I'm sick of the rabid Islamophobia on these boards...

[Keikiolu]

Quote:Originally Posted by cavanlass forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif *Phase 1, “The Awakening”: The terrorists use attacks like 9/11 to provoke the United States into declaring war on the Islamic world, which will mobilize Islamic radicals, getting them to rally around Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda considers this phase complete.*Well, the easy and logical way to combat that would be for the USA to refuse to be provoked.

That wouldn’t work, for two reasons:

1. It’s an impossible possibility (human nature being what it is).
2. Simply ATTACKING, with any consequence “less than utter defeat suffered by the jihadis”, would fulfil the function of Phase-1.

Going to war in Iraq and executing a former US ally, Sadam Hussein, does nothing except to further inflame the bad feelings between Islamic militants and the West, and provoke a civil war in Iraq.

You choose to be “affected” by “the feelings” of EVIL PEOPLE.

Think about that for a couple of minutes!

Since, as I said above, Phase-1 is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid, what is the point of being influenced (into being passive) by “the bad guys”?

What is needed is a peaceful and respectful approach.

So, we’re to be RESPECTFUL of evil people? What does that mean?

We should be respectful of those who are respectful, and utterly intolerant of evil people.

Since you seem to “value” PEACEFULNESS (aka non-conflict, pacifism), and RESPECTFULNESS (aka making excuses for the evil behavior of others so as to perpetuate “PEACEFULNESS”), over “doing what’s right”, you must have a very curious “relationship” with Jesus, who came to show us the appropriate way of dealing with evil.

Best to 'ya, and your family who relies on your “protection” has my most sincere prayers. As do you, of course.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[bobzills]

True, Bob, but where do you draw the line in the sand? Does anyone know?

Changes and revolutions in thinking sometimes occur without drawing any lines anywhere. For example, Eastern Europe and Russia became capitalist overnight. With the advent of computers and the internet, people are increasingly able to obtain more of the information that is needed to come to their own conclusions rather than to rely on some dictatorial fiat.
If you want the USA to draw a line in the samd, it is the US constitution which gives to congree the right to declare war. By bringing all the troops home and pursuing a policy of peace, respect and goodwill, the USA will have taken a step toward harmonious and constructive international relations between it and peoples of all denominations.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Changes and revolutions in thinking sometimes occur without drawing any lines anywhere. For example, Eastern Europe and Russia became capitalist overnight. With the advent of computers and the internet, people are increasingly able to obtain more of the information that is needed to come to their own conclusions rather than to rely on some dictatorial fiat.
If you want the USA to draw a line in the samd, it is the US constitution which gives to congree the right to declare war. By bringing all the troops home and pursuing a policy of peace, respect and goodwill, the USA will have taken a step toward harmonious and constructive international relations between it and peoples of all denominations.

And the ability and WILL to stand for what is important. To bring back our troops with no real end of the conflict is to make the that we are fighting stronger in they eyes of our enemies. This emboldens them and we can see the results in the PLOTS against us. As has been said the USA has to be RIGHT and stop every single plot & attack. The attackers just have to find a single small crack and be right ONCE.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cavanlass forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
True, Bob, but where do you draw the line in the sand? Does anyone know?

Changes and revolutions in thinking sometimes occur without drawing any lines anywhere. For example, Eastern Europe and Russia became capitalist overnight. With the advent of computers and the internet, people are increasingly able to obtain more of the information that is needed to come to their own conclusions rather than to rely on some dictatorial fiat.

If you want the USA to draw a line in the samd, it is the US constitution which gives to congree the right to declare war. By bringing all the troops home and pursuing a policy of peace, respect and goodwill, the USA will have taken a step toward harmonious and constructive international relations between it and peoples of all denominations.

How does one spell “Koom-buy-ya”, again…? I can never remember how to do that.

Anyway, it’s senseless to argue (in circles) with Bob’s naivete, so I’ll not get into that.

The point of Bob’s “thinking” (!?) is that “all we need is ‘love’”, without actually understanding what “love” means in the context of confronting evil.

