ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: ISLAM IS NOT A VIOLENT RELIGION??????

  1. #1
    Guest
    Regardless of the norms of "humanist" belief, which sees destroying the infidel countries as a tragedy requiring us to show some conscientious empathy and... sadness for the loss caused to human civilization - an approach that does not distinguish between believer and infidel...

    I would like to stress that annihilating the infidels is an inarguable fact, as this is the decree of fate.

    When the Koran places these tortures [to be inflicted on the infidels] in the solid framework of reward and punishment... it seeks to root this predestined fact in the consciousness of Muslim society, asserting that the infidels will be annihilated so as to open a window of hope to Muslim society.

    Nevertheless, for some [this divine decree] has become a tranquilizer... When the enemy launches operations of colonialism and destruction, we find some [Muslims] refraining from entering the battlefield, claiming that the collapse of Western civilization is proceeding in any event.

    Their conclusion is indeed true, but the way in which it is presented is misleading; it is aimed at removing responsibility from each Muslim with the claim that Allah has already promised to take care of the infidels' annihilation.

    I would like to point out the danger of this analysis because it... makes a Muslim passive - one who does not act to carry out [the commandments] of religion or to dispel falsehood, but who lives always in an atmosphere of passive waiting, eternally cloaked by a call to trust in the ability of Allah!

    When Allah told us of the certainty of the annihilation of the infidels, He did not do so using ambiguous concepts. He said that this would be achieved in one of two ways: by means of a direct act of Allah... or through Muslim society, which would, in accordance with the Islamic commandment, serve as an implement for carrying out [the divine decree], as it is said: "...Allah will torture them Himself or at our hands (Koran 9:52)."

    The belief in "annihilating the country of heresy" therefore opens up for us a window of hope by setting a goal that is in the realm of the possible. But it does not annihilate the infidel country for us!

    This [annihilation] is merely a belief, which, if unaccompanied by the words "at our hands" that appear in the Koranic verse, will remain in the wonderful realm of ideas, like beautiful dreams that arouse conscientious emotions. Yet when we awake, we find that the infidel country still exists. Falsehood does not destroy itself in favor of the truth, [except when] the truth goes into action...

    The question now is: How is the torture Allah wants done at our hands to be carried out?... It will not in any way be carried out by means of preaching, because preaching is an activity of exposure aimed at clarifying the truth in a way that makes it more easily acceptable. Preaching has nothing to do with torture; jihad is the way of torturing.

    By means of jihad Allah tortures them with killing; by means of jihad, Allah tortures them with injury; by means of jihad, Allah tortures them with loss of property; by means of jihad, Allah tortures them with loss of rule. Material power is confronted with material power, and ideological power is confronted with ideological power... It would be idiocy to rely on the power of the truth in the face of F-16s...

    Jihad is the instrument for differentiating between believers and hypocrites... It is an exemplary lesson in values, delivered in a concrete way by a group of Islamic pioneers.

    Many of the infidels will be shocked,and perhaps some of them will repent.

    Jihad is a means of defeating them. Perhaps... the torture will bring them back to the path of righteousness. (Al-Ansar, an online magazine affiliated with al-Qaida, August 24)

    Refreshing wisdom - Last week I attended a seminar at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard that examined global public opinion and the media after the Sept. 11 attacks.

    During the past academic year in the US, I had sensed that some Americans tried to understand the real world with all its nuances, though most succumbed to simplistic, often negative and wildly inaccurate generalizations. Muslims and Arabs, especially, were widely seen to differ from and to dislike America and its values.

    I also learned of some impressive research that seemed to confirm my hunch about the common, rather than the clashing, values of Americans and Arabs/Muslims. "Muslims and the West: Testing the 'Clash of Civilizations'" by Pippa Norris of Harvard and Ronald Inglehart of the University of Michigan, analyzed 1995-2001 World Values Survey public opinion data from 70 countries on attitudes to democracy, political/religious leadership, and gender/sexuality.

    They tested the 1993 Clash of Civilizations thesis put forward by American political scientist Samuel Huntington. He proposed that post-Cold War fault-lines and conflicts would be defined by cultural values rooted in religious beliefs, and that inherent Western/Islamic differences over democratic values would lead to new clashes and ethnic conflicts.

