The Danish Security Service, PET, is proposing that the Danish government refrain from using the words "war against terror" and "Jihad".
In an eight page report the language use PET recommends that the authorities choose their words with care in order to deescalate the conflict between the West and the Muslim world.
Besides refraining from using the phrase "war against terror" PET recommends to refrain from speaking of Muslims as a population group related to terror and extremism. Other expression to refrain from using are "jihad", "holy war", "Islamism", "fundamentalism" or "mujahedines".
The suggestions from PET's Center for Terror Analysis (CTA) are intended to ensure that the world's Muslims don't feel suspected of being terrorists and that PET doesn't encourage Muslims by adopting their own terms, like Jihad.
PET suggests that authorities don't use the term "Islamist terrorist" and instead use just 'terrorist'. Other terms suggested by the report are "extremist", "militant" and "violent"
The head of PET's department for preventing security, Anja Dalgaard-Nielsen, says that this isn't an issue of political correctness but of ensuring a use of language that is as precise and objective as possible. Terrorists don't just engage in a violent war but also in a war of words, of a specific outlook on the world.
The report, titled "Language Use and Fighting Terrorism (Sprogbrug og Terrorbekæmpelse) advises in general against tying Islam and terrorism together, since the typical person doesn't differentiate between Islam the religion and Islamism the political ideology.
The report says that in order to prevent stigmatizing the Muslim population CTA recommends to always consider how much it contributes to coherence to use religious terms in describing terrorism (for example, "Islamic").
PET will endeavor to follow the recommendations.
An earlier report by a former PET analyst also suggested not using the combination "Muslim terrorists".
Mehdi Mozzafari, head of the Center for Research in Islamism and Radicalization processes at Aarhus University, says that the intention is good, but that they risk ignoring reality if they don't call Osama Bin Laden and Islamist terrorist. It's not tenable and Islamism certainly comes out of Islam.
Justice minister Lene Espersen, Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Integration Minister Birthe Rønn Hornbech refused to say whether they will follow the recommendations.
Sources: Nyhedsavisen 1, 2 (Danish)
In an eight page report the language use PET recommends that the authorities choose their words with care in order to deescalate the conflict between the West and the Muslim world.
Besides refraining from using the phrase "war against terror" PET recommends to refrain from speaking of Muslims as a population group related to terror and extremism. Other expression to refrain from using are "jihad", "holy war", "Islamism", "fundamentalism" or "mujahedines".
The suggestions from PET's Center for Terror Analysis (CTA) are intended to ensure that the world's Muslims don't feel suspected of being terrorists and that PET doesn't encourage Muslims by adopting their own terms, like Jihad.
PET suggests that authorities don't use the term "Islamist terrorist" and instead use just 'terrorist'. Other terms suggested by the report are "extremist", "militant" and "violent"
The head of PET's department for preventing security, Anja Dalgaard-Nielsen, says that this isn't an issue of political correctness but of ensuring a use of language that is as precise and objective as possible. Terrorists don't just engage in a violent war but also in a war of words, of a specific outlook on the world.
The report, titled "Language Use and Fighting Terrorism (Sprogbrug og Terrorbekæmpelse) advises in general against tying Islam and terrorism together, since the typical person doesn't differentiate between Islam the religion and Islamism the political ideology.
The report says that in order to prevent stigmatizing the Muslim population CTA recommends to always consider how much it contributes to coherence to use religious terms in describing terrorism (for example, "Islamic").
PET will endeavor to follow the recommendations.
An earlier report by a former PET analyst also suggested not using the combination "Muslim terrorists".
Mehdi Mozzafari, head of the Center for Research in Islamism and Radicalization processes at Aarhus University, says that the intention is good, but that they risk ignoring reality if they don't call Osama Bin Laden and Islamist terrorist. It's not tenable and Islamism certainly comes out of Islam.
Justice minister Lene Espersen, Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Integration Minister Birthe Rønn Hornbech refused to say whether they will follow the recommendations.