Best to 'ya in your utopian fantasy world, Bob. When you decide to enter the real world, you’ll be warmly received, kiddo.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[cavanlass]

Well, Bob I wonder if those pilots of the highjacked planes on 9/11 thought about peacefully negotiating with the Islamic terrorists while the blood ran down their chests?
Most of the highjackers were Wahabi muslins from well-to-do families in Saudi Arabia. Families that became wealthy as a result of American technology. Those tribal warlords would never have been able to find all that oil by themselves.

 

[abu_kamoon]

People do not attack for no reason. There have been radical Islamic sects for hundreds of years. They were of little concern to the US until our interventionist foreign policy, created by the Neo Cons of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Don’t think for one moment that I sympathize with the terrorists. Anyone who would fly airplanes into building and kill innocent people is a murderer, and needs to be dealt with accordingly. My point is, why did these radical elements attack us?

I have heard to most ridiculous reasons: they hate us because of our freedoms (well, we are rapidly losing them, thanks to the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, the Real ID proposal & c), seems to be the most popular. The reason they attacked us is because our politicians have interjected us into their affairs.

We need to restore our foreign policy to one of non-intervention. We need to have contact between the American people and the people of other countries. We need to minimize the contact between our government and theirs.

Today, we have a situation where our politicians make secret deals with foreign governments. This has to end. We cannot allow the agent to dictate to the principal. Our politicians are nothing but elected public servants. We need to know every move they make.

In a free country, it is the government that is under scrutiny, not the people. We are rapidly losing our freedoms because we have allowed our politicians to make us hostage to their military adventurism around the world.

Anytime a political crime is committed, you need to ask yourself, qui bono? Who profited? What did the attack of 11 September get us? It got us the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, and a bunch of other unconstitutional actions. supposedly to “protect us from terrorism”. Well, I don’t buy it. I don’t want their protection. I don’t want to have to show my papers to one of their agents. I want a return to the days when we could come and go as we pleased. A day when our personal business and finances were our business, not theirs.

It is a simple matter to return to those days. All it takes is to vote the Neo Cons out of office. I would like to see them serve another term, but not in a public office role.

For years Americans have had two choices: the Liberals (the blame America crowd), and the Neo Cons (the party of perpetual, un-declared wars abroad, and the police state at home). There is an alternative. We need to adopt a policy of non-intervention in the affairs of other nations. We need to go to war only when we are attacked, and only with a Declaration of War by the Congress.

This is a radical concept. It is called Constitutional government. We need to hold our politicians to adhere to the Constitution. This will end the terrorist threat, and any excuse to the usurpation of our liberties.

 

[nonsumd]

So what? You’re the one contending that ‘the West’ attacked Islam 200 years ago, and that’s the reason Islam’s against us (when I say ‘us’ I don’t include apologists such as yourself).

I am not contending anything – I am stating a historical fact: beginning with Napoleon, Western powers, Christian/post-Christian/anti-Christian, have been imposing their will militarily and otherwise upon the Islamic Middle East.

Does that mean that in those same two centuries Muslims have not been aggressors and oppressors as well? No, of course not.

Then you want to say “Latin Europe” and include Spain, which is fine, but it was attacked by Islam - as you noted! So you’ve got to work out why Islam attacked ‘the West’ or ‘Latin Europe’ in the first century of Islam’s existence when such forces weren’t opposed to Islam - in fact Spain had probably never heard of Muhammed.

I have never meant to defend Islamic expansionism at any point in history, but I do not think it is just to condemn it without also condemning expansionism by Christians in the name of Christianity or by others in the name of their religions. Beyond that, I also think it is playing dumb to discuss only one motivation for aggression, religious ones, and ignore all others.

And, I challenged you to come up with evidence that Rome had warred over Arabia. Where’s this evidence?

Read G.W. Bowersock’s Roman Arabia from Harvard University Press. It is simply another historical fact that the Arabian peninsula was a theater of competition among the Romans, Sassanian Persians, and the Abyssinians.

You should just quit while you are behind, my brother.

Peace!

 

[Montalban]

I am not contending anything – I am stating a historical fact: beginning with Napoleon, Western powers, Christian/post-Christian/anti-Christian, have been imposing their will militarily and otherwise upon the Islamic Middle East.

