What Muslims are taught in their mosques - unbiased

[fatma]

This is merely ignorant when it is not out of date. The IRA was communist, not Catholic. We call Islamo-facism such, now, for a reason. The terrorists at the Glasgow airport on a murdering rampage was screaming Allah Allah.The Guardian is of course a left wing newspaper, hence unreliable.

I think you mean Allah Akbar and you can keep asserting that the IRA ARE COMMUNISTS, all you like, but as we all know they were catholics and produced by the Christian Brothers. Both the Islamists and the IRA have a lot in common: both the product of religion and oppression.

 

[Palladio]

I never alleged that they were Christian inspired wars. Please reread what I said.

Just as the wars today involving Muslims are not theolgoical wars, most wars involving Christians were not theological in nature. But Christianity certainly has not prevented Christian societies from racking up a death toll of millions in a 100 year period, that is for sure.

It is hard to know what Christianity has and has not done, and I would not expect it to be in a position to do much in relation to the ambitions and ideals of nation states, which have been secular for hundreds of years.

It all sounds like a way of giving Islamo-facism and Islamo-terrorism a pass, though this might not be what you intend.

 

[Montalban]

Malachi O’Doherty:: That’s right, Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, all the top leadership of the provisional Sinn Fein, the organisation which politically represents the IRA who were themselves the leaders of the IRA through the '70s and '80s, were all Christian Brothers boys.

I’m a Christian Brothers boy! I’m now Orthodox. People don’t necessarily stay Catholic because they were ‘brought up’ that way.

The IRA has a decidely left-leaning bent. It itself describes itself as non-sectarian.

 

[fatma]

Under the IRA’s view of nationalism, Catholicism is a major component of it. While they are fighting for the free nation of Ireland, they are also striving to have a Catholic nation. In 1932 Eamon de Valera, the Irish Taoiseach or prime minister, claimed Ireland was a “Catholic nation.” de Valera as it should be noted however was a member of Sinn Fein, the political branch of the IRA. His statement provided a strong case and continued to demonstrate the connection between the republican movement and the Catholic movement in Ireland (See, 113). The ties that bonded the people in Northern Ireland were mainly of religious roots. In Ireland, it was more of an ethnic or religious nationalism. The Protestants held the power in the north and they ruled that power with an iron fist, oppressing the Catholics and others who wanted a united nation. The cities were segregated into separate neighborhoods for the two religious groups. If someone were to cross the lines into a different section, violence would most likely erupt. The Protestants took care of their own, as did the Catholics. “For many Catholics in urban Ulster only the IRA served as a source of protection and defense against the Protestants” (See, 122).

providence.edu/polisci/students/IRA/Nationalism.htm

 

[Palladio]

I think you mean Allah Akbar and you can keep asserting that the IRA ARE COMMUNISTS, all you like, but as we all know they were catholics and produced by the Christian Brothers. Both the Islamists and the IRA have a lot in common: both the product of religion and oppression.

You sound as angry as you are ignorant, and you are very ignorant, but I still think you must be a child clowing. When you grow up, you will learn to read things called history books: ask a librarian today to get a head start on your classmates.

For anybody who can read such books, I’ll add the following: the Islamo-terrorists who’ve murdered and destroyed in the West are middle class and up (Osama is the scion of wealth, for example) as were the would-be murderers in England and Scotland earlier this summer.

They are victimized by the poverty of Islam itself, from the Koran to the Islamic states which oppress where they have not already eradicated all other religions.

 

[Palladio]

I’m a Christian Brothers boy! I’m now Orthodox. People don’t necessarily stay Catholic because they were ‘brought up’ that way.

The IRA has a decidely left-leaning bent. It itself describes itself as non-sectarian.

It has a specifically communist platform, written up in some detail, was richly funded by the USSR (until it collapsed), and was for decades in the business of illegal business: a mafia.

 

[Palladio]

“Liberalism and Western-style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today, these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic system. . . . Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.”

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, president of Iran, quoted in the New York Times.

I wonder if he, a Muslim, learned that in a mosque.

Having declared the death of liberal democracy, does the nutter have something in mind for those of us still alive and still living in liberal democracies? Will he fatwah us out of existence? Suicide bomb us? Nuke us once he gets the chance?

He’s still a tin pot dictator at the beck and call of Muslim clerics, but with oil money he funds a lot of terrorism.

 

[fatma]

nutter

 

[Montalban]

It has a specifically communist platform, written up in some detail, was richly funded by the USSR (until it collapsed), and was for decades in the business of illegal business: a mafia.

Who the Christian Brothers?

Hey, when I read this…

pro_universal:

Just as the wars today involving Muslims are not theolgoical wars, most wars involving Christians were not theological in nature. But Christianity certainly has not prevented Christian societies from racking up a death toll of millions in a 100 year period, that is for sure.

I think of the “No true Scotsman” fallacy

 

[iamrefreshed]

I’d love to believe that most Muslims do not believe in violence. It would make me feel much better for me and my children.

Unfortunately, when I see Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood win elections I have to concur that those voting support their violent methods.

