Do you ever wonder, where God is? God, no God, or Correct God (merged)

[infiniti]

Re: Do you ever wonder, where God is?

@yo_wasim

So the problems with the westerners is, if something wrong then they say America is wrong or UK is wrong. But with the Muslims, they dont say its specifically any country. Why this double standards, by the Westerners. Well, if your a rationaly guy then you have to do some research.:)

You know the answer, it's the UMMAH.

[infiniti]

Re: Do you ever wonder, where God is?

@yo_wasim

Forget it there is no use to argue with a guy like you, I am out of it, coz i find it baseless arguing with you. Coz i want answers from you. Coz this topics have been covered and i have turned a deaf ear. I am just waiting for 9 points from your side for peach and harmony in this world. Just answer, that will be enough for me.

Please do answer regarding the thread, did u click it and did u read it. You dont coz your scared, comment right there. Anyways USR, wil deal with this topic better.

IMO, you are evading the questions, no offence meant.

[infiniti]

Re: Do you ever wonder, where God is?

@Sadiyah

Seriously, you seem to only have one agenda of making baseless accusations. Only an imbecile would interpret verses in a manner, so that could be misused to the extent where it would even remotely suggest that it's alright to kill innocent people.

He was not making baseless allegations. Rather than answering his questions you are putting allegations on him now.

[yo_wasim]

Re: Do you ever wonder, where God is?

@infiniti

IMO, you are evading the questions, no offence meant.

Thats my habit since childhood:)

[infiniti]

Re: Do you ever wonder, where God is?

@USResident

So based on this logic Sir, then a Chrsitian should be as a Chrsitian does. Hitler killed 6 million jews. A christian is as a christian does. You will not be able to find any muslim leader who killed so many people. Hindu's burn their wives in the ritual of Satti. So a hindu is as a hindu does. Sharon massacred innocent civilians at Sabra Shatila, so a Jew is as a Jew does. I think by your logic everyone in the world is condemned.

Absurd analogy. Hitler did not kill in the name of christianity.

[Afridi786]

Re: Do you ever wonder, where God is?

@infiniti

Absurd analogy. Hitler did not kill in the name of christianity.

So he didn't kill because of religion?

[USResident]

Re: Do you ever wonder, where God is?

@infiniti

Absurd analogy. Hitler did not kill in the name of christianity.

You did not understand the context of this statement. It was said a persons actions define the general perception of him and his religion i.e. A muslim is as a msulim does. When you talk muslim you are inherently implying Islam. Similarly the analogies for other religions.

[Sadiyah]

Re: Do you ever wonder, where God is? God, no God, or Correct God (merged)

@Light Bearer

Dush get used to it, I believe it was delibrate.

Mind explaining?

[Light_Bearer]

Re: Do you ever wonder, where God is? God, no God, or Correct God (merged)

@Sadiyah

Mind explaining?

Nothing much Sadia Baji, it's just that I feel that the moderator should be neutral. If the moderator is biased than how can you hope for a neutral debate. Please remove both the last posts if you think they are inappropriate. All I ask is just be fair as much as you can. Offending you was not the intent.

[HumanLikeYou]

Re: Do you ever wonder, where God is?

@USResident

The war against Hitler was not to western credit. USA only joined in later. The initiative was not a western thought. Germany was not even your country or community to begin with so I think you cannot make a claim of not tolerating extremism or terrorism. Besides do you call the world war an act of terrorism. If war is an act of terrorism then by what means are all the wars fought by USA not terrorism.

I'm not sure where to start here. If the war against Hitler was not to "western" credit, then to whom was credit due? Some other, uninvolved party? To clarify - the forces allied against the so-called axis powers of Germany, Italy and Japan, were the United Kingdom (& commonwealth territories), France and Canada; as you say, the USA entered the war later. The war was instigated by Germany´s hostile act of invasion of Poland, so certainly the response by allied nations was justified.

No, war itself is NOT an act of terrorism when the war is an act of defense against terrorism or imperialism. Of course not. It's similar to the difference between a thug or a criminal assaulting an unsuspecting victim, and the response of the police force or authorities in apprehending or dealing to that thug. In larger-scale conflicts we call the thuggish action "terrorism" or "imperialism", and the defensive action might result in "war".

Not everything that western nations have done is morally justifiable - but I'm not trying to defend the west. I'm defending all people who believe in democracy and the personal freedoms it enshrines. I would include in that number (most of) the 1 billion people now living in India for example - a fine example of a non-western democracy, or the 130,000,000 in Japan. So don't get bogged down in west vs Islam, that's not my point.

It's really "people who treasure freedom of thought and expression and democratic principles" vs "Islamic fundamentalism".

@USResident

... because they love their country. On the same note people of other countries muslim or non-muslim who love their country do not indulge or promote such acts either. So how can you then associate traitors with us muslims who love their countries.

You're trying to argue that the individuals who promote or perpetrate extremist violence are somehow not muslims. Those same individuals make it very clear that they believe themselves to be muslims, and it's apparent that many "ordinary" muslims agree with them. Just because you and your friends & family are not involved in extremism, how does that prove that all muslims are not involved in extremism? Note that even the relatives of individuals discovered to be involved in the London bombings were shocked to discover that they were involved. So it seems to me that you are being a bit naive here.