Sources: Nyhedsavisen 1, 2 (Danish)
31 comments:
This is the same kind of aggravating nonsense we're doing here in America and in England. Despite assurances to the contrary, it has EVERYTHING to do with political correctness. As Robert Spencer always says, the claim that the phrase "Islamic terrorism" suggests that all Muslims are terrorists is as ridiculous as saying that "Italian fascists" suggests that all Italians are fascists. To say that the "typical person" cannot distinguish between Islam and Islamism is simply insulting; but if it is true, how is the "typical person" supposed to understand that distinction if no one is allowed to even discuss the Islamic motivation of the terrorists, if no one is allowed to use "Islam" and "terrorism" in the same sentence? The West's refusal to call the enemy what they are - Islamic terrorists, jihadists, etc. - and refusal to use ANY term that refers to Islam means we cannot talk about the ideological motivation driving our enemy. It's also ridiculous to say that our mere use of the term "jihad" will glamourize it and encourage people to join the ranks of the jihadists. Can you imagine if, during WWII, we refused to use the word Nazi because it might encourage people to join the Nazi party? The enemy frankly doesn't care what words the West uses. They're laughing at our political correctness and our fretful weakness about identifying and confronting them. I am disgusted by our pathetic government response to countering this supremacist, violent ideology.
Trying to disassociate terror from Islam is like trying to disassociate Nazism form Hitler’s attempted conquests. If Islam, Jihad, is not part of the terror being unleashed on the world then why are they yelling Allahu Akbar as they commit these terror acts? It is stupid to try and divorce the acts from where they are fermented from. It is the Mullahs that call for these Jihad acts to be perpetrated, Islamic nations and charities funding them, and Muslims rejoicing at the devastation they create. They take the credit for those acts. We should not take that away from them. They admit if freely, especially when protected by their peers. They should be punished with the same fervor that the acts are committed.
Big Shaker & Valdimir,
the word "jihad" has no relation to terrorism. If you wanna call people who make terror acts then call them "terrorists".
jihad is an arabic word that means (roughly) like "working hardly and patiently to make good things (which are not easy to do) as well as to avoid bad acts".
let me give you some examples to clarify the above general stmt:
When I am working in my company with the intention to secure good living to my family and to me...It is a jihad
When I prevent myself to say lies, especially is situation it is too hard to tell truth ... It is a jihad
When you try to be patient with your wife, kids, old parents, neighbors ..etc, and deal patiently with them even if they make bad things to you....it is a jihad
When you pray to God, even if you are tired, or when you make your fasting (ex: during Ramadan month in Islam) and doing that patiently...It is jihad
you can make many examples as you like. The center piece of jihad is to make all of that just for God sake, not waiting for any reward from anybody, just waiting for reward from God, and looking for him to be satisfied with you.
you can not understand that unless you KNOW about God and BELEIVE in that.
one part of jihad is to fight against enemies. Civil ppl are not enemies, even if they are not muslims. In Islam (crystal clear) no obligation in religion. Even if the taxes of those ppl are used by their government to fight Islam and muslims, Islam does not instruct us to fight these ppl, simply because they are still civilians, it is not fair to fight civilians with bombs.
I would like to say one thing. the terror acts made by impatient, are driven by their (improper) hate to the western ppl for their support to militants like Israel and American army. We have no hate against civilians europeans (even if they hate us). Islam HAD NOT and WILL NOT spread out by swords. This is what I learnt and believe.
if you are in the situation of these (impatient) ppl, and some militant killed your kids and wide, you will lose your mind and will try to kill civillians too. The point is that western ppl have their militants (ex: americans) to save them and take back their rights (by Invading Palestine Afghanistan, Iraq ...etc), but the other side has no body to take their rights back, and they lost their minds... what to do...try to take your right from anybody EVEN CIVILLIANS...and that is the unavoidable mistake.
So, to conclude, please look at the facts from its sources, and leave away the non-credible internet videos and newspapers.
My dear 'Hanz'
you are a liar and a fraud.
jihad is a global mission to make the world Islamic. There is no concept of 'civilian' in Islam, not on the side of Muslims and not on the side of the kuffar, so your taqiyya is just another construct to pull the Islamic wool over the eyes and ears of naive infidels. You failed.
hanz
Yeah, sure. However in all 4 schools of law they include the use of force into jihad.
Read the letter to the pope, page 2
http://tinyurl.com/u2loj
Jihad, it must be emphasized,
means struggle, and specifically struggle in the way of God.This struggle may take many forms, including the use of force.
hanz
"one part of jihad is to fight against enemies. Civil ppl are not enemies, even if they are not muslims. "
The weird thing about such statements is that you see that as a part of a religion.
Thanks for taking the time to try to enlighten us, Hanz, but the people you should be lecturing about the "correct" definitions of "jihad" and "civilians" are the jihadists who commit daily, worldwide acts of violence and intimidation against Muslim and non-Muslim civilians alike, all the while openly announcing and insisting that "jihad" is war against the infidel, obligatory for all Muslims. But apparently, you think these terrorists have simply "lost their minds" because of American "militants" invading Muslim lands and killing their kids. Your's is the typical Muslim response: it's always someone else's fault.