And this misses the previous centuries of Islamic violence. You’re re-working history.

I have never meant to defend Islamic expansionism at any point in history,

That’s all you have done!

but I do not think it is just to condemn it without also condemning expansionism by Christians in the name of Christianity or by others in the name of their religions.

Which is false, because you’re own example; Napoleon wasn’t a case of Christian expansion - France at the time Napoleon invaded had shaken off Catholicism - and was an atheistic state!

You keep jumping about with terms such as “Christian expansion” then leaping back to just “the west” whilst you can’t make up your mind who it is that is actually attacking Islam - and whom they’re reacting against

And we’re going around in circles as I’ve already raised these objections about Napoleon.

Beyond that, I also think it is playing dumb to discuss only one motivation for aggression, religious ones, and ignore all others.

I think playing dumb consists of re-working history.

Read G.W. Bowersock’s Roman Arabia from Harvard University Press. It is simply another historical fact that the Arabian peninsula was a theater of competition among the Romans, Sassanian Persians, and the Abyssinians.

Firstly, this isn’t presenting evidence, but suggesting I go read something in the hope it supports you. That’s not a good tactic.

It seems to me that you just searched for something like this on the net. He deals with the Roman province of Arabia on the very fringe of the Peninsula. Not “Arabia” as a whole - and it covers an area that’s no where near Muhammad.

Mecca is hundreds of kilometres away, down the peninsula. You said they fought ‘over Arabia’, if you mean just this tiny province/the area encompassed therein, you’d be right, but not over ‘Arabia’ the peninsula. The Nabataeans Arabs spoke an Aramaic language and became allies of Rome, and eventually became Christian.

Your argument would be akin to saying that some Pakistani had a right to retaliate because Roman ‘warred over Asia’ simply because they occupied a small corner of it and called that province ‘Asia’… that was no where near Pakistan!

Roman ‘Arabia’ was not ‘Arabia’, proper, it was mainly what’s now Jordan, southern Syria, the Negev, AND a small portion of Arabia!

What you also miss is the time period. Indeed the Romans and Persians fought over this area that was no where near Mecca. At the time of Muhammad these two massive empires had exhausted themselves from about 30 years of war. None of which posed a threat to Mecca.

Muhammad saw that both were exhausted and he sent letters to the leaders of both demanding that these two nations that had not attacked him surrender to Islam. He then attacked them. There was never a Roman province that covered Mecca, nor Medina, nor Yemen, nor other vast tracts of the Arabian Peninsula

And it still misses the point about them attack Spain, which you’ve put in the camp of the ‘west’… which you yourself note happened in the first centuries of Islam.

You’ve put ‘Spain’ outside of the power that was even remotely near Arabia - Rome (at that time the Roman Empire only existed in the east), and yet want to suggest that ‘the West’ was responsible for Islam’s attack upon it!

You should just quit while you are behind, my brother.

Peace!

Ah irony of saying “Peace” whilst being so condescending. Lack of insight! You’re certainly keen to reworking history.

You simply wish to pile error upon error in an effort to defend Islam.

You want to date a “Christian” or “Western” aggression to Napoleon - who was western - but his nation was atheistic - officially. And in making this mistake you wish to set an arbitrary date in order to ignore Islamic aggression that has gone on before it.

Your best effort at ‘evidence’ is to make a passing mention of a book - in an effort to get me to go research for you!

And your book deals with Roman Arabia, not Arabia proper. Rome also had a province called “Africa” this doesn’t mean that they posed any threat to the Ashanti! And they had a province called Asia.

You even show lack of introspection!

So you argument is then: Atheistic state of France attacked Egypt (which was under Turkish occupation) setting off a wave of modern retaliation from Arabs on ‘the Christian west’ !

And, Spain (part of ‘the west’) was attacked in the first century of Islam based on the fact that it was no longer part of the Roman Empire that had itself never attacked Mecca!

*Note the bolding I did above of your quote.
You mention two other ‘powers’, neither of which was ‘western’ and only one of which was Christian.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

the Arabian peninsula was a theater of competition among the Romans, Sassanian Persians, and the Abyssinians.