    The Norris/Inglehart study found that Huntington was right to see culture and religion as strong determinants of political attitudes, but wrong to see a large difference in or natural antagonisms over democratic values among Islamic and Western cultures.

    Support for democracy is surprisingly widespread among Muslims, even among those who live in authoritarian societies. The basic fault line between the West and Islam is not democracy, but issues of gender equality and sexual liberalization.

    Norris and Inglehart found that Western and Islamic societies agreed on three of four indicators of political values: support for democratic ideals, how well democracy worked in practice, and attitudes toward leadership by experts and non-accountable government officials. The "clash" on these issues was between the Islamic/Western world, on one hand, and the rest of the world on the other (especially the Orthodox/Russian world, but also in China/Sino cultures, South America, sub-Saharan Africa, Japan and Hindu societies). The major difference between Western and Islamic cultures lay in attitudes to religious leaders, who were more accepted by Muslims than by Westerners (though other regions shared the Muslim acceptance of a role for religious leaders, including South America - so even here the West/Islam dichotomy was not the primary division).

    The research did identify a "strong and significant difference" between Western and Islamic people's attitudes to gender equality, homosexuality, abortion and divorce. The West is consistently more liberal on these issues, and Western youth are becoming even more liberal and egalitarian over time, while young Muslims tend to remain as traditional as their parents and grandparents.

    Norris and Inglehart concluded that "any claim of a clash of civilizations, especially of fundamentally different political values held by Western and Islamic societies, represents an oversimplification of the evidence. Across many political dimensions examined here, both Islamic and Western societies are similar in their positive orientation toward democratic ideals."

    The great thing about American culture, like American movies, is that if you hang around long enough the good guys win, and truth triumphs. I hope this sort of quality empirical research will be picked up by those in the US media and around the world who want to convey facts and quality analysis.

    Understanding the reality of the world is probably the most important first step to making it safe and secure.

  2. #2
    Guest
    Regardless of the norms of "humanist" belief, which sees destroying the infidel countries as a tragedy requiring us to show some conscientious empathy and... sadness for the loss caused to human civilization - an approach that does not distinguish between believer and infidel...

    I would like to stress that annihilating the infidels is an inarguable fact, as this is the decree of fate.

    When the Koran places these tortures [to be inflicted on the infidels] in the solid framework of reward and punishment... it seeks to root this predestined fact in the consciousness of Muslim society, asserting that the infidels will be annihilated so as to open a window of hope to Muslim society.

    Nevertheless, for some [this divine decree] has become a tranquilizer... When the enemy launches operations of colonialism and destruction, we find some [Muslims] refraining from entering the battlefield, claiming that the collapse of Western civilization is proceeding in any event.

    Their conclusion is indeed true, but the way in which it is presented is misleading; it is aimed at removing responsibility from each Muslim with the claim that Allah has already promised to take care of the infidels' annihilation.

    I would like to point out the danger of this analysis because it... makes a Muslim passive - one who does not act to carry out [the commandments] of religion or to dispel falsehood, but who lives always in an atmosphere of passive waiting, eternally cloaked by a call to trust in the ability of Allah!

    When Allah told us of the certainty of the annihilation of the infidels, He did not do so using ambiguous concepts. He said that this would be achieved in one of two ways: by means of a direct act of Allah... or through Muslim society, which would, in accordance with the Islamic commandment, serve as an implement for carrying out [the divine decree], as it is said: "...Allah will torture them Himself or at our hands (Koran 9:52)."

    The belief in "annihilating the country of heresy" therefore opens up for us a window of hope by setting a goal that is in the realm of the possible. But it does not annihilate the infidel country for us!

    This [annihilation] is merely a belief, which, if unaccompanied by the words "at our hands" that appear in the Koranic verse, will remain in the wonderful realm of ideas, like beautiful dreams that arouse conscientious emotions. Yet when we awake, we find that the infidel country still exists. Falsehood does not destroy itself in favor of the truth, [except when] the truth goes into action...

