martindale
- Sharon B
- Theresa
- Jennifer Hynes
- Christine
- jennie koornhof
- Ishtar
- Craig Nicol
- Ina Juntti
- Paul
- Luther Blisset
- gemma roulston
- Lesley Rodgers
- Estelle du Boulay
- Alisha
- Lawrence Warnett
- Matt Lesle
- Paul Beskeen
- Tony Brow
- andy hill
- Tony Walton
- sue jane
- Sumera Rizwan
- James Lamont
- Calum Hutchinson
- Pakitt Inne
- Mark Knoop
- Victoria Sandiford
- Laura Stuart
- Geraldine Denny
- Emma Knowles
- Rob Piper
- Janie
- Liano Brown
- Carol Murray
- Vince Wooll
- Richard Avery
- Zarina Bhatia
- Tez Burke
- Robert Nock
- Rebecca
- Chris Godfrey
- Scott Lamb
- Linda Ward
- damian
- Laurence Smith
- Veronica Chapman
- Frank O'Dwyer
- Allie
- Becca Roberts
- Jay
- A.C.
- Safraz Rashid
- Joanna Selwood
- Zayd Malik
- John Tyrrell
- Graham John Thornton
- Wendy
- Dalila Duffy
- Bodil
- David Hulbert
- Jerome Pearce
- Kym Julier
- florence durrant
- Nick Harvey
- Clive Freeman
- Caspar Aremi
- Pete Jordan
- Richard Wilson
- chrissie brogan
- Thomas Wills
- Krista
- Matthew Sharpe
- Pia Waugh
- Nathanael Rouillard
- Kim Mortimer
- Carlos Grijalva
- Harry Page
- Karey
- Allan Lewis
- Liz
- adrian cannon
- Aiden Abram
- Chris
- Joe Public
- Erf
- Craig House
- Victor Roman Gonazalez Dailey
- Kenneth Carl Sterns
- 9 people who did not want to give their names, 1 of whom has done the pledge
Comments on this pledge
Because there are so many comments, only the most recent 50 are shown on this page.
Show all comments
"Look, I've been here twenty years. The bloke next door on that side is Jewish, the bloke next door on the other side is Jewish. We get on all right - you *have* to get on all right with your neighbours. I have no idea what these bombers want, but it isn't Islam".
I do not find current events scary, and certainly I would do nothing to protect London.
Your IRA point has nothing to do with this, that is a 400 year old problem created by the British when they stole Ireland, the IRA only want their whole country back.
ETA is also an internal struggle for a minority group.
In WW2 Germans in the UK were interned and Japanese in the US were interned. WW3 is being perpetrated by some Muslim groups so why not get serious about protecting your country? I did say 'until proved innocent' and did suggest some might like to move to a country where their antiscoial behaviour is acceptable.
The UK government will of course want to keep everyone nervous so they can push through there unneeded ID bill which would not of stopped this anyway.
And now some small minded, intolerant, anti free speech person can delete this post as well.
Just puts in perspective what we should already know, that 'honest' religion has no part in these type of events despite media hype. It seems poverty and lack of education or opportunity are as usual the fundamental causes.
I agree with you ... this is my 'bit'
http://www.merlinto.com/1984brigade/TwoP...
Maybe most folk don't see the point as they always speak out against unfair treatment of other individuals or groups regardless as to whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindo, etc. etc. etc.
Cheers,
Cheryl
http://mcbwatch.blogspot.com/
There were no 19 9/11 hijackers. Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Islam is a 'manufactured bogeyman'. The Muslims are 'manufactured bogeymen', to fill in for the previously 'manufactured bogeymen' called 'The Russians'.
Read up on 'Problem-Reaction-Solution.
9/11 was an 'inside job' courtesy of thr Bush Administration. In the same way that the Madrid Bombings were an inside job courtesy of the Aznar Administration.
There were no 'suicide bombers' in London. That was an inside job courtesy of Tony Blair & Co.