This person doesn’t understand the history of the region. The Romans, Persian and Abyssinians didn’t care at all about the Arabian Peninsula. They skirted around the Arabian interior like it was the plague.

The only instance of a Roman interest was a small expedition to Yemen looooooong before Muhammad.

The Roman Arabia was Syria and Jordan - the eastern side of the Meditteranean. Not the Peninsula.

 

[Montalban]

This person doesn’t understand the history of the region. The Romans, Persian and Abyssinians didn’t care at all about the Arabian Peninsula. They skirted around the Arabian interior like it was the plague.

The only instance of a Roman interest was a small expedition to Yemen looooooong before Muhammad.

The Roman Arabia was Syria and Jordan - the eastern side of the Mediterranean. Not the Peninsula.

Yes, Rome had seen no value in Arabia

There was an Ethiopian army that had occupied Mecca in 570, but this withdrew due to a Smallpox Epidemic
see Kohn, G. C., (ed.) (2001), “Encyclopaedia of Plague & Pestilence: From Ancient Times to the Present” (Checkmark Books; NY), p295

BUT, in continuing with misunderstanding of history he fails to recall that the Ethiopians actually sheltered Moslems who fled from Mecca - when Islam was just starting.

So, as part of his novel re-working of history, Moslems were attacking Spain (in the West) because the (eastern) Roman Empire had never threatened it, but Ethiopia had, at the time Muhammad was born, but had subsequently earned his gratitude for sheltering his followers in those early years of persecution by the pagan authorities in Mecca! :whacky:

Oh, and of course this isn’t an attempt to form an apology for Islamic aggression

 

[nonsumd]

Rodrigo and Montalban,

You make an artificial distinction between the Nabataean Arabs and the rest of the Arabs, and though the Roman province of Arabia did not include the Hijaz, the wider competition among the Romans, Sassanians, and Abyssinians involved the whole of the Arabian peninsula with Arab tribes and kingdoms siding with one or another side.

I brought up this pre-Islamic history to complicate the picture you are trying to sell of newly Islamized Arabs storming out of the peninsula upon a world that had left them alone – it is historical fact that that world did not leave them alone.

(What you “experts” don’t even seem to be aware of is that the early Muslim Arabs conquerors saw themselves as the heirs of the Christian Roman Empire, as picking up its mission of protecting and promoting monotheism against paganism.)

Does pointing all this out mean I am excusing Islamic aggression?
Hardly. Explaining someone’s motivations is not to excuse them. You never seem to get the distinction, but that says more about your agenda than about any inability of mine to explain myself, for I have been most clear.

I stand by everything I have said. I am flattered that both of you have spent so much time trying to refute me for it only shows how little you actually have to say.

What is really pathetic is your attempt to make distinctions between Christendom and the West, particularly with regard to Napoleon. Many Muslims regard modern Western incursions into the Islamic world as continuations of the Crusades – this equation I cannot accept, but I also cannot deny that many Christians have supported modern Western colonialism and neo-colonialism (down to the present Iraq war) as vehicles for the Christianization of Islamic lands.

I will say it again – for either the Muslim or the Christian side to claim a monopoly on victimhood during the long, long history of the Muslim-Christian relations is simply to ignore the truth of history and to show no genuine interest in making peace.

From the way either of you talk about Islam and Muslims, I can only assume that what you really want is perpetual war – just like the extremist Muslims that you hate. If indeed the essence of Islam is violence, as you argue over and over again it is, it would seem the only solution is to force all Muslims to convert out of Islam and to exterminate those who will not. Is that what you really think?

 

[Verisimilitude]

Rodrigo and Montalban,

You make an artificial distinction …
I brought up this pre-Islamic history to complicate …
(What you “experts” don’t even seem to be aware of…
…shows how little you actually have to say.
What is really pathetic …
… ignore the truth of history and to show no genuine interest in making peace.
From the way either of you talk about Islam and Muslims, I can only assume that what you really want is perpetual war – …

Sorry bud, your view and conclusions are lacking the most important element that both Rodrigo and Montalban have: rational reason.