@USResident

Could you explain what democracy has to do with womens choices? Well if you compare the new generation of USA to that of the old I'm sure you will see the effect of this freedom is having on them unless you are deaf, blind and dumb. If there moral system was so high then half the American nation would not be a bastar$ nation. Half their population has been born out of wedlock. I live in the US which is why I can see these things not that I should not scorn them if I live in the US. Just because we live in US does not mean we should not eradicate the decadent moral culture here. On the same note you keep complaining muslims do nothing to curb extremism however when I talk about curbing declining moral values here it becomes a thorn in your side. Why the double standard. Are westerners exempt from purging themselves of the evils in their societies.

There are many factors involved in the rate of out-of-wedlock births in the USA. That the rate is so high is of course undesirable - but doesn't mean that we have to resort to fundamentalist religious beliefs and suppression of women's freedoms to resolve it. Remember that the USA is a mixture of demographics - certain communities raise the average rate; certain lower socio-economic groups have rates of up to 86% children born out of wedlock, while other groups have much lower rates.

Religious oppression and limiting personal freedoms is not the answer to anything. As proof, witness Japan, a totally democratic and thoroughly non-religious culture; with one of the lowest teenage birthrates of any nation.

@USResident

... Lets look at the results here, the majority of the muslim seniors are supported and looked after by their children whereas the majority of the senior folk here are dumped in nursing homes, retirement homes etc away from their loved ones. So when in muslims when we are most in need our children are there for us 100 times more than what a western child would do for their parents.

Again, it's not at all a simplistic choice between the false dichotomy you're spinning here - west ("USA") vs east ("muslims"). Reverence for elders didn´t begin life with Islam. It´s a cultural behaviour shared by many communities. For example, Indian (Hindu) people have great reverence for the elderly in their communities; their religion however is non-aggressive, pluralistic, and fits in perfectly well with democratic principles. It's got nothing to do with being muslim.

@USResident

Have you ever read Satanic verses. I think he did not spare anyone whites, blacks, muslims, british, hindu's etc. So talking about the holocaust can be a crime in some countries however speaking against such a traitor to humanity is not a crime. Its like saying Bitc% is bad but Super Bitc% is a compliment.

It may be that Rushdie offended muslims and others. Still you have not answered my question - no matter what a man may say, no matter whether he may say things you consider blasphemous or offensive to your sensibilities - how is it that Islam alone of world religions legitimates the **murder **of those who "blaspheme" ? Please answer my question instead of evading it, or responding with another question.

@USResident

Please refer to clerics who are accepted as an authority to the whole muslim world or some world class. Please do not equate roadside clerics with respected well known clerics, which even one of them you will not finding supporting these acts. And further do not equate freedom struggle with terrorism.

To which I respond: please provide me with your list of "clerics accepted as authorities to the whole muslim world or some world class". Then I will check it to see whether individuals like Omar Bakri Mohammed, a Syrian-born cleric who founded militant Islamic group al-Muhajiroun; Abu Uzair, a former member of the group; and Abu Izzadeen, spokesman for al-Ghurabaa , are on it. To mention just 3. Many muslims seem to respect these individuals and consider them to be authorities.

@USResident

And further do not equate freedom struggle with terrorism.

What extremist act are you trying to excuse here? It seems to me that wherever there has been terrorism, the group responsible has styled themselves to be "freedom fighters". My definition of terrorists is simple - people who intentionally murder unarmed innocent civilians.

@USResident

Agreed, it is not justified. When something is wrong I say its wrong, a spade is a spade. Now in Lebanon, Hezbollah killed all IDF soldiers with a very few civilian casualties. All casualties caused by Hezbollah to Israel are military casualties whereas all the casualties caused by Israel in Lebonan are civilian with few Hezbollah casualties. What do you say about this. Do you condemn it?

Hezbollah deliberately targetted civilian areas with rockets. Numerous civilians were killed in Israel. Israel would have had no need to enter Lebanon if Hezbollah had not been developing the military infrastructure (with the cooperation of Lebanese civilians, some of whom hid rockets in their homes).
I deeply regret the loss of life in Lebanon, but I ask you - would Israel have needed to take this action if a group like Hezbollah, which has the stated aim of destroying the state of Israel, did not exist? It would be in the interests of the Lebanese not to co-operate with or assist such groups in the future. It's very difficult to fight an enemy that uses guerilla tactics, like Hezbollah does, without incurring civilian casualties; because Hezbollah operated within civilian areas and made use of civilian homes to cache their rocketry. So perhaps you should acknowledge that Hezbollah themselves are to blame for the deaths of many innocent Lebanese.

@USResident

Yes they should be if they had enough power. You cannot do that with both hands tied behind your back and standing on one foot.

Good analogy - and why are muslims powerless to respond to extremism in their midst? Because they (rightly) fear the terrible reprisals which they will incur by speaking out - because freedom of speech and protection of such freedoms is something which only people who live in democracies have, not theocracies or autocracies.

@USResident

What do you say about Maddy Albright who thought the thousands of child deaths in Iraq were worth it.

I'm not familiar with that specific quote. But if what she said was said exactly that way, and hasn't been taken out of context, then of course I would agree that that is a vile statement to make. And for the record, I do not believe that the US / UK were justified in invading Iraq. Different topic.

@USResident

Root out non-muslim extremists in the government who want to see the muslim world fall. I'm sure if that happens you will see muslims celebrating that as well.