By the way, I DID "learn the facts from sources," not from "non-credible videos and newspapers."
freespeech,
you just picked incomplete part of the paragraph.. here is the complete part:
-----------Jihad, it must be emphasized, means struggle, and specifically struggle in the way of God.This struggle may take many forms, including the use of force. Though a jihad may be sacred in the sense of being directed towards a sacred ideal, it is not necessarily
a war ------------
that agrees with my description is that jihad is not about war or terrorism
second, look at the following part from the same source:
---------The authoritative and traditional Islamic rules of war can be summarized in the following principles:
1. Non-combatants are not permitted or legitimate targets.This was emphasized explicitly time and again by the Prophet, his Companions, and by the learned tradition since then.
2. Religious belief alone does not make anyone the object of attack. The original Muslim community was fighting against pagans who had also expelled them from their homes, persecuted, tortured, and murdered them. Thereafter, the Islamic conquests were political in nature.
3. Muslims can and should live peacefully with their neighbors. And if they incline to peace, do thou incline to it; and put thy trust in God (al-Anfal 8:6I). However, this does not exclude legitimate self-defense and maintenance
of sovereignty. Muslims are just as bound to obey these rules as they are to refrain from theft and adultery. If a religion regulates war and describes circumstances where it is necessary and just, that does not make that religion war-like, anymore
than regulating sexuality makes a religion prurient.----------
do you find a problem with the above. Although I do not read from this source, nor I am a scholar), but I can discuss with you any point in this context.
Werner,
do not insult me anybody, because insulting is the language of weak ppl, and the weaker who will be provoked and give back insulting
The ultimate mission of (muslims, or anybody became muslim) is to spread the WORD of Islam, not to spread the WORLD of Islam. I won't be harmed if nobody became muslim and believe in one God (though I will be sad) however, I it will be harm for me (and God will ask me and every muslims) if I did not do my best to spread the WORD, and it is up to ppl and it is between them and their God to be a muslim or not... my role is ended by conveying the message clearly and gently (not by force)
force used in Jihad, because at that time, no muslim is allowed to preach for islam in these Empires (ex: Persian and byzantine) and even those empires tried to attack the muslims community. So, they used force to fight those rulers (and their armies) who do not want to let muslims to spread the message. So, they were going in their way to spread the WORD freely, and they fought whoever FOUGHT them. Evidence about that is that when they (muslims) came into a city that has no militants, they just tell its ppl that they are in safe and no fight against them and they are free to be muslims or stay on their believes, and the Shria is applied (applied on muslims only) and other ppl are free to do whatever they wanna do, as long as they do not affect others. ex: no body could prevent you from drinking wine in your home, or do whatever you wanna do in your private place. There was prostitutes during the ruling of Islam, but it is not legalized by the government. So, do whatever you wanna do in your private space. This keeps the society from being driven to the miss we see today.
Nowadays, the world is at least semi-free, that means muslims can spread the word peacefully (although they are being coldly fought by media ..etc).
No need and it is prohibited to use fight to spread it. What Islam will do with fight? ppl will be muslims? you can not change ppl faith by force. If the whole world does not WANT be muslim... I do not care, as long the message is conveyed to them.
So, Werner do not repeat stmts, and you actually do not believe (or even understand) their meaning.
Big Shaker,
I am give time here to talk with ppl who did not get the message clearly and are being affected by the media and sources that just want to destroy the notion of religion and beleives.
The other ppl you are talking about are already got the message, however they have been condemned in their countries or their families or whatever, and they react impatiently and to the worng destination.
The best way to stop them is in hands of the world rulers(ex: American campaign) who are dealing with the problem of terrorism in the wrong way (intentionally)
for example, it is clear clear what the intention of American and their supporters in their war against Iraq, is that they wanted Petrol. Iraqy government was the just a seed put by american hands to justify their invasion tothis rich area.
The strange dream of Israelians,(it is well-knonw that not all jwes agree with Israel) of occupying the palastenian land and they say that it was our land from some thousand years ago.. I do not want to go deelpy in this story.
these invasions, occupations, stealing of the wealths of this area of the world.. driving some muslims crazy, and let them take the wrong path to react. They have a right to be back, but they are taking the wrong way to get back this right. The only way to stop them is by those goverments to give up taking their lands and wealth, and confess with their right to live on their lands peacefully.
Do you think they are doing that to spread Islam?... it is very clear that they are doing that becasue of something between them and the west...and islam is away from teh story.