 

[nonsumd]

Sorry bud, your view and conclusions are lacking the most important element that both Rodrigo and Montalban have: rational reason.

Hi, bud, that is the best you can come up with?

Unfortunately, just saying it is so don’t make it so…

P.S. Oh yeah, what do you mean by “rational reason”? Are you saying that there is such a thing as “irrational reason”?

 

[Anacletus]

Not just on Non-Catholic Religions, but what feels like every single board people are saying how all muslims are violent people who want to take over the world. Get a freaking grip. Everyone should just admit right here they hardly know anything about Islam apart from what they hear on the news about the latest body count from the Middle East. There are muslim terrorists and there is brutal sectarianism. Christians too have done these things in the past. Does that justify it? No but it should tell you something: that there are good and bad people of all faiths. Do you not know that there are many Muslims who despise all of this stuff? Probably not, most of you guys would likely rank them along with Santa Claus and Bigfoot.

I used to be Muslim before I came back to the Church. I attended a Masjid that was widely considered to be “liberal” among american Muslims but even then Masjid was evenly divided among moderates (or “We don’t care what Al-Qaeda does, as long as they don’t kill us”) and what are popularly termed “radicals” (mostly younger guys, mid twenties or so, led by 4 older pakistanis). Some of the **** I heard them talking about at various Eid gatherings at the Masjid had my skin crawling. At a few points I was contemplating contacting the FBI.

My negative opinions of Arabs, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in general and the Muslim variety in particular are based on my own experience. Rarely, if ever, do I watch the news anymore, primarily because I believe it has been co-opted by various interests.

And furthermore, I’d like to point out that YOU GUYS started all this. Everyone likes to make a big stink about the crusades but the fact of the matter is you loonies were rattling your scimitars on our doorsteps long before we were ever on yours. North Africa, the Levant (Holy Land), Turkey, Bosnia (and other assorted slavic lands), and even Spain were all majority Christian and Christian run lands, until you guys came along. Thank God we managed to at least get Spain back.

Furthermore, while many Muslims are still living the highlife in western countries (Throwing fits whenever they don’t get their way) I’d like to point out at that there are still no churches in Saudia Arabia, Christians in Muslims countries are far more prone to attack than Muslims in “christian countries” and being a minority in Muslim countries is nothing better than a death sentence for Christians (See “secular” Turkey’s abuse of the Christian greek orthodox patriarch of Constantinople).

Islamophobia isn’t bad. It isn’t evil. It’s plain old logic, because the muslims have been innoculated against common sense and have a proven history of aggression. End of Story.

 

[nonsumd]

My negative opinions of Arabs, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in general and the Muslim variety in particular are based on my own experience.

Anacletus, people whose positive opinions of Muslims are based on their personal experience with Muslims or people whose balanced opinions of Muslims are based on positive and negative experiences with Muslims are supposed to defer to your response to your personal experience?

Are those whose personal experience is supplemented by wide and deep study of the relevant issues supposed to defer to you and your personal experience?

Rarely, if ever, do I watch the news anymore, primarily because I believe it has been co-opted by various interests.

So, because much of the Western media in attempting to give balanced coverage of Muslims is striving not to be the Western equivalent of those Middle Eastern channels that demonize Christians and Jews, you shun those Western news providers?

And furthermore, I’d like to point out that YOU GUYS started all this…

My brother in Christ, can you not see the evil and danger in this “Us vs. Them” world-view? If you can recognize and condemn in it the Muslim extremist, why can you not recognize it in yourself?

God help us all…

 

[Montalban]

Rodrigo and Montalban,

You make an artificial distinction between the Nabataean Arabs and the rest of the Arabs, and though the Roman province of Arabia did not include the Hijaz, the wider competition among the Romans, Sassanians, and Abyssinians involved the whole of the Arabian peninsula with Arab tribes and kingdoms siding with one or another side.

There’s several problems there for starters.
a) I’m not making a false distinction. I simply note that that part of the Roman Empire that included any part of Arabia dealt primarily with the Nabataeans. You said that the Romans warred over Arabia. Your assertion is patently false. Any distinction I’ve made is to deal with the historical reality that Rome had interests over a very limited part of the Arab world. You fail to acknowledge this.