You are mistaken if you believe that the non-muslim world wants to "see the muslim world fall".

On the contrary - we want to see the muslim world mature and embrace secular values like separation between church and state, religious tolerance, and democratic principles of governance. Turkey is a good example of a muslim country which has made strides towards this. But of course we want to see muslim extremism and muslim fundamentalism fall - and the only way this is going to happen is through the actions ordinary, decent muslim people like yourself acknowledging that there is a big, significant problem within Islam, and that extremism needs to be combatted from within.

[infiniti]

Re: Do you ever wonder, where God is?

@USResident

You did not understand the context of this statement. It was said a persons actions define the general perception of him and his religion i.e. A muslim is as a msulim does. When you talk muslim you are inherently implying Islam. Similarly the analogies for other religions.

I do understand the context and I agree with the idea that to the non muslims islam is what muslims do but that is not comparable to the Hitler analogy because he did not commit the holocaust in the name of christianity but race.

A non muslim will not take the pains to go through Quran to understand what Islam is all about. You are not being practical if you do not think that the action of muslims define the perception of Islam in the eyes of non muslims.

[infiniti]

Re: Do you ever wonder, where God is?

@yo_wasim

Thats my habit since childhood:)

to badlo apni is aadat ko ab miyaan, pata ahi ab tax bhi evade karte hoge.

[system]

Re: Do you ever wonder, where God is?

@infiniti

I do understand the context and I agree with the idea that to the non muslims islam is what muslims do but that is not comparable to the Hitler analogy because he did not commit the holocaust in the name of christianity but race.

A non muslim will not take the pains to go through Quran to understand what Islam is all about. You are not being practical if you do not think that the action of muslims define the perception of Islam in the eyes of non muslims.

I think a better analogy would be Pat Robertson and the Christians or Meir Kahane and the Jews.

[USResident]

Re: Do you ever wonder, where God is?

@infiniti

I do understand the context and I agree with the idea that to the non muslims islam is what muslims do but that is not comparable to the Hitler analogy because he did not commit the holocaust in the name of christianity but race.

A non muslim will not take the pains to go through Quran to understand what Islam is all about. You are not being practical if you do not think that the action of muslims define the perception of Islam in the eyes of non muslims.

Ok I see where you are coming from however on the note that you struck. Should non-muslims equate Islam with the actions of a few when the vast majority denies and decries these actions. Islamic governments condemn and have explained time and time again that Islam does not promote such actions. Then why does everyone keep beating a dead horse. Just start labeling them terrorits and not Islamic terrorists. This label means Islam terrorizes, which is not true. You are trying to reprimand Islam and not the persons actions, which have little to do with Islam.

[USResident]

Re: Do you ever wonder, where God is?

@HumanLikeYou

I'm not sure where to start here. If the war against Hitler was not to "western" credit, then to whom was credit due? Some other, uninvolved party? To clarify - the forces allied against the so-called axis powers of Germany, Italy and Japan, were the United Kingdom (& commonwealth territories), France and Canada; as you say, the USA entered the war later. The war was instigated by Germany´s hostile act of invasion of Poland, so certainly the response by allied nations was justified.

Sir, your explanation is not in line with what you had stated before. You stated the USA went to fight extremism and terrorism and the world war came up as an example, which Hitler as the terrorist. Now you have stated Germany's hostile act of invasion. This is not terrorism. USA joined to to go war not to curb terrorism or extremism. Extremism and terrorism does not occur in only one form i.e. armed force, it can also occur economically and socially etc.

@HumanLikeYou

No, war itself is NOT an act of terrorism when the war is an act of defense against terrorism or imperialism. Of course not. It's similar to the difference between a thug or a criminal assaulting an unsuspecting victim, and the response of the police force or authorities in apprehending or dealing to that thug. In larger-scale conflicts we call the thuggish action "terrorism" or "imperialism", and the defensive action might result in "war".

If I accept this explanation then the Iraqi insurgency, Palestinian intifada, Kashmiri freedom struggle and Hezbollah are all defending themselves from agressors. They are basically in self-defense mode. USA invaded Iraq. Israel has been illegally occupying Palestinian lands and Lebonan territory. India has been oppressing the Kashmiris. Each one of these tales has a powerful country doing wrong to the other weaker group of people, so then their fight back is not terrorism but defense.

@HumanLikeYou

Not everything that western nations have done is morally justifiable - but I'm not trying to defend the west. I'm defending all people who believe in democracy and the personal freedoms it enshrines. I would include in that number (most of) the 1 billion people now living in India for example - a fine example of a non-western democracy, or the 130,000,000 in Japan. So don't get bogged down in west vs Islam, that's not my point.

Ok so lets loose focus on USA for now. Can you define what democracy is? The countries where world powers are currently trying to bring about democracy, prove to me that the people living in those countries have done anything to put a dent in your freedom. The government of USA has limited the freedom of Americans around the world more than any so-called terrorist has. India, corruption runs from top down to bottom in the Indian country. What has democracy done to fix that. Democracy does not provide morals it just lets the majority choose, as I have said before when the moral of the majority declines so do the demoractic choices and the culture and values in general. Japan is an American puppet and a classic example of how western demoracy is trying to control other countries. I am not against Demoracy my point is that democracy does not gaurantee an uplift in peoples morals and values or upholds God given laws and commandments. Democracy is not a system to refine peoples character and integrity.

