Knight Of Shadows, on 11 April 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:
i disagree on most of those points .. but let me go over one by one
first western muslims are the ones who live in the west .. and deny to obey the west laws and they go around yelling hell and all wants to show every one they're muslims .. well we know that .. keep it to your self they should do that
such are those you saw in that video
So they are immigrants to the West coming from Muslim nations. So would any Muslims from these other nations do the same if they lived here? I think they would. Mostly because they feel naked in a new land. And that’s ok. But the job of the immigrant is to absorb and acclimate into their new country. Learn to pick your battles. The Muslim voice has every right to be heard, but it needs to know its place until it finds its niche in the culture. That’s what made New York City so vital into indoctrinating the masses to the American way of life.
Quote
now let me tell you don't take certian group as islamic example coz there's None out there who applies islam for real
So there are no orthodox Muslims? I would say that the extremists are the purest. But I wish there were more vocal Muslim heretics. That is the path of reform. I consider myself a Christian heretic. I think that this is the level of detachment that all religion should be at.
Quote
wahabis ? they're not even close to real islam they apply it in saudia to stay in power
and many muslims don't like the laws there .. yeah they don't
Yes, they are real Islam. And they are used by the Saud family to stay in power. Would it be any better or worse without the Sauds? If they don’t like it, then why in the Hell don’t they do something about it? Unfortunately, what would happen would be to replace a secular dictator with a sectarian extremist group, like what happened in Egypt. That’s just jumping out of the pan and into the fire. The Arab Spring has been a huge disappointment. The Muslim world is in such a disjointed mess because there are no strong moderate voices for reform. And this will insure Western involvement. Because the West can no longer sit idly by and wait for this unrest to spill out.
Quote
and islam WAS policy .. in it's time but in islam you can always see that encouragement to evolve
islam law were made to certain point of time and they worked well on that period .. but they don't fit in modern world
therefore shouldn't be applied
You’re not to clear here. But if I understand, yes, I believe that at a certain period in the Ottoman Empire, an attempt to reform was made. But it died out long before the fall of the Empire. Today, I do not see any encouragement to evolve. All the West sees is the desire to return to the hard line. That’s not the West’s fault.
Quote
you mentioned iran .. i've said this on many oceaisons IRAN ARE NOT MUSLIMS .. shittes are not muslims
they say they are but they're not . yet you claim muslims don't know their history
go ahead and read about shittes history before before you say we don't our histroy
it's the most corrupted path .. and yet you give it as example of islam ..
That’s where you are wrong. Arabs aren’t the only ones that can be Muslim and Shiite is just as much Muslim as Sunni is. Just as Catholic and Protestant are both Christian. Yes, I’ve read Shiite history (don’t quiz me
), but I still would say they are Muslim. Ok, I’ll respond to that. But if I remember right, Shiites are followers of Ali who was the appointed successor of Mohammed. And they believe that only Allah can appoint their leadership. That they have 8 pillars and not 5. For the Shitte, the Mahdi has already been here and is in hiding, the Sunni is still waiting for his appearance. Kind a like the relationship that Jesus has between Jewish and Christian. Christians are waiting for the second coming and the Jews are still waiting for the Messiah. I’ve always found that interesting. Beyond this, I’d probably have to go google for more and I probably will. I am always open to learn what I can. But from this, I see no difference between the two. There are major doctrinal differences between Catholic and Protestant. In general, Catholics require an intercessor (i.e. a priest) to confess one’s sins. Protestants don’t. Protestants believe in full emersion, Catholics don’t. But they are still Christian.
Quote
now i have no idea where you get your informations from but you're wrong in most of them
egypt will never be under islamic rule .. just because brotherhood want it .. doesn't mean all muslims does
taliban wants it .. again all afganstan wants it ?!
saudia doesn't want it .. they have it and i told you the reason above
lebanon applies it ?! since when ? i suggest you look this further you obviously oblivious to things you're say
lebanon does not apply any islamic laws .. hezboallah is a sect apply it among themself
not on people around .. don't like them anyway moving on
Alright, fine. Let me back track and say the ruling class want it. And they are their nation. The silent majority as being such has given up their right to voice opposition. Hezbollah is the face of Lebanon. Hezbollah pacifies the population by building schools and hospitals, but it’s not for the people. Hezbollah is simply buying protection. And the sheep go back to sleep. I ought to know, I see the same thing happening in this country under the current regime. Yes, the Taliban want it and following the techniques of coercion as laid out in the Quran, will force it upon everyone else.
Quote
now to your scary part i already told you i don't agree on western muslims act
if they didn't like the west .. go back to middle east why left at first place
but hey am not so one sided .. if they are residents of that place they have the right to build mosque
just like christians have the right to build churches in middle east
unless you think they don't deserve something as simple as worship place
however .. i don't agree on most of their acts though .. especially when they're like insulted by dogs and such
i used to have dog my self
even mohammd the prophet was shepard and had dogs
you know .. i already told you that .. but you can blow their excuses from islam it self
Well, I was kind of rambling, but the point is that there are so many examples of Muslims being spoiled brats in their adopted country. And in some instances follow certain document patterns to over throw the current government for purposes of conquest. This is how Islam has spread – not just by the sword. I have no problem with anyone building a place of worship, but given the current circumstances, to build Cordova house where they want it is showing a lack of understanding by insulting American sensibilities. Does that not count for anything? And it’s not really the mosque but the meaning behind the name – totally inappropriate. That you bring it up shows how out of touch you are and proves my point. You’re not thinking and you don’t care. So why do you expect any respect to be returned?
Quote
and maybe muslims aren't interested in painting a good picture since most of them see the west as a leech and murderers
and i assure you .. they do .. once the west started occupying middle east we don't care what they think about us
I guess the feeling is mutual. But we both know this is just an excuse. If we took Bin Laden’s advice and got out of all Muslim territory, there’d soon be some other excuse. Again that is what Islam does.
Quote
want me to mention how many western country invaded middle east ? no time for that i bet you already know that
since you say we don't know our history you outta know it
Let’s start with the Muslim invasion of Europe. Shall we talk about the conquest of Iberia, the destruction of the Byzantine Empire, the invasion of the Balkans, the Barbary Pirates… Yeah, that really puts the Crusades into perspective finally. The first Crusade was in 1096. Al Andalus was in 711. The British Empire is probably the most notable invader. But the thing about that is that the British invaded to exploit resources (not to rob or steel). They weren’t really interested in converting anyone. Maybe except to Anglo-ize the locals just enough to run British style bureaucracy. The outcome of that was leaving a score of independent modern nations. Now if you are referring to Ottoman lands lost after WWI, that is not an invasion. Perhaps you were referring to the French invasion of Algeria? Now the Barbary Pirates wouldn’t have had anything to do with that now would they? Except for the British (and then in some cases) the only time Western powers invaded Muslim nations was because the Muslims felt it was their right to attack the West. And when that backfired because the West was able to play the game better, Muslims played the victim card.
Quote
and for muslims who made judgements .. didn't george the Bush made a judgement and million iraqis paid the price ?
What do you mean by 2 million paid the price? Between 2 and 4 million Iraqis left the country and most of them were Christian. Or are you buying into the inflated numbers of killed? The estimates are between 80,000 and 100,000 and most of those were those that fought against coalition forces. So please, get your numbers right. And if you think you are right , just think about it logically. If it was the intention of the American military to just go out and kill anyone and everyone, then they wouldn’t have needed ground troops. They could just bomb the Hell out of the Iraqis. If you know anything about training techniques, you know that troops train in urban warfare to go in, in a surgical manner and keep collateral damage to a minimum. So there is no way to have very large body counts.
Quote
when usa decided to another " Crusade " on iraq ? huh ? and he's christian ? should i be taking him example for christianity you see .. i can play the same game
Well, let’s see…what was the reason to invade? Despite the media and the hype, the reason as per Resolution 1441 was because Saddam violated the cease fire. And it was a good thing we went in when we did because we almost walked into a Shiite-Sunni civil war. But our invasion quelled that or there could have been millions of dead. And then France got pissed at us. Not because we were violating Iraqi rights, but because we cut in on their deal with Saddam. The French wanted to arm Iraq with nukes to counter Iran. Are you kidding me? Isn’t India and Pakistan enough? On many levels, Iraq was a necessary war. I just wish we could have completed the task.
Quote
fault of west was not that they didn't submit to allah .. you make them look soooooo innocent
the fault of the west was invading and killing more than two millions if not more of muslims during their wars
the fault of the west was their greed and desire to make them self rich on muslims corpses
don't drift away from reality here .. i don't know drag you back to reality by mentioning
how many western country invaded us and killed us past the ages
Well, you are wrong. You’ve bought into the hype. There were no two million Muslims killed by coalition forces. What do you have to say about the hundreds of thousands that Saddam killed of his own people? Oh, that’s right, most of them were probably Shitties so it doesn’t matter. I imagine that a lot of them were also Kurds. I wouldn’t talk about reality if I were you. More Muslims have died at the hands of other Muslims than have at the hands of the West.
Quote
and you didn't use syria card yet you don't need it .. but who knows in a bit you might just try it
At least I try not to. I think I used Assad as an example once, but it was part of a list.
Quote
like i said .. before saying we don't look at our own history .. you should take a look at history
that you seem to have read of it the only part that makes muslims look bad
and you overlooked the most important parts
I don’t go looking for just the bad parts. I am very aware of the good. It is just insignificant at this time. To look at the good and ignore the bad is just plain ignorance until at least one begins to control the bad. Most of it is neither good nor bad. It is just history.
Quote
you know how many years my country was occupied by frace ? you know algeria gave million martyer to rid of france invasion ?
i'll let you answer that .. later
Well, as I mentioned before. Algeria brought it on herself by piracy. France said enough. If you don’t want to be invaded, then don’t hang a sign around your neck saying “kick me”. As far as Syria goes, France didn’t invade, it was awarded Syria because the Ottomans surrendered. For a time, it was French soil.
0
