seems like Badawi, the successor of Mahathir, follows his traditions of not brown-nosig west while opposing islamic fundamentalism. may be he isn't as outspoken as Mahathir - nevertheless he makes much more commone sense than all the histerical propaganda made by Bush and he's likes....

so, what would all those who trumpet the favorite (although worn out) "war on terror" tune say about this?

Malaysian leader, at end of Australia visit, urges war on terror re-think

As this is the core of the speech and reform pretenses in Please decode in meaningful concrete, actions, deeds and reforms needed and required?

I am just not sure there is any substance at all in saying some in the west need to reassess their foriegn policy, disgard their prejudice against Islam AND ALL Islam needs to do is to begin a process or reform and renewal.

It says to me all our problems are because of some in the west who are prejudice against us. If they would change their foriegn policy ( for 57 years meaning usually meaning stop supporting Isreal) all will be good in the world.

I mean I don't want to put words into your answer. But history is history has this m,an said anything at all?

That is all!

hi, ustrader!

what a surprise, huh? that you are the first one to comment this !

I wanted to end it at this accord - with your favorite phrase THAT IS ALL, but I think I'd reply one point here first.

Malaysia has proven of keeping at bay islamic extremists and with its majority muslim polulation it doesn't have such ismalic insurgents problems like neibours - Indonesia, Phillipins and even predominantly Buddhist Thailand ! I think that says enough. and neither it has had any big terorist acts or bombings as in Bali, South Thailand or 9-11... it has repelled comunists guerilla too in 60s THEMSELVES - successfully, unlike US full fiasco in Vietnam or Korea.

do you bother to read at least - not even mention to study - other news sources or other way written histories?

Before I would spend my time looking are whether my neighbors toilet is or is not overflowing and is the reason for that fowl smell all around you, I would spend some time examining my own premises for the stench of S H I T E I smell first.

That is all!

You treat Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi unfairly, he makes a point about Western countries making changes in foreign policy within the context of reforms within the Muslim world.

"Reforms in the Muslim world must be accompanied by visible and meaningful changes to the foreign policies of key Western countries.
The non-Muslim world, especially the West, must be prepared to discard their prejudices against Islam and be willing to engage in genuine dialogue.
At the same time, Muslims too must be prepared to begin a process or reform and renewal in their respective Muslim countries."

Malaysia is a fine example of religious and cultural coexistence within a democratic Islamic country.

Sir, as to your latter point, I would agree Malaysia is a fine example of multicultural coexistence But there are real tensions at the surface with the Chinese and some western financial dominance as has been reflected as recently as the 1960’s and 70’s.

As to you other points, meaning no disrespect but you tell me the obvious. His words had a contextual continuation of meaning change. But lacked any substance as was my point what did he mean and what where these changes specifically he referred to>

I do not disagree with the gentlemen’s premise as it is true change in both areas are need and warranted. But there were no meaning in his worlds was my point. I asked is he saying something different or more of the same that we have heard before from exactly these same words.

If you researched his predecessor he too had similar words but with far more blame and less responsibility implied or meant.

Are these the same words of the last 60 years, abandon Israel and yu will be pro Arab and Islam if not you are anti-Arab and anti-Islam.

Tell me where you read any specifics as to what he meant in that speech?

That is all!

I accept his statement said nothing specific.


Badawi carries none of the baggage of his predecessor, he strikes me as being more balanced and far less thin skinned that Dr. Mahathir. Maybe Malaysia can act as a bridge.

I am as well hopeful for that bridge despite my reputation as a right wing war monger. I know war and am no lover of it but excpt its realities as they are.

If we can see these fringe elements that so ruin it for us all be left on the margin I am sure we can see a change in America as well.

I hope he carries thoriugh with more specific examples of what can be done. I tire of rheoric from all sides. I prefer solutions and or honest efforts at solutions, even if they fail as to the status quo of today and doing nothing but talk.

That is all!