Pilger, Chomsky and Palast (et al.) have complete 'blind spots' on these matters (... but then they have books & videos etc. to sell ...)
Click on my name for more information.
I don't think terrorism will ever be completely contained but blaming it on religion is just giving in to those that use it as an excuse to attack others.
I was a bit wary of signing up being an atheist but you've helped persuade me. To prevent terrorism we need to first understand them, and I don't think blaming Islam is the right way to go, It distracts attention from the real problem and one possible way to reduce it.
This tolerance is only one-way and it's about time the Muslims cleaned their own act up too.
Why are there no churches in the saudia mainland,and the Gulf states?
Why were nurses flogged for having a prayer meeting in private?
Why was my friend jailed when a bible in a plain brown paper cover was found inside his flat?
Why was I hassled and threatened when tending the injured because my bag had a red cross symbol on it? I also had a red crescent.
Predjudice - thats why.
And I'm not even a Christian!
I'm just a white english para-medic who hates ALL violance, sex, and hate crimes, that's all.
I help all people, all creeds, religions in England, I just don't care where patients are from etc. They need help and I can help them - but I was treated like faeces when in a Muslim countries.
The Budhists were really nice though!
I agree with you - up to a point.
If Islamic Countries want to arrange their states the way you eloquently described, then it is (surely) up to them.
One of the 'truisms of all time' is that "You get the Government you deserve" (and this most certainly applies in the UK, as well).
The points are surely these:
1) We should support Muslims abroad who wish to change their societies so as to erradicate these abuses.
2) We should not interfere in Islamic societies that accept that kind of abuse as normal.
3) We don't have to go there ourselves if we choose not to.
4) Muslims in the UK are, to a large extent, a different kettle of fish. Insofar as, by being resident, they are subject to UK Laws. These include Equal Opportunities, Racial Tolerance, etc. If Muslims find these rules unacceptable, then they have the choice of returning to an Islamic country, I would have thought. Nevertheless they stay in vast numbers. IMHO that means that, whilst maintaining their religious beliefs, it is still possible for them to live in a more tolerant society.
Like yourself, I am an atheist. And probably for the same reasons as yourself. I'm not prepared to be hamstrung by religious dogma of any kind. However there are many peple on the planet who can't see all the obvious 'spin' within these dogmas. Muslims, Christians, etc.
But the bottom line is that they are human beings. 99.999% of human beings are decent people, and therefore deserve to be treated with the due respect that implies.
how can you claim to be 100% against racism and then suggest repatriation of foreign muslims. (but presumably british muslims are ok?) and all other faiths (other than which faith/s?)
stop trolling.
Could you also do the same for us we have a petition in place to get rid of an MP who is doing more damage then good.
The web page address is;
http://www.petitiononline.com/kmahmood/p...
Many thanks
Zayd.
Read a comment on yahoo today saying 'American troops pound Iraq insurgents'. One would think that those insurgents had come to terrorise us in the West or in America. Yet these are Iraqis fighting for their motherland, to preserve dignity and respect for their own people.
'Those who bury their heads in sand like an ostrich, should remember which part of their anatomy is exposed to danger.' This is now my famous quote from my virtual reality friend Veronica Chapman.
Viva viva to all anti-racists who have their heads above the ground. They are the ones who will see danger coming before it is too late.
florence the warriour
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/londo...
4 days to go and 22 signatures....please spread the word.
I disagree with you, but I hope that no-one removes your comment from this discussion. I think it would be more helpful for us to explain why we disagree with you.
I don't think it makes sense to imagine that we can imprison someone until they are "proved innocent". What would such proof consist of? Surely the only proof you can have of someone's innocence is the fact that no-one can provide any evidence against them of any involvement in criminal activity. Or would every Muslim in this country have to prove that it was logically and physically impossible that they could ever commit any kind of terrorist act? How could you, I or anyone ever offer that kind of proof?