I hope you got the point. and I am sorry if there are any typos in the text.
Hanz, you sick, taqiyya-spouting retard! First of all, and I'm just being honest here, as a Muslim, you will always face an uphill battle in terms of proving your honesty, your credibility, and your intelligence, so the fact that you spout endless lies while operating on the assumption that the rest of us are illiterate idiots really does not help your cause. Second, do you know what else means 'struggle?' 'Kampf,' as in 'Mein Kampf.' Again, stop acting illiterate and/or assuming that we are so. Jihad has always meant 'terrorism,' as in, 'I have become victorious through terror.' And even if 'jihad' didn't mean terrorism, terrorism, and nothing but terrorism once upon a time, which it always has, it has certainly meant that since Sayyid Qutb, may he fry up extra-crispy in Hell.
We, the US, just passed the Hoekstra Bill which re-legitimizes the use of the words 'jihad,' 'caliphate,' etc., not because anyone ever considered abandoning them, but in light of the UK's and now Denmark's attempts at undermining their use. We also just passed Rachel's Law so that Saudis can't sue our authors for printing the truth in European courts. Because we're awesome like that.
And Big Shaker, you're absolutely right, and I also think it's important to raise the point that delegitimizing the use of 'jihad' is ridiculous because organizations like CAIR, ISNA, MSA, etc. may condemn 'terrorism' (unless it's committed against black Africans, then it's always ok to them), but they never condemn jihad, just like they never sign the Declaration Againts Genocide.
And yes, Hanz, technically Muslims are not supposed to carry out acts of terrorism against civilians. They are to make sure that no Muslims are to be killed, then kill all then infidel men, then attack all the women and children while they are unarmed in unprovoked night raids, then round them up, rape them all, and sell the into slavery. Those are, technically speaking, 'proper Islamic protocols.' But you ARE to 'slay the unbelievers wherever ye may find them' and 'smite them at their necks, at length,' i.e., JIHAD.
Also, Hanz, there never was a "Palestine," and the US never invaded the former British Palestine Mandate except to try to save the Lebanese Christians in Lebanon from ISLAMIC JIHAD in the 1980s.
You also know perfectly well that the doctrine you're espousing is an abrogated one, and only applies to when Muslims are a very small minority and lack the means to carry out full-scale JIHAD. According to Robert Spencer, who, unlike you, is honest:
This is a very ancient Islamic understanding of the Qur’an: in the earliest biography of Muhammad, the eighth-century Muslim chronicler Ibn Ishaq explains the contexts of various verses of the Qur’an by saying that Muhammad received revelations about warfare in three stages: first, tolerance; then, defensive warfare; and finally, offensive warfare in order to convert the unbelievers to Islam or make them pay the jizya, the non-Muslim poll-tax (see Sahih Muslim 4294, etc.). Commentaries on the Qur’an by venerable Islamic authorities including Ibn Kathir, Ibn Juzayy, As-Suyuti and others also emphasize that Surat At-Tawba, the ninth sura of the Qur’an and the one containing the exhortation to make war against and subjugate the People of the Book (9:29) abrogates every peace treaty in the Qur’an.
In the modern age, this idea of stages of development in the Qur’an’s teaching on jihad, culminating in offensive warfare to establish the hegemony of Islamic law, has been affirmed by the jihad theorists Sayyid Qutb and Sayyed Abul Ala Maududi; the Pakistani Brigadier S. K. Malik (author of The Qur’anic Concept of War), Saudi Chief Justice Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid (in his “Jihad in the Qur'an and Sunnah”), and others. It is, of course, an assertion of no little concern to non-Muslims, since it encapsulates a doctrine of warfare against non-Muslims and their ultimate subjugation under Sharia rules, with all that implies.
Thus it is not enough merely to stress the verses of relative tolerance and co-existence in the Qur’an, but to point out this understanding of the Qur’anic development of the doctrine of jihad.
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=3EBBF3CD-1F0C-4455-B2AD-E0C25C3AAEDC
Who do you think you're kidding? Read the 'Myth of Islamic Tolerance,' 'Onward Muslim Soldiers,' and 'Religion of Peace' by Robert Spencer. Then come in here and post a bunch of lies.