I think Malaysia demonstrates that kissing the ##### of Muslim Fundamentalists is a very effective tactic for Muslim leaders to ensure their rage is directred elsewhere. They attack in Indonesia next door or over here in the US. MARK


http://www.hvk.org/articles/0102/177.html

The New York Times Date: January 31, 2002
Philip Shenon and David Johnston

.....
The operative, a former Malaysian Army captain, has acknowledged meeting in Malaysia with at least two of the Sept. 11 hijackers, as well as with Zacarias Moussaoui, a 33- year-old French citizen who is now in a Virginia jail cell and is the only person charged so far with involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks, the officials said.
...
American and Malaysian officials say they believe that Mr. Sufaat was a crucial organizer of a gang of Muslim extremists known as the Malaysian Militant Group, or Jemaah Islamiah, that is part of Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, Al Qaeda.
...

Officials said Mr. Sufaat appeared to have operated as a paymaster for Mr. Moussaoui, who was arrested in the United States last August after he raised suspicions among his instructors at a Minneapolis flight school and to have provided him with bogus business credentials from a Malaysian technology company.
....
American officials said the evidence showed that Mr. Sufaat had met in January 2000 with two of the Sept. 11 hijackers, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaq Alhazmi, at his condominium outside Kuala Lumpur.

Mr. Midhar and Mr. Alhazmi subsequently traveled to the United States for flight training, and they were among the suicidal hijackers who commandeered the American Airlines jet that crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11.

http://www.hvk.org/articles/0102/177.html

Seems he is saying that the "root causes" of the "anger and frustration" are the "living standards", and the solution is to "raise" those standards. Sounds like nonsense to me. As well a dangerous precedent. Non Muslims all over the world suffer from the same or worse standards as the angry and frustrated Muslims. Dont want turning as many civilians as you can into hamburger meat to become the prefered method for economic advancement of poor people. MARK


"Badawi, on the first official visit to Australia by a Malaysian leader in 21 years, said this approach had been modestly successful in his country where reforms had been implemented to raise living standards in predominantly Muslim rural areas.
"We have demonstrated that we can roll back the Islamists, not by engaging in a holier-than-thou contest, but by addressing the root causes of anger and frustration," he said in a speech to the Asia Society of Australia. "

Huge difference in the comparison of Malaysia and the vast majority of the ME. Badawi was elected.

I think the "The non-Muslim world, especially the West, must be prepared to discard their prejudices against Islam and be willing to engage in genuine dialogue." statement is not based in fact. I think it is based in misinterpretation of spin as limits of understanding. I don't, for one second, believe that the war has anything at all to do with religion. I do however believe that an elected government can be included and inclusive in all respects of foreign policy as opposed to totalitarian regimes (that were at a time, now passed, needed to release the ME from it's history which was much resembling feudalism). At that juncture we can realise "Reforms in the Muslim world must be accompanied by visible and meaningful changes to the foreign policies of key Western countries."

Because the real problem I think he has headed the nail when he said "Islamic extremism would be weakened if the growth of poverty, anger and frustration in Muslim communities was halted." Nothing changes if nothing changes.

With poverty, anger and frustration across all religons around the world, and with 99% of terrorism eminating from Muslims, I cant imagine what would lead you to conclude it has nothing to do with religon. Especially when those carrying out the terrorist attacks are CONSTANTLY citing religous justifications. MARK

that is the common misuunderstanding or perhaps rather purposefull misinterpretation - that the religions is a cause. not religion - but unscrupulous misuse of it and those people who do it , in this particular case for political reasons.

ustrader, my friend! congradulations to you for perfecting your skills at smelling S H I T E !

THAT IS ALL !

Misuse????? Are you the determiner of proper use of Islam? They use religon as Muhammad used the religon. To defeat the unbelievers.
The Muslim fundamentalists have doctrine on THEIR side. They dont need to misinterpret or twist the meaning.
MARK

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said "I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but God is worshipped, God who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders." (Bin Laden Quoting the Koran)

that's right - misuse...

I rather prefer explanation I've read once by Dr. Mahathir Mohhamad, former PM of Malaysia - against islamic fundamentalists there. he pointed out clearly that true teachings of Al-Qoran explain jihad (holy war against unfaithfull) - first and most of all - WITHIN one's mind and soul. killing one's own demons - of ignorance, sinfull tendencies, all other evils .... that time no one of them was able to contradict him as I recall ...