@HumanLikeYou

It's really "people who treasure freedom of thought and expression and democratic principles" vs "Islamic fundamentalism".

Can you tell me what Islamic fundamentalism means? Can you also tell me who coined this word? "Islamic" would be something that is compliant with the teachings of Islam and "Fundamentalism" would be adhering to the fundamentals of something, so Islamic fundamentalism would be adhering the the fundamentals of Islam i.e. believing in One God, Muhammad SAW, Prayer, Fasting, Zakah, Pilgrimage and Jihad (all kinds). So what is your point here now?

@HumanLikeYou

You're trying to argue that the individuals who promote or perpetrate extremist violence are somehow not muslims. Those same individuals make it very clear that they believe themselves to be muslims, and it's apparent that many "ordinary" muslims agree with them. Just because you and your friends & family are not involved in extremism, how does that prove that all muslims are not involved in extremism? Note that even the relatives of individuals discovered to be involved in the London bombings were shocked to discover that they were involved. So it seems to me that you are being a bit naive here.

Can you prove the the 1 billion plus muslims are extremists? You said all muslims. I bet you cannot even list a thousand out of the 1 billion extremists (fraction of a fraction of a fraction, which you stereotype to ALL). Are you upto the challenge?

@HumanLikeYou

There are many factors involved in the rate of out-of-wedlock births in the USA. That the rate is so high is of course undesirable - but doesn't mean that we have to resort to fundamentalist religious beliefs and suppression of women's freedoms to resolve it. Remember that the USA is a mixture of demographics - certain communities raise the average rate; certain lower socio-economic groups have rates of up to 86% children born out of wedlock, while other groups have much lower rates.

I do not care about the factors, whats wrong is wrong. Why are not the factors, which give rise to so-called Islamic terrorists taken into account then if factors and reasons are so important. Why are these terrorist not given leeway or understood in order to reform their misgivings or misunderstandings?

@HumanLikeYou

Religious oppression and limiting personal freedoms is not the answer to anything. As proof, witness Japan, a totally democratic and thoroughly non-religious culture; with one of the lowest teenage birthrates of any nation.

Give an example of religious oppressions and limiting personal freedoms please. Lets not discuss on false pretenses.

@HumanLikeYou

Again, it's not at all a simplistic choice between the false dichotomy you're spinning here - west ("USA") vs east ("muslims"). Reverence for elders didn´t begin life with Islam. It´s a cultural behaviour shared by many communities. For example, Indian (Hindu) people have great reverence for the elderly in their communities; their religion however is non-aggressive, pluralistic, and fits in perfectly well with democratic principles. It's got nothing to do with being muslim.

If it fit perfectly well with democratic principles then why is it on a decline in most democratic countries. All these values originated from religions and democracies are divorcing religion to become secular and also loosing a lot of these values. USA is the dominant power in the world thesedays and it is being bothered by muslims and vice verse, what can I say? This is no hidden fact.

@HumanLikeYou

It may be that Rushdie offended muslims and others. Still you have not answered my question - no matter what a man may say, no matter whether he may say things you consider blasphemous or offensive to your sensibilities - how is it that Islam alone of world religions legitimates the **murder **of those who "blaspheme" ? Please answer my question instead of evading it, or responding with another question.

I know there are many different opinions about apostacy in Islam. My personal opinion (strictly my personal opinion) is different from people who killing an apostate is valid according to Islam. I think the verses where the killing of apostates was commanded during the early wars of muslims was circumstantial and was because muslims would be fighting these same people on the other side so why let it get that far since they are enemies anyway. In a war if you do not kill your enemy your enemy will kill you unless your enemy has stopped fighting you or given a clear indication to cease fighting or surrendered.

@HumanLikeYou

To which I respond: please provide me with your list of "clerics accepted as authorities to the whole muslim world or some world class". Then I will check it to see whether individuals like Omar Bakri Mohammed, a Syrian-born cleric who founded militant Islamic group al-Muhajiroun; Abu Uzair, a former member of the group; and Abu Izzadeen, spokesman for al-Ghurabaa , are on it. To mention just 3. Many muslims seem to respect these individuals and consider them to be authorities.

The claim was yours so you should be providing a list and the number of followers each of those clerics commands or has actually engaged. If you claim something then you have to provide evidence for it. I do not need to provide evidence against your claim because your claim lacks evidence to prove it.

@HumanLikeYou

What extremist act are you trying to excuse here? It seems to me that wherever there has been terrorism, the group responsible has styled themselves to be "freedom fighters". My definition of terrorists is simple - people who intentionally murder unarmed innocent civilians.

When a war brings about civiliam death should the same criteria not apply Sir because the end result is the same, innocents lost their lives. USA killed innocents in Iraq, Israel in Palestine and India in Kashmir. By your definition they are terrorist then.

@HumanLikeYou

Hezbollah deliberately targetted civilian areas with rockets. Numerous civilians were killed in Israel. Israel would have had no need to enter Lebanon if Hezbollah had not been developing the military infrastructure (with the cooperation of Lebanese civilians, some of whom hid rockets in their homes). I deeply regret the loss of life in Lebanon, but I ask you - would Israel have needed to take this action if a group like Hezbollah, which has the stated aim of destroying the state of Israel, did not exist? It would be in the interests of the Lebanese not to co-operate with or assist such groups in the future. It's very difficult to fight an enemy that uses guerilla tactics, like Hezbollah does, without incurring civilian casualties; because Hezbollah operated within civilian areas and made use of civilian homes to cache their rocketry. So perhaps you should acknowledge that Hezbollah themselves are to blame for the deaths of many innocent Lebanese.