Can anyone argue why these self proclaimed hate groups continue to gain more favor with the populace?

How can that be if most Muslims are peaceful?

 

[iamrefreshed]

I think you mean Allah Akbar and you can keep asserting that the IRA ARE COMMUNISTS, all you like, but as we all know they were catholics and produced by the Christian Brothers. Both the Islamists and the IRA have a lot in common: both the product of religion and oppression.

This is the first time I’ve seen these words used to describe the actions of Islamic radicals.

Would you care to go into more detail about your meaning?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

The nutter is the guy who told his followers to jihad the infidels in battle array, forfeit life and property, slay and be slain until everyone believes in Allah or pay the Jizyah with humiliation. Remember that, dhimmis.

 

[AgnosTheist]

It is, unfortunately, not that simple. Violence is indeed a human trait, but religions promote or restrain violence in various ways. All religions are not the same, and Muhammad’s own use of violence (and the reflection of this in the Qur’an) has clearly had a significant effect on the Islamic tradition.

Edwin

I fully agree with that.

And Ive read the rest of your post and this is what I think…

:bowdown2:

 

[AgnosTheist]

They mostly do not.

Examples?

The fact that something is history doesn’t make it irrelevant.

then please explain how something that happened 900 years ago is still relevant today. thanks.

And in modern times, there are plenty of Christian locales of strife: Look at what Russia did to Chechnya, what the Serbs did in Bosnia, and what the various factions did in Central America over the past 20 years.

how does that concern the religion of modern christianity itself?

Just in terms of number of people killed, it’s indisputable that Christian-majority countries have outdone Muslim terrorists literally by the millions.

You are comparing entire countries against terrorists, so of course that would be undisputable. But if you compare entire muslim countries to entire christian countries, it is impossible to make a conclusion. Both have massacred tens of millions of people in the last 2000 years. And both have massacred tens of thousands in the last 50.

But stuff that happens in Saudi Arabia, like the religious police locking more than a dozen school girls in a burning school for the stupid reason that women are not allowed on streets without a headcover (theirs have burned), that kind of lunacy can never be found anywhere else.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Read the Quran - the rabid views of Islam are expressed there. Read the hadiths - the rabid views of Islam are expressed there too.

The the view of God as one who seeks to eliminate all competition can be found in the Bible too. But that is not what is taught in most churches (though it is in a few). Should Judaism and Christianity be classified as having “rabid views” because there are a few instances of God acting with vengence towards people, or because he sends those who are his people to totally annihilate those who are not his people? No, we take a look not only at what the text says, but how that text is interpreted and taught in churches and synagouges. And thus I will repeat, what you are reacting to can be found in a few places, but it does not represent what Islam is and certainly is not representative of what is actually taught in most mosques. Indeed, though I don’t have any numbers, if I was to hazard a guess, I would guess that there is more anti-Islamic preaching done from Christian pulpits than there is anti-Christian teaching done in Islamic mosques.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

The biggest difference is that many Christians have been able to reject violence, largely by appealing to the example of Jesus. There has always been a strain of pacifism in Christianity–I’m unaware of anything similar in Islam.

Muslims traditionally have rules that restrain and govern violence, but the only possibility for overcoming it seems to be spiritualizing it away, and even that avoids it rather than really opposing it. As Montalban or Rodrigo or someone pointed out, even the Sufis historically supported (on the whole) violent Jihad. There were Sufi orders that were actually part of the Ottoman army.

Edwin

I grant you every one of your points. But that changes the subject of this thread to one regarding which religion more easily condones violence, versus whether violence is actually being taught in mosques today.

 

[AgnosTheist]

whether violence is actually being taught in mosques today.

The fact is violence is actually being taught in some mosques. Its impossible to tell how much but it certainly cant be near a majority. Right?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

You lay at the feet of Christians, so far as I can follow, all war undertaken in the West by nation states it appears since the Renaissance, perhaps before: this is very poor history indeed–no, it is not history at all–because it fails to take up actors and causes even just a little bit, and I note that not a single fact is adduced in evidence to argue for the specifically Christian character of any war.

And this appears to be what I see going on in this thread with regard to Muslim individuals who, on acting for political purposes, carry out acts of violence. It is all indiscriminately labelled as being Islamic violence. No doubt, that there are those who indeed are carrying out that violence for religious reasons, but that does not mean all such acts by Muslims are religiously motivated just because some are. And if one listens, one hears that much of the rest of Islam decry such violent actions when they do appear to have been religiously motivated.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

The fact is violence is actually being taught in some mosques. Its impossible to tell how much but it certainly cant be near a majority. Right?

That is exactly what I said pages ago. You are welcome to question that view, but I have yet to see anything substanitive that would lead me to think the numbers were otherwise.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

You sound as angry as you are ignorant, and you are very ignorant, but I still think you must be a child clowing. When you grow up, you will learn to read things called history books: ask a librarian today to get a head start on your classmates.

**FOUL!!! **
Resorting to name calling.

I find such langauge as deplorable as the violence you object to.

You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.