And you bought it hook line and sinker. Fools are easily fooled. Why not just read directly from the haddiths. Lets just see if they are speaking of personal demons within. Here are some exerpts from the haddiths. Or, go to
http://www.quran.ca/modules.php?name=Hadith
and put Jihad into the search function and aquaint yourself with reality. See if you can find EVEN ONE RFERENCE to this jihad "WITHIN one's mind and soul.
MARK

Volume:1 Book :2 Number :25 Top
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause


Volume:1 Book :2 Number :35 Top
Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, "The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr). Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not remain behind any sariya going for jihad and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah's cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause."


Volume:2 Book :15 Number :86 Top
Narrated Ibn Abbas:

The Prophet said, "No good deeds done on other days are superior to those done on these (first ten days of Dhul Hijja)." Then some companions of the Prophet said, "Not even jihad?" He replied, "Not even jihad, except that of a man who does it by putting himself and his property in danger (for Allah's sake) and does not return with any of those things."


Volume:3 Book :46 Number :724 Top
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "A pious slave gets a double reward." Abu Huraira added: By Him in Whose Hands my soul is but for jihad (i.e. holy battles), Hajj, and my duty to serve my mother, I would have loved to die as a slave.


Volume:4 Book :52 Number :42 Top
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

Allah's Apostle said, "There is no Hijra (i.e. migration) (from Mecca to Medina) after the Conquest (of Mecca), but jihad and good intention remain; and if you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately.


Volume:4 Book :52 Number :79 Top
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

On the day of the Conquest (of Mecca) the Prophet said, "There is no emigration after the Conquest but jihad and intentions. When you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately." (See Hadith No. 42)


Volume:4 Book :52 Number :88 Top
Narrated Anas:

The Emigrants and the Ansar started digging the trench around Medina carrying the earth on their backs and saying, "We are those who have given a pledge of allegiance to Muhammad that we will I carry on jihad as long as we live


Volume:4 Book :52 Number :104 Top
Narrated Urwa Al-Bariqi:

The Prophet said, "Good will remain (as a permanent quality) in the foreheads of horses (for jihad) till the Day of Resurrection, for they bring about either a reward (in the Hereafter) or booty (in this world."


Volume:5 Book :58 Number :140 Top
Narrated Anas bin Malik:

On the day of the battle of the Trench (i.e. Ghazwat-ul-Khandaq) the Ansar used to say, "We are those who have given the pledge of allegiance to Muhammad for jihad (i.e. holy fighting) as long as we live."

And if you really want to see how full of Shite Dr. Mahathir is with his claim above about what the Al-Qoran teaches go here-
http://www.quran.ca/modules.php?name=Quran
and put Jihad into the search function to see that the word does not appear anywhere in the Koran. Makes you wonder how he can convince people such as yourself so easily of such blatant falsehoods. MARK

alright, dixon - here is some food for thought for you. I watched movie "Kingdom of Heaven" couple of days back which is played in cinemas here in bagkok . and I remember clearly the line repeated few time by some christian priest blessing crusaders - when the main characters just arrived to New World shore:

to kill an infidel is not a murder but a path to heaven !

well, I din't bother to check if it is correct quote from the Bible - let someone else do it. however those crusades are historical fact. many wrongs were done by them. and all - under pretext of justification from Christian religion.

not to mention "Holy" inquisition which slaughtered and burned so many in Europe, and later on - spanish conquistadors conquering by sword and fire "barbarians" in both Americas....

so, please don't be histerical about your point - that only Islam has such tendencies.

I'm sure many other facts can be given about any other religion - on bigger or smaller scale - more precisely, about misuse and abuse of religion. if you would try to insist on your being right - that only Islam is such savage and ruthless slaughtering religion - then I think there is no any more sense to continue this conversation with you. it would be only fair and honest from your side if you try to find similar quotes and/ or historical facts about christian religion or whatever else - since you are so good at it, finding quotes.

in that movie one of characters said quite good: "first I though we came here {to Jerusalim} for religion - then later I figured out that it was merely for land and wealth ..."

many other things were there which make more sense as relevent nowdays then some branding of particular religion as evil.... ah, in the end of movie in subtitles was mentioned something like: Jerusalim was later re-taken by King of England; however over 1000 years later peace in the Kingdom of Heaven is still uncertain thing" - refering to all those problems in Israel and Palestine....