If Hezbollah launched rockets into civilian areas then why are the number of casualties caused by Hezbollah mostly soldiers? Israel bombed civilian installations in Lebonan, where were the guerillas? What ever tactic you may come up with the bottomline is Israel killed civilians whereas Hezbollah killed soldiers. There is no denying that. I think you cannot even give the specifics of the rockets fired by Hezbollah. Forget about telling locations of there caches. Its easy to make the Hezbollah hiding among civilians a scapegoat to cover up the civiliam bombings. Tell me why did Israel bomb the lebanese airport, surely Hezbollah has no planes niether does lebonan. An airport is a civilian installation not military. The lebanese army did not even fight. My friends Father in Law left that airport 2 hours before it was bombed. His was the last flight out of lebonan. He was a civilian along with many others there, where was the Hezbollah?

@HumanLikeYou

Good analogy - and why are muslims powerless to respond to extremism in their midst? Because they (rightly) fear the terrible reprisals which they will incur by speaking out - because freedom of speech and protection of such freedoms is something which only people who live in democracies have, not theocracies or autocracies.

The analogy is good but your response is terrible. Well the groups commiting the so-called acts of terrorism are not running the country. The government of these countries are aligned with USA then what kind of reprisals are we talking about here. You mean they would destabilise the government and cost USA its interests.

@HumanLikeYou

I'm not familiar with that specific quote. But if what she said was said exactly that way, and hasn't been taken out of context, then of course I would agree that that is a vile statement to make. And for the record, I do not believe that the US / UK were justified in invading Iraq. Different topic.

Good to know that.

@HumanLikeYou

You are mistaken if you believe that the non-muslim world wants to "see the muslim world fall".

On the contrary - we want to see the muslim world mature and embrace secular values like separation between church and state, religious tolerance, and democratic principles of governance. Turkey is a good example of a muslim country which has made strides towards this. But of course we want to see muslim extremism and muslim fundamentalism fall - and the only way this is going to happen is through the actions ordinary, decent muslim people like yourself acknowledging that there is a big, significant problem within Islam, and that extremism needs to be combatted from within.

Sir you must be having a mind numbing. Muslim and then you say embrace secular values. I am no muslim if I give it up for secular values. Christians do not even know what they believe in because of secularism. Every country that embraces secularism looses their religious identity.

[system]

Re: Do you ever wonder, where God is?

@HumanLikeYou

Not everything that western nations have done is morally justifiable - but I'm not trying to defend the west. I'm defending all people who believe in democracy and the personal freedoms it enshrines. I would include in that number (most of) the 1 billion people now living in India for example - a fine example of a non-western democracy, or the 130,000,000 in Japan. So don't get bogged down in west vs Islam, that's not my point.

You are making it sound like as if democracy is the answer. There is no state in the world today that implements pure democracy, at least not to my knowledge. Democracy itself has a lot of problems, otherwise other ideologies like communism would not have existed. These ideologies and others came about because of the flaws in capitalism and democracy. You could say that democracy is the best alternative, but that's debatable.

@HumanLikeYou

What extremist act are you trying to excuse here? It seems to me that wherever there has been terrorism, the group responsible has styled themselves to be "freedom fighters". My definition of terrorists is simple - people who intentionally murder unarmed innocent civilians.

Then by that definition US, Israel, Russia, India, Uzbekistan and other similar countries are terrorist states.
If you go by what you see on CNN, and FOX then you'll obviously get a very biased view. But if you get your information from neutral sources like Human Rights organizations like amnesty or hrw, then you would get an idea of what really happens.

@HumanLikeYou

Good analogy - and why are muslims powerless to respond to extremism in their midst? Because they (rightly) fear the terrible reprisals which they will incur by speaking out - because freedom of speech and protection of such freedoms is something which only people who live in democracies have, not theocracies or autocracies.

I don't know how other religions work but Islam has a complete system. In the Muslim state, people of other religions like Christians and Jews are allowed to go by their own scriptures when it comes to laws.
On the other hand, in today's secular systems this type of religious freedom does not exist. France banned all religious symbols from schools, in Turkey women are not allowed to wear a hijab in certain places, I think there's something similar in Germany too. Muslims in some cases are not allowed to practise the Islamic inheritance, divorce, marriage laws in most of these countries. I think India is the only country that allows some leeway on these matters.
It's too bad that there's no country in the world that implements the Islamic system.

@HumanLikeYou

You are mistaken if you believe that the non-muslim world wants to "see the muslim world fall".

On the contrary - we want to see the muslim world mature and embrace secular values like separation between church and state, religious tolerance, and democratic principles of governance. Turkey is a good example of a muslim country which has made strides towards this. But of course we want to see muslim extremism and muslim fundamentalism fall - and the only way this is going to happen is through the actions ordinary, decent muslim people like yourself acknowledging that there is a big, significant problem within Islam, and that extremism needs to be combatted from within.

Why is it that the US and the UN didn't like Hamas being democratically elected by the Palestinians? That was a democratic election, but the world is trying to force Hamas out of power. Right now Hamas doesn't have enough money (direct result of the US and UN) to pay the civil workers, as a result (from what I've been reading in the news) hospitals and schools are being closed down and the workers are on strike.