And Hanz, nobody insulted you. We merely assessed who you are based on the behavior you have demonstrated, which is always fair to do. You are an ignorant, evil liar because you operate on the assumption that we are retarded and that it would even occur to us to believe someone like you whose lies are so ridiculous, so transparent, lack citation, defy all logic, common sense, and history, so as to be completely incredulous. That is fair. That is not an insult. And this is a democracy, so if you're offended, good, because if you're not offended every day then you don't live in a democracy. We are a culture which values honesty over your ridiculous, evil "honor" (as substitute for morality/personal responsibility/individual agency), so we call it like it is. If you feel that you are being insulted when people call you out on the moronic and evil things you do and say, it is not because we are weak. We are pointing out the obvious and it is a problem with you. The fact that you cannot successfully or credibly refute anything we say more than proves it. Don't attack us. Refute us in a remotely credible manner like an intelligent person would do. Or go visit a blog for your cult members to bury your heads in the sand and live in happy, cultish, Pleasantvillean harmony.
damn13,
in fact I am too busy to reply on every stmt u said.
well, regarding your talk about me, I wont care with it, becasue I really can see how far you are so agressive, and do not prefer gentle 2-way comm. about 2 thirds of your post is about attacking me and describing me as ....liar evil...etc
I never attacked anybody or even attacked what they say. I just tell my opinions and talk about somethng I beleive in.
I am not assuming ppl here are "retarded". everybody is minded and is able to read and reason about what they read.
I am not a scholar in Islam to give citation about everything I say. However, I learnt these things from Quran and Hadeeth, but not able in fact to cite from them. There are scholars who coud do that
finally, you do not need to practice this "democracy" (as far as u think) with me. just tell ppl that you think that "what Hanz saying is wrong" rather than to say "Hanz is liar and evil". It is not of any sense of respect to others.
Liars do not beleive in what they say... that is why we call them liars. I am not liar, simply because I beleive in what I tell.
I wont reply on any post with this tone of disrespect.
Hanz, no need to apologize for any typos. I just realized I made a typo of my own in a previous post and I'm very upset about it! Anyway, you claim that the jihadists fight against the West not because of Islam, but because of Western occupation. But this is not what the jihadists themselves say. Yes, they want to rid Muslim lands of Westerners and their influence, but they constantly justify their actions with reference to the Quran and the haddith, etc., and their stated goal is worldwide dominance by Islam. And what of jihadists elsewhere, like Thailand, China, Indonesia, Philippines, Africa, etc., that have nothing to do with the West? I am afraid you are wrong when you say Islam has nothing to do with the jihadis' agenda - or you are not willing to acknowledge it. Islam seems to have EVERYTHING to do with it.
There is more I'd like to say, but like you, I do not have time to respond to every statement. So I give you the last word.
Actually Hanz, liars from shame cultures can pass lie while hooked up to polygraphs and pass because they have no conscience or sense of right and wrong, therefore their chemical response to lieing is like that of a person with a soul telling the truth. They have no morality or internal compass, and ultimately no objective sense of truth. Also, any moron can find reputable citations for each and every statement they may make, and any reasonably intelligent person always does so when espousing unbelievable "facts" like the claims that you make. You can't find reputable sources for the insane b.s. you spout at us, and that is why don't do so, just like you attack me while narcissistically and demopathically claiming not to ever do so because you cannot dispute a single point I made. And you didn't dispute a single point I made because you know that I am correct. You DO lie and the things you lie about ARE evil. You defend sheer, unadulterated evil and you lie about it, and by doing so you insult those of us who actually read, think, and live in the world, and who are therefore too intelligent buy into the crazy and evil b.s. you spout. So add 'hypocrite' to evil, liar, narcissist, and illiterate idiot.
Talk about typos! I meant "Actually Hanz, liars from shame cultures can lie while hooked up to polygraphs and pass." I started writing 'lie detectors' and didn't delete enough. My bad.
Hi Big-Shaker,
you mentioned that:
"But this is not what the jihadists themselves say"
Jihadests say that because they think that their lands and their countries are stolen or being condemned by ppl who have (mainly) anti-Islam in mind. It is very common to see that in their talks about the western rulers. Example: What do you think about their (jihadists and eastern communities) opinion about G.W.Bush and his campaign in making this war against Iraq?
Also (for US readers not to feel they are targeted) what do you think about the Russian war against Kashmir?...etc.. many examples
They think that it is anti-Islamic war (and honestly, and in some sense I think so I will talk abt that at the end of the post)
So, when you think that you are being attacked because of your religion, then when you attack them back, you will say that I am defending my religion, and my land ... I AM DOING JIHAD.
that is why Jihadists say that. in fact, I would like to stop saying Jihadists as mark of terrorists (the main title of the blog) becasue I am a jihadist, but in the constructive way, not in the destructive one..