    The question now is: How is the torture Allah wants done at our hands to be carried out?... It will not in any way be carried out by means of preaching, because preaching is an activity of exposure aimed at clarifying the truth in a way that makes it more easily acceptable. Preaching has nothing to do with torture; jihad is the way of torturing.

    By means of jihad Allah tortures them with killing; by means of jihad, Allah tortures them with injury; by means of jihad, Allah tortures them with loss of property; by means of jihad, Allah tortures them with loss of rule. Material power is confronted with material power, and ideological power is confronted with ideological power... It would be idiocy to rely on the power of the truth in the face of F-16s...

    Jihad is the instrument for differentiating between believers and hypocrites... It is an exemplary lesson in values, delivered in a concrete way by a group of Islamic pioneers.

    Many of the infidels will be shocked,and perhaps some of them will repent.

    Jihad is a means of defeating them. Perhaps... the torture will bring them back to the path of righteousness. (Al-Ansar, an online magazine affiliated with al-Qaida, August 24)

    Refreshing wisdom - Last week I attended a seminar at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard that examined global public opinion and the media after the Sept. 11 attacks.

    During the past academic year in the US, I had sensed that some Americans tried to understand the real world with all its nuances, though most succumbed to simplistic, often negative and wildly inaccurate generalizations. Muslims and Arabs, especially, were widely seen to differ from and to dislike America and its values.

    I also learned of some impressive research that seemed to confirm my hunch about the common, rather than the clashing, values of Americans and Arabs/Muslims. "Muslims and the West: Testing the 'Clash of Civilizations'" by Pippa Norris of Harvard and Ronald Inglehart of the University of Michigan, analyzed 1995-2001 World Values Survey public opinion data from 70 countries on attitudes to democracy, political/religious leadership, and gender/sexuality.

    They tested the 1993 Clash of Civilizations thesis put forward by American political scientist Samuel Huntington. He proposed that post-Cold War fault-lines and conflicts would be defined by cultural values rooted in religious beliefs, and that inherent Western/Islamic differences over democratic values would lead to new clashes and ethnic conflicts.

    The Norris/Inglehart study found that Huntington was right to see culture and religion as strong determinants of political attitudes, but wrong to see a large difference in or natural antagonisms over democratic values among Islamic and Western cultures.

    Support for democracy is surprisingly widespread among Muslims, even among those who live in authoritarian societies. The basic fault line between the West and Islam is not democracy, but issues of gender equality and sexual liberalization.

    Norris and Inglehart found that Western and Islamic societies agreed on three of four indicators of political values: support for democratic ideals, how well democracy worked in practice, and attitudes toward leadership by experts and non-accountable government officials. The "clash" on these issues was between the Islamic/Western world, on one hand, and the rest of the world on the other (especially the Orthodox/Russian world, but also in China/Sino cultures, South America, sub-Saharan Africa, Japan and Hindu societies). The major difference between Western and Islamic cultures lay in attitudes to religious leaders, who were more accepted by Muslims than by Westerners (though other regions shared the Muslim acceptance of a role for religious leaders, including South America - so even here the West/Islam dichotomy was not the primary division).

    The research did identify a "strong and significant difference" between Western and Islamic people's attitudes to gender equality, homosexuality, abortion and divorce. The West is consistently more liberal on these issues, and Western youth are becoming even more liberal and egalitarian over time, while young Muslims tend to remain as traditional as their parents and grandparents.

    Norris and Inglehart concluded that "any claim of a clash of civilizations, especially of fundamentally different political values held by Western and Islamic societies, represents an oversimplification of the evidence. Across many political dimensions examined here, both Islamic and Western societies are similar in their positive orientation toward democratic ideals."

    The great thing about American culture, like American movies, is that if you hang around long enough the good guys win, and truth triumphs. I hope this sort of quality empirical research will be picked up by those in the US media and around the world who want to convey facts and quality analysis.

    Understanding the reality of the world is probably the most important first step to making it safe and secure.

  3. #3
    Guest
    Who is free to choose?
    Who is beyond the law?
    Who is healed?
    Who is housed?
    Who speaks?
    Who is silenced?
    Who salutes longest?
    Who prays loudest?
    Who dies first?
    Who laughs last?