[Sadiyah]

Re: Do you ever wonder, where God is? God, no God, or Correct God (merged)

@Light Bearer

Nothing much Sadia Baji, it's just that I feel that the moderator should be neutral. If the moderator is biased than how can you hope for a neutral debate. Please remove both the last posts if you think they are inappropriate. All I ask is just be fair as much as you can. Offending you was not the intent.

Please do point out to me how merging a thread is indicative of the fact that I was biased in this particular instance. Also, do tell me how could I be fair as much as I can. Feedback would be helpful.

[HumanLikeYou]

Re: Do you ever wonder, where God is?

@USResident

Sir, your explanation is not in line with what you had stated before. You stated the USA went to fight extremism and terrorism and the world war came up as an example, which Hitler as the terrorist. Now you have stated Germany's hostile act of invasion. This is not terrorism. USA joined to to go war not to curb terrorism or extremism. Extremism and terrorism does not occur in only one form i.e. armed force, it can also occur economically and socially etc.

You misunderstand - I made it clear that I equate actions like terrorism and the IMPERIALIST actions of nations like Nazi Germany - you should read more carefully. The allied forces were legitimately combatting the imperialist actions of Germany. Sure, I agree with you that terrorism doesn't take just one form.
However, it's terrorism's most recent manifestation, as implemented by Islamic extremists, that we're discussing here.

@USResident

If I accept this explanation then the Iraqi insurgency, Palestinian intifada, Kashmiri freedom struggle and Hezbollah are all defending themselves from agressors. They are basically in self-defense mode. USA invaded Iraq. Israel has been illegally occupying Palestinian lands and Lebonan territory. India has been oppressing the Kashmiris. Each one of these tales has a powerful country doing wrong to the other weaker group of people, so then their fight back is not terrorism but defense.

The Iraqi insurgency are not defending themselves from aggressors. On a daily basis they are killing many innocent Iraqis.
In any case - **you obviously don't read **my posts through before you begin responding, do you? Because I stated that I do not support the American action in Iraq. Really, the western forces should leave, and allow the extremist factions to initiate the inevitable bloodbath of a civil war which will follow, with many innocents killed; after which no doubt yet another autocratic/theocratic regime like Hussein's will be installed. You're quite right, muslims seem to prefer to live in such oppressive regimes ... though you are an interesting exception to this rule, perhaps there's something about the permissive life in the west that you enjoy then? Why don't you return to the middle east if you have such contempt for western values and culture?

@USResident

Can you define what democracy is?

Any dictionary will give you a definition. Here's one: 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

@USResident

The countries where world powers are currently trying to bring about democracy, prove to me that the people living in those countries have done anything to put a dent in your freedom. The government of USA has limited the freedom of Americans around the world more than any so-called terrorist has. India, corruption runs from top down to bottom in the Indian country. What has democracy done to fix that. Democracy does not provide morals it just lets the majority choose, as I have said before when the moral of the majority declines so do the demoractic choices and the culture and values in general. Japan is an American puppet and a classic example of how western demoracy is trying to control other countries. I am not against Demoracy my point is that democracy does not gaurantee an uplift in peoples morals and values or upholds God given laws and commandments. Democracy is not a system to refine peoples character and integrity.

Sure - nobody says the implementation of democracy (rule by the people) instantly brings about perfect order in society. People are imperfect and certainly corruption exists in India, in the USA, too. However, unlike the hereditary autocracies / theocracies and martial regimes of the middle east, in a democracy, the people **have a voice, and the people can effect change. People do not live in fear. People have rights which are enshrined in law, and protected. **The people can agitate for reform and replace an incompetent government. Such a mechanism does not exist in a country ruled by the sword.
Let me add that some middle eastern states have embraced democracy to some extent - most notably, Lebanon and Egypt, and Turkey as I mentioned before. You would do well to appreciate the freedoms you enjoy in the United States - think about it, you are completely free to criticise the government, to protest, to say whatever you like against the existing status quo. You can even let off some steam and burn the US flag in some states ... try doing that in a muslim country.

@USResident

Can you tell me what Islamic fundamentalism means? Can you also tell me who coined this word? "Islamic" would be something that is compliant with the teachings of Islam and "Fundamentalism" would be adhering to the fundamentals of something, so Islamic fundamentalism would be adhering the the fundamentals of Islam i.e. believing in One God, Muhammad SAW, Prayer, Fasting, Zakah, Pilgrimage and Jihad (all kinds). So what is your point here now?

Your definition is not at odds with mine. But you´re not getting the point. "Fundamentalism", in the pejorative sense which I intend, refers to the trend within religions to *resist modernisation, **and to insist on adherence to the **literal interpretation of core texts *(such as the Bible or Q'uran). Obviously, where these literal interpretations come into conflict with other groups in society - take for example the intolerance towards alternative sexuality implied in Biblical / Q'uranic scriptures, or more topically the exhortations to violent action in the Q'uran - fundamentalism becomes a problem. So that´s my point.

@USResident

Can you prove the the 1 billion plus muslims are extremists? You said all muslims. I bet you cannot even list a thousand out of the 1 billion extremists (fraction of a fraction of a fraction, which you stereotype to ALL). Are you upto the challenge?