I saw a video of Bin Laden on youtube, he justifies their Sept destruction, he said (in arabic) "because they killed our kids, our families"... etc, "and we do the same for them". I hope I can find again this link and send to you, but I passed by it by chance.
he did not say "to spread out Islamic World" or "to force them to be muslims" or even said "because they are non-mulsim"
recall: I am clear about that point. Even if this war is anti-islam, I wont fight civilians. So, I disagree with him.
So, analyzing his talk, you will get the point that they hate the western ppl altogether, armies, governments and civilians, because they think they are being hated and attacked by all the mentioned categories.
The rest of this post is not related to the above issue, it talks about my opinion abt western war in the east region. Skip it if u r not interested.
Why it is anti-islam war in my opinion. It is anti-Islam war not because these ppl are reluctant to the Islam prayers or fasting or even not because they think Islam is not a religion….. It is anti-Islam war because they know and believe that if Islam (or any similar ideology) is there, these countries will not allow them to take their resources and will not let them control the world as they do now. They are afraid from anything that could unify this part of the world. But the toy rulers of these countries are kissing hands of American government, and give them the countries’ resources on a silver plate.
I do not hate American population, nor I have anything with them. For me, they are a community like any community (Chinese for example). They are following their government because the later justify any war in the east as for the sake of National Security. If I am in their place, I would support my government if it tries to secure me. Most American ppl, and many pther community around the world do not care abt islam because they do not care about the notion of religion itself. They are those ppl whome I think they need to get the message. Other ppl around the world, Zionists, have a deep hate to Islam and even Christianity. Quran said to them in the meaning of “Come on and let us all Jews, Muslims and Christians, to worship one God and never share any other with him”. I hope we differentiate between these sick ppl and the other normal ppl who has no hate or love to any specific party.
Sorry for the long post
damn13
I dunno why your language is full of hate, try to learn how to disagree with others. you seem to be brainwahsed by whatever thing that caused you to talk like that.
Hanz, I said I'd give you the last word, but I want to correct something I said because you seem to have misunderstood. I didn't mean to say that the jihadists don't want to get rid of Westerners in Muslim countries - of course they say that often, because that is a very useful recruiting tool for them, to rouse the anger of Muslims worldwide. But my main point is that you said Islam has nothing to do with it, and I'm saying the jihadists' ARE absolutely driven by the ideology of Islam, and they reference this constantly, whatever else they may say about "Crusaders" and the Satanic Americans, etc.
Also, it is not correct when you say "the toy rulers" of Muslim countries "give their resources to the West on a silver plate." Those countries have "given" nothing - the West has channeled trillions of dollars into those countries in exchange for those resources, resources which, by the way, were discovered by the West and extracted with Western technology. The West, notably America, also provides many more billions of aid to Muslims countries, even to Palestinian militants (who then steal it from their own people).
I am glad you seem to have a more peaceful vision of your religion, but I completely disagree with you about the nature of your violent co-religionists and about the mythical "war on Islam" you feel the West is waging. I feel sure we will never come to any agreement on that.
I got your point, big-shaker. Thanks.
there is infinit volume of resources about both points of view regarding Islam idealogy. and I agree with you that we are not able to agree on this point. I am not a scholar, and wont be at least in the coming few years (if I ma still alive). I am a scholar in computer science only :)
However, I trust one refernce for my beleive. I have read that reference and consulted trusted scholars until I reached this conclusion about my beleive. I understand that you also talk about the same refernce as having this "violence" view. But, I am not able to describe you my view in details. just let us stick to the basic peaceful view of humanity that is common between us.
thakn you for your objective and gentle posts.
You're welcome, Hanz. I am sorry there is not enough time for us to debate this more.