A closer aproximation would be if you looked at the British in North America how they used border Indian tribes to war with French colonists, and their border Indian allies, and visa versa. It would be then akin of you coming in and showing why an Indian tribe of the plains should feel ‘threatened’ by Britain which had no interests in the plains - and hand’t even disturbed them… but certainly both Britain and France had been involved with Indians, per se
b) the Sassanians were not western or Christian. You keep mentioning them in your reasons for Islamic aggression towards ‘the west’. You fail to acknowledge this.
c) you don’t even acknowledge what I wrote about the Ethiopians - WHO HAD HELPED THE MOSLEM COMMUNITY - I hope you notice it this time.

What evidence do you have that it involved the ‘whole of the Arabian Peninsula’?

I brought up this pre-Islamic history to complicate the picture you are trying to sell of newly Islamized Arabs storming out of the peninsula upon a world that had left them alone – it is historical fact that that world did not leave them alone.

I don’t say that ‘the world had left them alone’, that’s another of your inventions. You maintained that Rome was seen as a threat, and suggesting by that that they were a justifiable target by Islam. They weren’t. They weren’t either historically; having had no interest in the Arabian Peninsula as a whole, nor immediately to the time of Muhammad when they were exhausted by 30 years of war with Persia. Your fail to acknowledge this.

(What you “experts” don’t even seem to be aware of is that the early Muslim Arabs conquerors saw themselves as the heirs of the Christian Roman Empire, as picking up its mission of protecting and promoting monotheism against paganism.)

By attacking Christians? Wow! That’s a novel invention!

Does pointing all this out mean I am excusing Islamic aggression?

Yes indeed. By massive re-working of history in order to justify their aggression, you certainly are

What happened to Spain? Have you dropped that as part of your argument?

I stand by everything I have said.

Well! You endorsing yourself has suddenly swung me over to your side of the debate! You stand by… great stuff

I am flattered that both of you have spent so much time trying to refute me for it only shows how little you actually have to say.

ROFL That’s one of the funniest rebuttals I’ve ever read. We refute you, and that means we’ve nothing to say! Hilarious. Certainly out of touch with logic on that one! I can only assume you didn’t mean to say that. That’s simply amazing! Doesn’t this also then apply to your argument (because you’ve argued so long against us)? Again, lack of introspection on your part leads to some really strange remarks on your part.

What is really pathetic is your attempt to make distinctions between Christendom and the West,

What’s really hilarious is you use Atheistic France as an example and just plough on regardless of the mistake you make!

particularly with regard to Napoleon. Many Muslims regard modern Western incursions into the Islamic world as continuations of the Crusades – this equation I cannot accept, but I also cannot deny that many Christians have supported modern Western colonialism and neo-colonialism (down to the present Iraq war) as vehicles for the Christianization of Islamic lands.

SO again you’re argument trying to justify Moslem aggression is that they can’t distinguish between an atheistic state and a Christian one -we’re all just the enemy. What you’re showing is that Islam can’t distinguish - you exampled this with Spain. You argue this with Ethiopia -that had actually protected them - and yet you feel it’s justified aggression on the part of Islam!

I will say it again – for either the Muslim or the Christian side to claim a monopoly on victimhood during the long, long history of the Muslim-Christian relations is simply to ignore the truth of history and to show no genuine interest in making peace.

Ignoring history, like you making all these really strange claims - remember what you said about Spain?

From the way either of you talk about Islam and Muslims, I can only assume that what you really want is perpetual war – just like the extremist Muslims that you hate. If indeed the essence of Islam is violence, as you argue over and over again it is, it would seem the only solution is to force all Muslims to convert out of Islam and to exterminate those who will not. Is that what you really think?

I at least don’t need to reinvent history.

 

[Montalban]

Hi, bud, that is the best you can come up with?

It’s better than you arguing that Islam was justified in attacking Spain that had never posed a threat to Islam but then by supposing it was because the Eastern Roman Empire had - by not invading Arabia (proper), or the Persian Empire - which wasn’t even western, or Ethiopia - who had helped Islam.