We are not fighting a war in any way comparable to WWII. WWII was a formally-declared war between nations. Millions of people on both sides were mobilised for the war effort. Millions of lives were on the line, and millions of lives were lost. Internment was controversial even then, but there were at least clear limits on who could, and could not be interned.
The "war on terror" is not clearly-defined. The word "terrorism" is not even clearly defined. Some would question whether the "war on terror" even counts as a "war" in anything more than a metaphorical sense, because it's not clear who or what the enemy is supposed to be. Are we fighting against every terrorist in the world, or only those who we believe to be a threat to us? Who decides who's a terrorist and who's a "freedom fighter"? Who decides who is and isn't a threat, and under what criteria? And are we fighting only those who participate directly in terrorism, or those who we suspect MIGHT be participating in terrorism, or also those who sympathise with it, or those who the authorities believe, or say they believe, MIGHT sympathise with it? The problem is that if you keep the definition vague enough, the government can start locking up anyone they dislike on the flimsiest of evidence, or, in some case, without having to give any kind of reason. Effectively, you're giving the government something close to "absolute power" to lock up its citizens. I, for one, don't want my country to go that way. I don't believe it would protect us from terrorism, either. Countries like China, Uzbekistan and Malaysia all have very vaguely defined terror laws, and the government routinely uses them to lock up people who dare to criticise them. And they still have acts of terrorism in those countries. And as is always the case where the authorities are allowed to lock people up on the basis of nothing more than prejudice, it's the ethnic and religious minorities who suffer the most.
To date, less than 100 people have been killed by "Islamic terrorists" in Britain. That does not begin to come close to the scale of World War II. Even if, God forbid, there were more attacks, and the scale of the killings increased to the level of thousands, it would still be a very different kind of war from World War II. It would be a civil war, because the people carrying out the attacks are British citizens.
Really, what you're asking for is a kind of "collective punishment" of Muslims in Britain, punishing an entire community in retribution for the actions of a individual members of that community. Funnily enough, the London bombers believed in exactly the same thing. They were trying to inflict "collective punishment" on British people for the British government's war on Iraq. That, of course, was also wrong.
The problem is that if we succumb to the logic of "collective punishment", and start attacking innocent people in revenge for the crimes of those who happen to belong to the same community, we will simply perpetuate the cycle of violence. Injustice can only beget more injustice. Come on Rhian, sign the pledge!
You comments are very sensible.
However the London Bombings were produced by MI6. The only 'Muslims' involved were either completely innocent, or 'patsies'.
The 'mastermind' behind the London Bombings (Aswat) is an ADMITTED (now) MI6 asset, and protected from arrest (by MI6) wherever he goes. There are articles in the Seattle Times, and on Fox News, to support what I have just said.
Check http://www.prisonplanet.com for all the links to these articles (and a whole lot more).
I notice that you used a lot of single quotes (as I do). I do it because the descriptions given in the mainstream press are almost always the exact opposite of the FACTs. I assume you do the same.
Blair is 'using' Muslims as bogeymen. Don't be fooled, and don't let him. That's why he is clamping down an all dissent & protest.
There is no such thing as MI6, get a grip. They are a creation of the so called "Qohelet" group, a trans-national powerful conglomerate of human beings implanted with the T9 chip. They spread these memes in order to divert attention from their true nature ... stop doing their work for them.
Much be an interesting subject.
Or are you one of them?
In the entire war on terror, (which the Islamists started in 1993) well over 100 Britons have died at home and overseas - where they died is irrelevant. It is a war on terror not because of the numbers killed (which is a disgusting and dehumanising way to determine whether this is a war or something else), but rather because the terrorists we are fighting have declared that their aims will only be achieved by/with the destruction of our Western, Judaeo-Christian civilization; that is exactly what the Germans, led by the anti-Judaeo-Christian Nazi party, attempted to do to this country in 1939-1945. The only difference is scale and (at the moment at least) the better chances of success that the Islamists have of achieving their goal.