The Russian war against Kashmir? You really haven't ever picked up a book in your life, have you, Hanz? You probably only know about Islam from Qaradawi on Al Jazeera. No terrorist attack has ever been provoked. That is Islamic "morality." Attacking people who never attacked you. Ultimately they do this, like Perv Mo, because they are aware of their inferiority, either through inferior governments, economies, education, families with no concept of love, the fact evolution does not happen in Muslim societies through arranged marriage and inbreeding, a highly inferior belief system to even the completely unacceptable communism, the fact that Islam - and its societies and individuals - cannot survive without a host to parasitize and then they cannibalize when they don't have one, and the fact that Muslims have never, ever managed to live in harmony, either with themselves or in dealings with others. You think Bin Laden was attacked? Bin Laden takes the credit as a 'mujahideen' for winning a war that the US won. But we're his enemy. Yeah. Good logic there, Hanz. He also did say, on repeated occasions, that he planned to 'spread the Islamic world all the way to Spain,' probably because he can't read and doesn't know that Portugal exists. The last 7 times the US went to war it was in defense of Arab Muslims. IN DEFENSE OF THEM. And yeah, it was apparently wasted on you guys. I noticed that your precious Koran doesn't have any teachings about gratitude. The Somalis showed us "Islamic gratitude" when they shot down our Blackhawks because we were trying to bring them food. Muslim rulers kiss our free-world asses because they have to. No Muslim society is self-sustaining. No Islamic society ever can be, not even the insanely wealthy Saudi Arabia, because they can't pump a single drop of oil out of the ground without infidel dollars and manpower because they have no work ethic, operate on zero-sum thinking so they have no sense of personal accomplishment, no education in the Muslim world is legitimate, and quite frankly, they're inbred to within 3 generations of living in zoos. Nobody hands us their resources "on a silver plate." We pay good money for it, money their uneducated, inbred, lazy populations lack. We keep their societies sort-of running by buying those resources, then we give them insane amounts of money. It's called 'economics,' Hanz. Add that to the list of things of which lack a primary-school understanding. And actually, Hanz, most of the people who fought and died to liberate the Iraqis and in every other war we fought are die-hard Christians who care very much about religion. That's why they don't care about Islam: IT IS NOT A RELIGION; IT IS A FASCIST CULT WITH NO CONCEPT OF MORALITY. No reasonable, decent, thinking, moral, ethical, civilized, evolved, outbred person cares about Islam, because doing so absolutely and unequivocally precludes having any of the above qualites. It has nothing to do with religion. Christians don't fight wars for religion. Real religions, by definition, prohibit killing in their name.
And Zionists hate Islam? Zionists give Arabs more freedoms than they enjoy anywhere else in the Middle East, and if Arabs had any concept of shame they would be appalled at themselves for it. They just want THEIR LAND. They just want to be able to visit the JEWISH Temple Mount. Your boy Perv Mo strapped a horse to a gate there and you sickos called it a Muslim holy place. That is the height of having no respect for religion. And EVERYONE agrees that the ascension to heaven is an unreliable Hadith which was pure made-up craziness, just like everyone with a kindergarten education today knows with 100% certainty that there is no Heaven because we have radio telescopes which can see 1000s of galaxies away and we haven't found it, so it absolutely has to be an incredibly poorly-conceived idea designed to lead around gullible idiots with a carrot and stick all the way to their graves. Zionists give Islam far, far more respect than it is due. But again, I would never expect a Muslim to behave like a reasonable, decent, thinking, moral, ethical, civilized, evolved, outbred person and exhibit any sort of base modicum of gratitude or respect for anyone else. Look what you do to your own children. How dare you call Zionists 'you sick people.' You are the epitome of malignant narcissism. You missed the mark by 180 degrees and ended up describing yourself perfectly. Just like with your 'brainwashed' statement. You're the cult member, son. I'm an independent thinker. I just refuse to tolerate the intolerable and choose to stand up for what I believe in. No wonder Muslims have such a distaste for anything that could be considered an insult: because you always show your true colors whenever you try your hands at it. Muslims are the hateful ones. 66% of the Koran, 76% of the Hadith, and 98% of the Sura is devoted to Perv Mo's hatred toward infidels. He was obsessed with them, which is completely transparent to anyone with a legitimate primary school education. Islam is a supremacist cult, and based on your certifiably-insane statements, Hanz, you are full of hate and for everyone, even yourself, since you cannot even attempt to defend Islam or anything you say. Sick.
Islamophobist !!
good luck with your humble bumble thoughts
'Phobias' are irrational fears. It's not a phobia if they actually want you dead and actively commit genocide upon your people on a daily basis (they kill my Israeli brethren and every MUSLIM terrorist group - like there's any other kind - wants to conquer Rome and America). Again Hanz, nice 'rebuttal.' With 'intellectuals' like you, Islam should have no problem becoming acceptable to us civilized, decent, evolved, outbred folks. And you summed up the prototypical pro-Islam 'argument.' Oh, I think you forgot to call me 'racist,' even though Islam isn't a race and I made a great case for how why Islam is an incredibly racist doctrine in that post two weeks ago, which was no doubt the only reason you didn't demopathically cry 'racism.' No wonder Muslims hate free speech. It will be your undoing.