Your apology for Islam’s amazing! uch:

And then for you to claim that the very fact I’m debating you is a victory for you is unique! :newidea: I’ve never met such a strange argument as that before.

Evidentally, because Verisimilitude said so little, this means you’ve won too!

 

[Montalban]

Anacletus, people whose positive opinions of Muslims are based on their personal experience with Muslims or people whose balanced opinions of Muslims are based on positive and negative experiences with Muslims are supposed to defer to your response to your personal experience?

I have good neighbours, who are Moslem. Once I missed my bus and one gave me a lift to the station.

Very nice of him indeed.

He goes to the Mosque on a regular basis.

If you want to judge all Moslems by singular examples, then you’re just as guilty as those who would be racists for exactly the same purpose - judging the whole (negatively) by singular examples.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

nonsumd,
The Arabs of Syria and Jordan (i.e. the Nabateans and the Petrans) were not the problem. The Arabs of the Hijaz under Muhammad were.

The Romans did not give much thought to the Hijazi Arabs until it was too late.

But you seem keen to tar all Arabs by the same brush.

nonsumd:

I brought up this pre-Islamic history to complicate the picture you are trying to sell of newly Islamized Arabs storming out of the peninsula upon a world that had left them alone – it is historical fact that that world did not leave them alone.

This is contrary to historical fact. The world DID leave them alone. It was they who wouldn’t leave the rest of us alone. Therein lies the problem. Did the countries of the Meditteranean invade Arabia or was it the other way around?

Blaming the victim, I see.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Hi, bud, that is the best you can come up with?

What more do I need? Must I rehash all that has been already with a differnt style but similar conclusion?

Unfortunately, just saying it is so don’t make it so…

I think that is the point you seem unable to grasp as it is not just me or others saying so.

P.S. Oh yeah, what do you mean by “rational reason”? Are you saying that there is such a thing as “irrational reason”?

Absolutely; Islam is the most significant example of irrational reason.

The logic of Islam is flawed at the most basic levels and it is excused under the guise of religion giving it an undeserved authority.

rational:
governed by, or showing evidence of, clear and sensible thinking and judgment, based on reason rather than emotion or prejudice

Is it rational to conclude what Mohamed recited about what Christians and Jews believe is accurate, and that 600 and 2000 year old sacred documents (NT & OT respectively) were altered/corrupted on purpose to hide the prophesied call of Mohamed?

reason:
the power of being able to think in a logical and rational manner

Is it reasonable to conclude that Mohamed could in any way compare to Jesus Christ in word or deed in any point in their personal lives?

Islam is irrational and unreasonable before it gets off the ground since those two points are central to their self proclaimed superiority over all other religions and belief systems. Some things are just that simple.

Whatever Islam and the Quran say is irrelevant to any truth because it and Moahmed has no justification or legitimate authority to say it. When you add other undisputed facts like no other person witnessed the spirit or heard a revelation given to Mohamed, and the earliest account of the first visit of that spirit shows Mohamed never knew who/what it was.

Mohamed would be the first non-Jew prophet of I AM, and that in itself seems illogical.

Only by Mohamed proclaiming to be most like Jesus, and only by proclaiming he is a prophet of the God of Abraham does that give any perceived respectability. Keep in mind it was only from Mohamed did these things be revealed.

It is irrational for Muslims to reason Islam and Mohamed speaks a truth that contradict the OT and NT even if they choose not to accept them.

It is not irrational for non-Moslems to conclude all Muslims read the same words of “Fight until ther is no more disbelief until all religion is for allah”, and it is not unreasonable for non-Muslims to to observe the real dhimmi status imposed where Islam is the government declared state religion.

Some Islamic voices might denounce the violence done in the name of Islam, but none denounce the Quran’s words the killers use in their justification- only admitting a “wrong” interpretation of them.

Please give me the context and godly intent of this so I do not get the wrong impression.

Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allahs Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Quran. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success.
( سورة التوبة , At-Taubah, Chapter #9, Verse #111)

For all those who stay silent and do not join the jihad…

Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the **Cause of Allah **with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward;
( سورة النساء , An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #95)

What do you think is the Cause of allah, and has that Cause been satisfied for Islam yet?