Poverty has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism; there are at least as many poor Hindus and Africans of equal or greater poverty and there are no Hindu or African terrorists. The violence of Islamic terrorists comes from, and is sanctioned by the Koran; even a cursory glance through it will show many exhortations to the early muslims to murder and attack non-muslims. Violence has been a feature of Islam from its inception as Ibn Tahhara pointed out last week. It was violence that expanded Islamic power and Muslims through the provinces of the Byzantine Empire and into the Vandal Kingdoms of North Africa and Spain. Has anybody on this site ever wondered why there are no Jews or Christians in the Arabian peninsula? Mohammed ethnically cleansed the Hejaz of its three Jewish tribes, stealing the property of the second and murdering the men of the third and selling their women and children into slavery. Yemen used to be a Christian Kingdom, as was most of the present Arabic speaking world. According to Islamic teaching Jews and Christians living in Muslim lands (including those which become Muslim lands) are to be discriminated against; those of other religions are not to be tolerated.
I do not regard such people as my "brothers and sisters." When they acknowledge the violence perpetrated by the founder of their religion and committed by his successors in the name of Islam and when they remove the violent and discriminatory verses of the Koran (or at least interpret them to mean not what they say) then, and not before, Muslims will be my "brothers and sisters" and deserving of respect, toleration and everything else that peaceful people (because they are peaceful) deserve. Respect has to be earned and it is unreasonable to expect toleration from those (ie non-Muslims) whom your holy book urges to kill and discriminate against.
(a) Are most Muslims peaceful BECAUSE of Islam? (e.g. would all Muslims be out murdering grannies if they were not Muslims?)
or
(b) Are they peaceful IN SPITE of Islam? (e.g. is the ideology of Islam potentially violent, but ignored by most Muslims because, for example, they have not really read the Qur'an, hadith or sira?)
or
(c) Has Islam NOTHING to do with an individual Muslim's peaceful or violent behaviour? (e.g. if you sample any given community, will you find the same percentage of violent types, misogynist types, etc.?)
This is the question. How one answers it is another question entirely.
Once again the Pro-Isreal lobby are getting the usual propraganda out.
You talk about the usual anti-Muslim anti-Islam hatred.
Im not bothered at all.
"Unwillingness to compare the Islamic conquests with the European colonial conquests — a comparison that to an outside observer seems quite natural and obvious — leads to extensive rationalization of the conquests and in the end opens the door to those, such as radical Muslims and most especially globalist radical Muslims, who embrace the conquests and seek to continue them."
David Cook, Understanding Jihad, (London: University of California Press, 2005) p. 167
If any given Muslim refuses to condemn this bloody military expansion, he or she is not a moderate.
Ibn Tahhara
I'm not an expert on the Koran but I do know that there's plenty of bloodcurdling violence in the Old Testament, with infidels getting smitten left, right and centre. The Christians and Jews I know tend not to take that stuff as a prescription for life either. Plenty of people throughout history have done, of course, but I don't think the actions of the crusaders or the KKK give us a justification for beating up Christians either.
I'm not really sure what the objective of your argument is, in any case. This pledge is about speaking out against those who would attack British Muslims in reprisal for the London bombings. Are you saying that such reprisal attacks are OK? Or only OK against Muslims who fail to condemn the Islamic conquests of 632-732CE?
You're not a Qur'anic scholar (no offense intended, just a point). The issue is that, that both Christianity and Islam believe in progressive revelation (in Islam, we call it naskh) --- this means that the revelation that is later replaces or amends that which is earlier. In the case of the Bible:
(a) The Old Testament has violent verses
(b) The later peaceful words of Jesus --- "love your enemies" replaces those in (a)
This is the standard orthodox position as I understand it.
In Islam, I am embarassed to say, it is the other way around:
(a) Muhammad was peaceful at Mecca (up to 622CE)
(b) Muhammad was violent at Medina (622-632)
Classical scholars say that verses that command the killing of pagans and people of the book (Q. 9:5,29) supercede those that speak of tolerance. Read the hadith, and you'll find it gets even worse. We have no equivalent to "love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you" in Islam. I wish we had a Muslim version of Martin Luther King, for example.