'Phobias' are irrational fears. It's not a phobia if they actually want you dead and actively commit genocide upon your people on a daily basis (they kill my Israeli brethren and every MUSLIM terrorist group - like there's any other kind - wants to conquer Rome and America). Again Hanz, nice 'rebuttal.' With 'intellectuals' like you, Islam should have no problem becoming acceptable to us civilized, decent, evolved, outbred folks. And you summed up the prototypical pro-Islam 'argument.' Oh, I think you forgot to call me 'racist,' even though Islam isn't a race and I made a great case for how why Islam is an incredibly racist doctrine in that post two weeks ago, which was no doubt the only reason you didn't demopathically cry 'racism.' No wonder Muslims hate free speech. It will be your undoing.
sicken from your long barbarian talk. I will never reply anymore to such mentally distorted ppl. that is really waste of time !!! I am sure that your next post will be with that same full of hate barbarian style. The entropy in your talk is almost zero. Do you really think you are a civilized, or have something in your heart other than hate !!!!
talk to the wall, next time.
I have lots of love in my heart, Hanz. I love freedom, I love democracy, I love equality, I love human dignity, I love taking pride in hard work, I love literacy, I love civilization, I love human rights, I love women's rights, I love civil rights, I love Jesus, I love Moses, I love dogs, I love science, I love art, I love music, I love poetry, I love the truth, I love America, and I love Israel. What I hate is evil supremacists like you who can't accept that and seek to destroy everything in this world that is good and is of any value. Also, I'm not talking to a wall. Has anyone else disagreed wih me in here? Have you successfully refuted anything I've said? Or have you once again, in a typically malignantly narcisistic fashion, tried to insult me, missed the mark by 180 degrees, and described yourself to a t? You're the insane one chooses to live in some sicko parallel universe where killing people is pious, "religions" obligate people to be racists, commit genocide, oppress women, and abuse children, the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth and sets in a muddy puddle, and the moon is a lamp. And when FACTS get in the way of your suspension of disbelief in upholding your little sicko parallel universe, you stick your fingers in ears, shut your eyes, and yell 'la la la la la.' Now go be a good Muslim and mutilate and sexually assault a six-year-old, then beat your incestuous Sharia sex slave, and mutilate some corpses like your "prophet" told you to.
"Has anyone else disagreed wih me in here?" - jdamn13
Since I don't want my silence to suggest agreement, I'll say I disapprove of your tone of personal attack, but I haven't spoken up because I feel that's the responsibility of the moderator.
I may be a bitch, but did you actually disagree with anything I said? And was my armchair psychology not right on, obvious though it was? I will admit that his narcissistically calling Zionists 'you sick people' really got on my nerves, so my last remark was just to drive in the point of who's really sick? Zionists who want what Muslims want but with morality, human rights, and democracy in a land that is legitmately theirs as decreed by God and not stolen through the use of the sword, or people who emulate in word, deed, and thought a psychopath who "mutilate[d] and sexually assault[ed] a [severely brain-damaged] six-year-old [niece], then beat [his] incestuous Sharia sex slave[s], and mutilate[d] some corpses?"
jdamn13, I just think our points can and should be made without getting personal.
Wow, 29 comments now. This has got to be the longest thread on this site. . .
Hanz has to be the most wilfully self-deluded individual I've seen in some time. Jihad has a legal meaning in Islamic law and doctrine, just as it has a less important linguistic meaning. Is legal meaning, consistent in all 4 schools of Islamic jurisprudence, is quite clear: warfare against infidels for the universality of Islam. It doesn't matter what semantic games you care to play, Hanz, and others like you who think you are being clever or righteous. The reality is that people like you have failed to conduct the most rudimentary research into Islamic doctrine and history. The jihadists are laughing their heads off at us infidels for the likes of you.
Hi jdamn13,
I agree with the basis of what you said - that Jihad is a fight against infidels. On the one hand, this is the way most Muslims use the word. On the other, without getting too deep into semantics, I'm reading the Koran in English, and Mohammed goes on quite a rant about the need to fight for one's religion (ie, Islam). Whoever dies while fighting for his religion, will not really die etc.
On the other hand, I ask that you tone down your comments. I had been away from my computer for a while and could not review the comments, otherwise I would have removed your original comment immediately.
I do not allow personal attacks against other commentators. I am still debating whether to start cleaning up this thread, but in any case, please watch it for the future.
In general, attacking other commentators is an extremely bad way of making your point.
Your comments many times seem to stereotype and generalize, and do not encourage others to engage in debate.
Post a Comment