You really DON´T read, do you? Go back and read what I said before you respond with such "extremism". Then please apologise. I read everything you write very thoroughly and carefully before I respond, please give me the same treatment.

@USResident

Why are not the factors, which give rise to so-called Islamic terrorists taken into account then if factors and reasons are so important. Why are these terrorist not given leeway or understood in order to reform their misgivings or misunderstandings?

Certainly it's necessary to understand the causes of terrorism. The fact that we should consider all factors when discussing the phenomenon of teenage births in the USA and other countries does not mean that we shouldn't also consider all factors when discussing the phenomenon of terrorism. I don't recall suggesting that at all. However - I AM suggesting that muslim nations/communities are NOT trying to address these. Nor even acknowledging them. That's what we're discussing here. Focus.

@USResident

If it fit perfectly well with democratic principles then why is it on a decline in most democratic countries. All these values originated from religions and democracies are divorcing religion to become secular and also loosing a lot of these values. USA is the dominant power in the world thesedays and it is being bothered by muslims and vice verse, what can I say? This is no hidden fact.

Honestly, mate, you really need to make sure you understand what's being said before you respond. Otherwise we're just talking at cross-purposes.
I said that the HINDU FAITH fits in perfectly well with democratic principles, not reverence for the elderly.

"all these values" - which values? Contrast the legal system in secular democracies which outlaws murder in any circumstances, and asserts the equality of all genders/religions/races under the law; with that of Islam, which permits murder in certain circumstances, and which treats women and "infidels" like dirt. Quite agreeable if you're a muslim male, I'm sure.

@USResident

I know there are many different opinions about apostacy in Islam. My personal opinion (strictly my personal opinion) is different from people who killing an apostate is valid according to Islam. I think the verses where the killing of apostates was commanded during the early wars of muslims was circumstantial and was because muslims would be fighting these same people on the other side so why let it get that far since they are enemies anyway. In a war if you do not kill your enemy your enemy will kill you unless your enemy has stopped fighting you or given a clear indication to cease fighting or surrendered.

Well, it's gratifying to know that you at least won't stick a knife into the next muslim when he / she does something to offend the faith. I suppose this should be required information on a first date between muslims - "if I ever give up the faith, will you kill me, darling?".

@USResident

The claim was yours so you should be providing a list and the number of followers each of those clerics commands or has actually engaged. If you claim something then you have to provide evidence for it. I do not need to provide evidence against your claim because your claim lacks evidence to prove it.

I provided you with the names of 3 clerics, and the names of those organisations with which they're affiliated. The only claim I made was that such clerics exist, and that they support extremism and encourage it. And the issue is that muslims either deny this (as you are doing) or ignore it. If someone brings a charge against you you are obliged to defend yourself against the claim if it is false - or acknowledge it and do something about it if it is true.

So, do you claim that no muslim clerics have supported and celebrated extremist actions, and encouraged others to do the same? And if you acknowledge that they have, then why do muslims not censure these individuals?

@USResident

When a war brings about civiliam death should the same criteria not apply Sir because the end result is the same, innocents lost their lives. USA killed innocents in Iraq, Israel in Palestine and India in Kashmir. By your definition they are terrorist then.

No - civilian deaths in war are a terrible consequence of the conflict, but in general, civilians are not the intended **targets. As I said - terrorism is the **intentional killing of innocents.

My opinion is that in the recent Lebanese conflict, Israel acted to defend herself against a terrorist organisation which has the stated aim of destroying the nation of Israel. If Israel **wanted **to target civilians, there would be very few civilians left walking the streets of Beirut and Tyre now. Israel does not want conflict. If the surrounding Arab nations accept her right to exist, and cease the Jihad against her, she will not harm them.

**I DO AGREE WITH YOU THAT **Israel was unecessarily heavy-handed, and ruthless; and willing to risk the lives of innocent Lebanese civilians. There was also no need to damage the Lebanese infrastructure, the airport, and to cause environmental damage like the oil spillage off the coast. These are terribly sad outcomes and I think Israel has blundered.

However, I disagree with your statements regarding Hezbollah killing "mostly soldiers". Hezbollah launched rockets into civilian areas, many hundreds of them, civilians **were **killed, were you not watching the news at the time? killing of innocents. And I will acknowledge that there may be cases of intentional killing by armies (including western armies) - and yes, I would consider those acts terrorist acts.

@USResident

Sir you must be having a mind numbing. Muslim and then you say embrace secular values. I am no muslim if I give it up for secular values. Christians do not even know what they believe in because of secularism. Every country that embraces secularism looses their religious identity.

On the contrary, religious faith is not inconsistent with secular government. For example, the number of practising Catholics in Latin American countries remains very high. The number of Hindus in India remains very high. Of course, due to the fact that secular democracies tend to permit personal freedoms which theocracies deny, individuals are at liberty to choose NOT to believe in a particular faith, or to choose another, or to choose none at all! So if you are saying that being a muslim is inconsistent with living in a secular regime because muslims expect everybody in their country to be muslim, then sure, I understand exactly where you´re coming from with "losing their religious identity" !!! What is it about freedom that frightens you so much, my friend?

[HumanLikeYou]

Re: Do you ever wonder, where God is?