All this is a real problem --- as other Muslims, like Irshad Manji and Ziauddin Sardar have pointed out. Muslims need a reformation, an owning up to the problems in the traditions, so we can move on.
As regards my other point, of course reprisals are wrong --- against our own or any community. I was simply giving you a test of whether a Muslim is truly moderate or not. Violence is never the answer --- and that means admitting that Muslims (including Muhammad) are as fallible as anybody and have made mistakes.
Westerners are traditionally very good at self-criticism. Muslims have yet to learn this art form in large numbers ... but we are getting there ;-)
Of course Muslims shouldn't be randomly attacked in response to 7/7 and I am glad that the predicted upsurge in violence by those who like to prophet doom and destruction has not materialised.
But what annoyed me about this post it that it seemed to suggest that Muslims were, or could be, a victim of the attacks. I thought it missed the point entirely. The most important action that could be done, and I think the only effective measure to prevent a repeat of 7/7, is for Muslims and their leadership to have a reformation of their faith, as suggested by Salman Rushdie in yesterday's Times, and for that to include what I said in my previous post. Basically, the ball is in the court of the Muslim community; there's nothing we (non-Muslims) can do.
I used to spend a lot of time with Muslims and my experience was similar to your's Richard; my point was that there is plenty in the Koran and Islamic history to justify a less than civilised response to non-Muslims if they had chosen to do so.
For a start Islam and terrorism are two seperate identites.
Islam has nothing to do with terrorism and vice-versa.
Terrorism has nothing to do with Islam and it is due to International politics taking place mainly in the muslim world since 1920's onwards as Ken Levingstone and George Galloway pointed out clearly.
On the one hand you find 2 (Christian) Leaders alongside few petty countrys who invaded a soverign country on the pretext of WMD, (which USA, UK, Israel all have and thats ok) defying UN, and the international community WHICH IS ILLEGAL.
Could you explain that?
Is it OK to invade a soverign country??
It is indeed wrong to invade a sovereign country. Hence it was wrong for Muslims to invade Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Spain, etc. etc. etc.
It is also, I stress, wrong for the West to invade Iraq.
But we cannot be selective in our condemnation of violence and aggression.
I do note that Bush/Blair do not justify attacking Iraq by claiming that all the world should be Christian and that Jesus taught the infidel should be killed. Radical Muslims do, however, claim that all the world should be Muslim and that Muhammad taught killing the infidel.
This is embarrassing, but moderates need to admit it if we are to have any hope of reforming Islam.
Ibn Tahhara
If terrorism is due to "to International politics taking place mainly in the muslim world since 1920's onwards " why did they bomb the tube, twin towers and East Africa etc etc? Since when have those places been part of the Muslim world?
If you're implying, Anon, that terrorism is the result of the west oppressing the Muslim world why did such terrorism and the present Jihadist ideology not present itself to the world when the west was in actual possession of the Islamic world, from the 1600s onwards? And if the west is an oppressor why should it have sent its soldiers to fight and die defending the Muslims of Kosovo and Bosnia? Muslim governments did nothing to save their co-religionists there. It is western aid feeding the Muslims of Niger, and western governments trying to stop the genocide in Muslim Darfur. Western governments also give billions in aid to Muslim countries; Egypt is the second highest recipient of US aid.
"For too long, we Muslims have been sticking fingers in our ears and chanting 'Islam means peace' to drown out the negative noise from our holy book. Far better to own up to it."
(see http://tinyurl.com/8nnxs)
Western foreign policy may irritate the Islamists, but it is not the cause; Islam is the cause. I point to the sheer amount of intra-Islamic violence as a case in point: endless sects within Islam attacking and killing each other, believing they are the true custodians of the "true faith" of Muhammad.
Please, please, please will liberals in the West support true moderate Muslims --- we need your help, not your wet hand-wringing.
Ibn Tahhara
It means to be racist towards America or West or Britain is forbidden.
In Islam, terrorism is completely forbidden wherever it is.
We do not want to turn the whole world into Islam, Another myth of Media.
When terrorist use Quran as a tool, it is only for their miscalculated tool of recuritment and having symphathy towards them.
With regards to aid, well Saudi Arabia is the worlds second largest donator in terms of aid after America.
Get your facts right
good site to visit
Until Muslims recognise that terrorists not only use the Qur'an but can do so and remain within the mainstream of opinion, we are just lying to the world. Until we recognise that the Qur'an does permit racism, we will never get to grips with the problem. Muhammad was not perfect, the Qur'an is not perfect --- we need to think and re-apply their teaching for the 21st century.
Let me point out a few things:
* Muhammad dragged the Medinans into his war with Mecca (according to the hadith and sira)
* Muhammad had his opponents tortured and killed (according to the hadith and sira)
* Muhammad had 800 men of the Jewish tribe the Banu Qurayza all beheaded (according to the hadith and sira)
* Muhammad engaged in caravan raiding and banditry (according to the hadith and sira)
Does this make him wicked or bad? Not for the 7th century, no. Can Allah use flawed humans? Certainly.
What about racism ...
* The Qur'an commands divides the world into three categories: Muslims, "people of the book", and pagans
* War is commanded against pagans
* The jizya poll tax is demanded from the "people of the book"
* Muslims are told they are the best people, superior to all other communities
Moderate Muslim voices have recognised these problems. But lying or pretending they are not there, Anon, is no help to any of us. Non-Muslims can read the Qur'an and hadith too! What will we say when they do? Why not admit the problems, be honest, and then move on?
Ibn Tahhara
http://tinyurl.com/c3gqp
Saudi Arabia is a nasty, brutal regime whose petro-dollars continue to export a horribly backwards version of Islam. We need to wrest Islam away from the desert to the 21st century.
Just a quick note to PT to clarify my earlier comments about the IRA and ETA.
I was responding to an earlier comment that all Muslims in Britain should be interned. I was simply attempting to point out that imprisoning thousands (millions?) of people simply because of a passing similarity to terrorists (in this case a shared religion) was, in my opinion at least, ridiculous.
There was another response that referenced the internment of Japanese residents in the U.S. in WWII. Perhaps the U.S. still considers this to have been reasonable: I have no idea.
However, the same thing also happened in Canada. As a Canadian, I can say that the majority of Canadians (or at least all those that I know) consider the WWII internment to be a tremendous blot upon the country, sparked by racism, and are very ashamed that it happened.
Cheryl
However, remember that internment is not just a stain on the West. Try speaking against an Arab government as a citizen and see what happens. Try converting from Islam to any other faith in most Muslim majority countries. Try asking to build a place of worship as a religious minority.
Muslims living in the West need to campaign loudly and vociferously that religious minorities living in Islamic countries might have the same freedoms we enjoy here.
Subsequently, I have people from all faiths as neighbours. So I read the Koran and talk to my Muslim friends about their religion. I speak to eithist about their non-belief. I thus have a vague idea of what religion and religious books are about. To me, they are a historical guide into a more civil society. For example, historical prophets like Moses and David are my guides, yet like all of us, they made their mistakes. Their rules applied to them at that time. As Christians, we should learn from their mistakes, for the bible tells us the consequences they suffered from those mistakes.
This fanaticism of using these historical books is not only a Muslim problem, it is cross religion. Ibn, you have my sympathies, because like me you have seen through this problem in your religion. For biblically, the Jews believed they were the only ones who were God's children. It was a Jewish man called Jesus Christ who cleared the air and made us all aware that we were equally God's children. They crucified him on the cross. We have just to keep preaching to those who follow such fanatical beliefs Ibn. For how do you explain the attitude of an educated Muslim cleric telling Muslim women not to wear their hijab if they do not want to be victims of this racial evil that has befallen us in this country? I say it is evil because it is condoned by people who claim to be religious from Hazel Blears to this cleric in question.