  4. #4
    Guest
    Retake this

  5. #5
    Guest
    Pro Israeli:

    What does your post have do with Immigration questions? I am sure you can find other forums to post your political views.

    Or may be, you need to get a life?

  6. #6
    Guest
    yes pro get a life...this is the wrong board
    to post something like that...or is it after all
    that jewish are like cancer..you find them evrywhere and when you expect them the less ????????

    we are not here to discuss your topic...get it ???
    Thanks and hope not to see you again

  7. #7
    Guest
    yep

  8. #8
    Guest
    ok mr pro isreal, i v read ur article and it seems pretty clear to me that you sound like a smart person but on a closer assessment i discovered you are just another reader of the quran who is not impelled by instinct to a good understanding.
    i personally appreciate your effort in trying to give a good analysis, which is very important even for the most bad things . a good anylysis done just the way a chemist would give an anylysis of a chemical in the laboratory deserves some credit ,but unfortnately i discovered two flurs with your article the one flur which was the absence of of your own private opinion or let me rephrase, the use of other articles and books as refrence and the second flur been that your article was too long that by the end i lost the whole gist of the matter.dont get me wrong am giving you my own opinion which does not represent the whole generality of human beigns.
    so mr, getting back to my view of who you might be and helping you understand who i am ,what defines a religion is not how it is practised but its fundamental postulate.this postulate is reflected so openly in the manner in which it is practised, islam is a religion which postulate was CONTROL.so that is to say the only way in islam is the way of control by force regardless of who, when, where,and why.this is supported by your definition of jihad. a question for you mr , why do you think GOD which you claim to believe in is a partial God?,why do u think he is so baised to have created you muslems with an individual imagination and predestine capabilities, and simply did not give this same thing to other human beings?what is your definition of the right way?why do u think God who created people just like you will give you muslems the right to destroy this same beigns he created? to me this all sounds like mockery, God is more powerful than the way you present him, but you will help me by giving me answers to those question which i already know but am
    leaving room for flexibility just incase you come with anything sensible which i doubt.
    let me help you out in , i know what muslems call people like me infidels if am correct, but who are mulems to matter in my life in the first place.and dont think am a novist who dosent know what he s saying coz my mother is observing ramadan right now . you need to go depper with with understanding who God really is and not what people think he is, which you have read all your life and still reading.i believe in God but i see religion like a childish toy or like de way a technician sees his tools.
    am not disputing your opinions am only bittered by you approach,the eisiest test of smartness is not disproving, and not regarding others as been crazy just because you dont understand them, the only crazy people are those that kills themselves . you failed this test and since there is no gulf between smartness and foolishness pardon me if i say you are foolish but that is what the manual says.i will very much like to chat with you someday so let me know if u down with that

  9. #9
    Guest
    Muslims or Moslems are decieved. Muhammed was a violent man and he lied. Islam is a violent religion. I don't care what you think. It's violent and anti-western. Man was born free.

  10. #10
    Guest
    Ok guys. I am really sorry to even respond to this forum, but it seems that there is some major miscommunication here - just like there is in the world at large. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all share the same basic foundations and principals. In fact much of the current Israeli/Arab conflict can in some way, shape, and/or form be traced back to similarities in the religions.

    So stop bashing one another and take a good hard look at all of the books that are involved: the torah, the quran, and even the old testament of the bible. If you read them all (or even two) I think you might be really surprised.

    (Why do you think so many people are fighting over the "holy land"??????)

    You may also find that the conflict that exists between these groups is not actually drawn by religious beliefs but rather by politics, and religion is a heuristic that people use to draw lines when they are too lazy to actually understand the situation.

    So please... all of you.... stop this nonsense. You are all worth a lot more than this!

Similar Threads

  1. The Religion Of Kidnapping
    By federale86 in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-19-2011, 03:49 PM
  2. resident allien convicted of violent crime
    By display name in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-27-2008, 10:00 PM
  3. Islam: The Religion of Peace
    By SonofMichael in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-06-2008, 12:12 PM
  4. More Violent Chaos in Mexico...
    By SunDevilUSA in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-05-2006, 01:00 AM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-09-2003, 09:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: