Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Islam, The Message -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mani1 who wrote (257)	11/18/2001 10:53:42 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 758

Actually Mani, David Koresh was labeled a fanatical christian by many, that's one of the main reasons people supported the governments actions which resulted in the deaths of over 20 children. His followers were limited to a few dozen people. In regard to the Oklahoma city bombing, as far as I understand it, Timothy McVeigh wasn't following a religious cause, but was a paranoid anti-government militia type of extremist. In the case of Osami Bin Laden, the connection between his actions, the Talibans actions, and the people who've crossed the border from Pakistan to go on a jihad are clear. Further, schools have been created in Pakistan to teach this extremist beliefs of the Quran. And nearly a million children are being indoctrinated as we speak today. Some have elected to join the Taliban and go on a crusade against the infidel (America). They believe it is being done in the name of Islam. Obviously, their brand of Islam is extreme and only followed by a minority of Muslims. However, that minority still represents potentially millions of people. Therefore, the threat is real, the danger is greater, and the criticism and responsibility by moderate followers of the teachings of Islam should be appropriate to the threat. If there were millions of people who professed to be following the teaching of christianity, hell-bent on destroying civilization as we know it. I would be just as critical, and possibly even more so toward that religion and what it is teaching its followers. From my perspective, Muslims need to openly examine why it is that so many of their followers are going on crusades against humanity, and willing to die in order to kill innocent women and children. There is something profoundly influencing them. They say it is the Holy book of the Quran which is doing it. Some here are now questioning the words of that book and trying to get answers toward the wisdom of its passages, and understand how those passages could be interpreted to mean just what their fanatical followers say it means. The thread starter has struggle to answer those questions, and in many cases, has been evasive and not forthcoming. He appears to be an intelligent well spoken peace loving muslim. Who is having an extremely difficult time giving us a better understanding of these same passages in the Quran. But, what's even more disturbing is he has elected to silence many of those who have the gall to ask the question to begin with. How does silencing those who have gone out of the way to read, write and come to grips with this issue, help the cause of Muslim followers give us a better understanding of their religion? I agree that Islam is a peaceful religion as practiced by the majority of Muslims. What I'm dealing with is a minority of its followers. But that minority is huge and dangerous. One last thing, and I'm sorry I've been so long. What I sense underlying the reactions I've read here, is a belief that critical examination of the Quran is really not allowed. That won't go over well with Americans who read and visit this thread. We love to openly disagree, and admire those who are willing to allow free expression to flow as freely as the ideas contained within them. Muslims should first understand that, before they attempt to give us a better understanding of their faith.

To: Mani1 who wrote (257)	11/18/2001 10:58:35 PM
From: mr_stevenson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 758

Dear Mani: Allow me to go over your post. You have indicated that: +++Islam and its one Billion followers are being blamed for the action of the few (tens) thousands. NO! Islam followers are not being blamed for the evil acts of the few (tens) thousands. In my view it is the Islam itself that is to be blamed for. It is a religion filled with violence. I do not agree with the argue that one should look at only those parts of Islam that are peaceful, and loving. You can not selectively pick-and-choose what you like when talking about an entire faith. what about the rest of Quran that promotes hatred and violence. Perhaps - and just as a start - you can provide some reasonable intelligent explanations to the following verses: Message 16654287 Message 16654298 Message 16583729 Please if you can provide some intelligent logical explanations to the questions rasied in above links, I would be most thankful. You have indicated that: ++++When Timothy Mc Veigh blown up the Oklahoma city federal building, he was not considered a Christian extremist. Neither was David Koresh for the fiasco in Waco. How about all the people blowing up abortion clinics and killing doctors. They are not being considered a voice for Christianity. You are correct. However there is one slight difference between a psychopath Christian blowing up an abortion clinic or a thug like Timothy Maveigh blowing up a building, and murderers like Mohammad Atta and his thugs, and the Talibans, and Osama Ben Ladens of the world. The majority (if not all) of religious leaders of the Christianity faith, in addition to a vast majority (if not ALL) Christians in the world spoke strongly of those murderous acts of violence (the likes of McVeigh, and psychopaths blowing up abortion clinincs). On the contrary no Moslem religious leader (and I am not talking about the academia whose actions are more for political correctness of the time and do not represrnt Moslem followers) have spoken against the September 11 attacks in a sense of supporting the civilized world to eliminate those who have been responsible for such atrocities. Where are all the Islamic countries in this war against those who are responsible for these atrocities? Were are they? You have indicated that +++++Koran was written in Arabic more than a thousand years ago. Compare that to the US constitution that is only fraction of that. That is the same constitution that was interpreted to allow slaving of blacks and not allowing women to vote. Not comparing the two in content, just making a point that interpretation leaves a lot of room for error. Especially true if the scripture is old. First of all Quran is claimed to be a holy book and is claimed to have been written by God through Mohammd his prophet. U.S Constitution is not claimed to have been written by God, in fact it is well known that a bunch of men and women wrote it (i.e. No mention of God intervention in its writing!!). Secondly U.S constitution is a political framework document, Quran is a document describing an entire faith covering not only politics, economics, but also how people can live their lives from having sex, to eating, to how to kill, and destroy, to how do good deeds, how to pray, who to pray to, etc. etc. etc. Third and last (but of course not the least), U.S Constitution never promotes slavery - in fact it speaks against it. It was those who implemented it that did not follow the instructions laied out in the constitution correctly. In other words had the people implemented the U.S constitution to the last letter, we would not have had slavery, and other atrocities done before the civil right movements. Quran on the other hand does promote violence, hostility, and hatred. In fact the problem is not a matter of interpretation, it is rather a matter of the fact that those (such as Mohammad Atta and his thugs and murderers) did follow Quran's specific verses to that last letter. You have indicated that: +++++++++Regardless of how some idiots interpret Islam, it is a peaceful religion. At least in the form that I was grown up in. As I have indicated before, a vast majority of Moslems are Moslems simply because they have been born into the religion. Hence they do not know much about its teachings. Fortunately people such as you are not real practicing Moslems in a sense that they do not know much about Quran and what it teaches and what it says. Therefore you are peaceful, and as a result you attribute it peace to the religion to which you were born into. I suggest you start reading Quran from the beginning to the end to get a flavor as what Islam is about. As I pointed out above links (which raise some questions and issues) are just a sample of what you should expect to see deep inside Quran. you have indicated that +++++++Granted that Islam is also a religion that “takes no prisoners” and is aggressive in self-defense. But that is no different than the current US policy as it defends itself against aggression. With all due respect, you seem to confuse the foreign policy of a country (which is usually made by special interest groups) to the teachings of one of the most populous religions of the world! U.S policy is made up by a few special interest groups (which in most cases do tend to consider national interests as well). It can be changed as administrations change. However Islam is a faith. How can you even compare the foreign policies of a country to the teachings of a faith and put them at the same level?!! you have indicated that ++++++ certainly hope any counter argument to my post carries the high level of civility shown so far in this thread. But of course! We are challenging each other intellectually, and nothing should be taken personal. if you notice and go through all my posts on this thread (under Soroush, Sstevenson, MrStevenson, and now Mr_Stevenson -- all tanks to our host Mr. Alsuezi who keeps blocking me from posting on this thread simply because he can not tolerate being challenged intellectually), all my posts are civil and with full respect. I am not sure how long more I can post on this thread under the alias Mr_Stevenson for which Mr. Alsuezi will soon block me once he is back reading all these post from me. But till that time I will be more than happy to engage in a civil discussion with you at an intellectual level. Sincerely, Mr. S. Stevenson