Look We as Muslims believe in One God, the same God which the Jews, Christians believe.
We Believe the Bible And the Torah (Jewish Holy Book) was also revealed.
We believe in the same message relayed through a chain of prophets.
Islam and terrorism are 2 seperate things.
There are 1 in 4 people Muslims living in the World.
Islam is a way of life.
The choice is clearly yours, nobody can force you to submit to Islam.
The people that ARE most suffering from terrorism are Muslims themselves.
In UK, Muslims are the most diverse group, amongst themselves there are 57 languages spoken.
Cat Stevens who converted himself to Islam 30 years ago didnt make him a suicide bomber???????
What about Muhammed Ali? Did it make him a suicide bomber???????
I see confusion reigns again. Let me try and help you out. Let's look at your claims:
(1) Muslims worship the same God as Christians
This is, alas, wrong. Christians include Jesus in the identity of the one God, Muslims don't. Jews and Christians recognise God's name as Yahweh, Muslims claim it is Allah. If I say Donald Duck is President of the USA and you say it is George Bush, clearly we both believe in one president --- but we disagree who that one president is.
(2) Muslims believe the Bible and Torah
Also wrong. The majority of Muslims believe the Torah and Bible have been corrupted and thus superceded by the Qur'an. Tell me if you don't believe this? Do you believe that the Bible is AS VALID as the Qur'an?
(3) Islam and terrorism are two different things
I never said they weren't. But there are plenty of radical Muslims who think the Qur'an, hadith and sira justify their violent actions. Muhammad thought his prophethood justified *his* violent actions. The first Muslims thought Islam justified blatant Islamic colonial expansion. Were Muhammad and the first Muslims wrong?
(4) Islam is a way of life
But is it just a way of life like any other, or do you see it as superior to all other forms of life? If "yes", you're on the path to Islamism.
(5) Nobody can force you to submit to Islam
Agreed. The Qur'an and hadith teach that non-Muslims had three options:
(a) Convert
(b) Die
(c) Submit and pay the jizya poll tax
Do you think this rule is still valid today?
(6) Examples of people who became Muslims who were peaceful
I would suggest they were peaceful *in spite* of Islam, not because of Islam.
Anon, Islam is not beyond reform, but whilst Muslims run from the difficult questions, the future is very bleak. Let me ask you this:
- Do you admit the conquests of 632-732 were a bad thing and should be repented for?
- Was Muhammad wrong to use torture?
- Was Muhammad wrong to execute the Banu Qurayza?
If you can't answer, or fail to admit the problems, then you're part of the problem of what Irshad Manji calls "desert Islam", a refusal to recognise the need for Islam to move from the 7th to the 21st century.
Ibn Tahhara
We will see as time goes along.
How can any person aspiring to true intelligence, and possessed of an honestly enquiring mind, take any of these mythical so called 'sacred' messengers seriously, let alone elevate 'respect' for any or all of them to greater importance than respect for the real lives of any of the real suffering souls who have to tolerate this continuing outrageous tyranny of unreason? I'm absolutely with Richard Dawkins on this. Take away religion and good people will go on doing good and evil people will go on doing evil. But for good people to do evil requires religion. It really is the root of all evil in the World. Roll on the day when the human race finally grows up and leaves these childish fantasies in the only place they belong: history books.
Show me the physics that support your various gods and prophets and I'll take them seriously, but not a moment before, no matter how many bullying threats the obscene crusaders and jihadis make. How dare these ghastly hypocrites threaten the lives of real people in the name of their supposedly compassionate gods? Don't they think their allegedly all powerful deities and their favoured 'prophets' can take care of themselves?
That is where Neo Cons and zionist come into play - world domination.
I think there are a lot of fantastic muslim around the world... that does not mean that terrorism or any other form aganist europe or usa is allowed or right...
Terrorist must be hrdly punished... but we must accept and repsect all muslim around the world...