@sherafghan

You are making it sound like as if democracy is the answer. There is no state in the world today that implements pure democracy, at least not to my knowledge. Democracy itself has a lot of problems, otherwise other ideologies like communism would not have existed. These ideologies and others came about because of the flaws in capitalism and democracy. You could say that democracy is the best alternative, but that's debatable.

I could say it, and I do say it - democracy is the best alternative, when the only other choices available are autocratic regimes, communist dystopias, or anarchies.

@sherafghan

Then by that definition US, Israel, Russia, India, Uzbekistan and other similar countries are terrorist states. If you go by what you see on CNN, and FOX then you'll obviously get a very biased view. But if you get your information from neutral sources like Human Rights organizations like amnesty or hrw, then you would get an idea of what really happens.

I'm not speaking in defense of every action initiated by western nations. I'm quite prepared to acknowledge that western nations have made grave errors of judgement - witness Vietnam and now Iraq. However, I am a believer in the principles of democracy and the liberties and rights it enshrines.
Islam does not value or protect these.

@sherafghan

I don't know how other religions work but Islam has a complete system. In the Muslim state, people of other religions like Christians and Jews are allowed to go by their own scriptures when it comes to laws.

Do you deny the mistreatment, historical and contemporary, of non-muslim minority populations in muslim countries?

@sherafghan

On the other hand, in today's secular systems this type of religious freedom does not exist. France banned all religious symbols from schools, in Turkey women are not allowed to wear a hijab in certain places, I think there's something similar in Germany too. Muslims in some cases are not allowed to practise the Islamic inheritance, divorce, marriage laws in most of these countries. I think India is the only country that allows some leeway on these matters. It's too bad that there's no country in the world that implements the Islamic system.

Such "denials" of religious freedom in fact simply ensure that the issue of religious affiliation is kept out of the school yard, and that people of different faiths do not become alienated from one another. School is a place for learning - not for religious indoctrination. That should occur in the home or in the temple or in the mosque. The practice of religion is a personal matter. That you are a muslim and I am - hypothetically - a Buddhist, what relevance does it have to our schooling?

However, democracy will protect your right to practice your religion, as long as you don't try to force it on other people, or expect others to embrace it.

Muslim societies historically have not treated minority communities well. And apostates are even murdered! So much for freedom.

@sherafghan

Why is it that the US and the UN didn't like Hamas being democratically elected by the Palestinians? That was a democratic election, but the world is trying to force Hamas out of power. Right now Hamas doesn't have enough money (direct result of the US and UN) to pay the civil workers, as a result (from what I've been reading in the news) hospitals and schools are being closed down and the workers are on strike.

Hamas advocates the use of violence against Israel. That's why.

[system]

Re: Do you ever wonder, where God is?

@HumanLikeYou

I could say it, and I do say it - democracy is the best alternative, when the only other choices available are autocratic regimes, communist dystopias, or anarchies.

Well I suggest that you find out about the Islamic state in it's early years. Umar bin Khattab, the second Khalifa, used to go around at night time to see for himself the problems faced by the people. He did this because he knew that he will be held accountable for all the problems faced by the people in front of God. There are lots of stories where he found problems in his rulings by doing this. There is no ruler today who can be compared to him.

@HumanLikeYou

I'm not speaking in defense of every action initiated by western nations. I'm quite prepared to acknowledge that western nations have made grave errors of judgement - witness Vietnam and now Iraq. However, I am a believer in the principles of democracy and the liberties and rights it enshrines. Islam does not value or protect these.

Again, there are flaws in democracy. Islam does not have flaws, the flaws exist in the people who implement Islam.

@HumanLikeYou

Do you deny the mistreatment, historical and contemporary, of non-muslim minority populations in muslim countries?

No, I don't deny that. But you have to realize that "Muslim" countries have not been ruling according to Islam for a very long time. I have heard, and if someone else knows for sure then confirm this for me, that Jews would migrate to Andalus (Muslim Spain) because of the religious freedom offered by Islam, and after Muslims were kicked out of Spain, Jews migrated to Istanbul.
If religious freedom was not allowed in Islam, then people of other religions would not have existed today in the Arab world. When the Muslims had the upper hand, they could have very easily destroyed all other religions in those areas.

@HumanLikeYou

Such "denials" of religious freedom in fact simply ensure that the issue of religious affiliation is kept out of the school yard, and that people of different faiths do not become alienated from one another. School is a place for learning - not for religious indoctrination. That should occur in the home or in the temple or in the mosque. The practice of religion is a personal matter. That you are a muslim and I am - hypothetically - a Buddhist, what relevance does it have to our schooling?

This is not religious freedom then. Women who want to wear a hijab willingly are not allowed to wear it, what kind of freedom is this?
Secondly, the west is a very individualistic society while Islam is based on collectivism.

@HumanLikeYou

However, democracy will protect your right to practice your religion, as long as you don't try to force it on other people, or expect others to embrace it.

Muslim societies historically have not treated minority communities well. And apostates are even murdered! So much for freedom.

Actually you should get a first hand account from minorities. I've heard interviews from Christian women in Pakistan that they want to wear Niqab because they don't get harassed even though they don't have to. You can get a similar account from Sikhs who lived under the Taliban. These so called "muslim" countries do not rule by Islam, so whatever is done by these governments cannot be associated with Islam.

@HumanLikeYou

Hamas advocates the use of violence against Israel. That's why.

So, is this not a flaw in democracy? Hamas was elected democratically and yet the world is not happy with the outcome.