Let me get this straight, you Razin, are presenting argument as what is and is not factual based on a movie, is that correct?

A few points of order if I may.

One, the word infidel is a term used in Islam and this director used it when the word that was actually used in similar meaning was PAGAN.

As is nearly always true in movie fantasies that some seem to take as fact and reality, what happened and what the movie says happened may differ greatly.

Here is the source of this directors adulteration; St. Bernard announced before the Second Crusade that [U]"The Christian glories in the death of a pagan, because thereby Christ himself is glorified."

Two, as was beheading a popular activity by the Muslim warriors of that era so was the taking of the heads of slain enemies and impaling them upon pikes a favorite pastime among crusaders. It was a era of butchery indeed.

There were no clean hands as to these adversaries of that era, each was as barbarous as the other to one another and to even those of their own origins.

Three, at least have the intellectual curiosity to examine what people present as fact, or you will always be like a sheep lead and controlled by the Shepard.

Maybe that is you preference, if so, it is a indeed vulnerable preference.

Four, as to your reality in A movie which the below would be the Cliff’s Notes version:

Christian Crusaders are crass, violent murderers. They lie, sleep around with multiple women, and father multiple illegitimate, abandoned children. They are stupid, foolish, power-hungry, and vengeful. They are boors warring for land, not principles, and kill fellow Christians—even priests—over nothing.

Muslims, especially Saladin, are honorable, devout, decent, peaceful people. They just want to be left alone and only attack when attacked upon. They are wise, honest, kind, generous, and even offer Christians safe passage.

Five, as you will see from this link the violence of the Crusades was not exclusively just a Christian vs Muslim affair, it involved other Christians and Jews as well.

Six, there were at least 12 separate crusades over the 200 years that they occurred and you can see the facts of points 5 And 6 by clicking on the word TIMELINE at summary page link below:

http://atheism.about.com/od/crusades/a/crusades_2.htm

Or going here for a another summary

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/chri...an_crusades.htm

Seven, Some food for your thoughtless movies are real mind as to WHY the Crusades occurred to begin with My Razor-sharp associate.

Why were the Crusades launched? There is a wide variety of opinion on this matter. Some argue that they were a necessary response by Christendom to the oppression of pilgrims in Muslim-controlled Jerusalem. Others claim that it was political imperialism masked by religious piety. Still others argue that it was a social release for a society that was becoming overburdened by landless nobles. There's a bit of truth in all of this.

The most immediate cause for the Crusades is also the most obvious: Muslim incursions into previously Christian lands.

A "Crusade" had been underway on the Iberian peninsula since 711 when Muslim invaders conquered most of the region. Better known as the Reconquista, it lasted until the tiny kingdom of Grenada was reconquered in 1492.

In the East, Muslim attacks on land controlled by the Byzantine Empire had been going on for a long time.

After the battle of Manzikert in 1071, much of Asia Minor fell to the Seljuk Turks, and it was unlikely that this last outpost of the Roman Empire would be able to survive further concentrated assaults. It wasn't long before the Byzantine Christians asked for help from Europe, and it's no surprise that their plea was answered.

A military expedition against the Turks held out a lot of promise, not least of which was the possible reunification of the Eastern and Western churches, should the West prove capable of defeating the Muslim menace which had for so long plagued the East. Aside from that, however, was the fact that if Constantinople fell then all of Europe would be open to invasion, a prospect that weighed heavily on the minds of European Christians.

Another cause for the Crusades was the increase in problems experienced by Christian pilgrims in the region. Pilgrimages were very important to European Christians for religious, social, and political reasons. Anyone who successfully made the long and arduous journey to Jerusalem not only demonstrated their religious devotion, but also became beneficiaries of significant religious benefits. A pilgrimage wiped clean one's plate of sins (sometimes it was a requirement, the sins were so egregious) and in some cases served to minimize future sins as well.
Although under the control of Muslims since 638, Christians had long enjoyed free access to churches and other holy sites in the region. Until 1070, Jerusalem and the surrounding area had been ruled by the Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt. The Fatimids were relatively mild and tolerant, not bothering the many Christian pilgrims who came every year. The arrival of the Seljuk Turks changed all of that, however,

The Seljuks were not nearly so tolerant as the Fatimids, or at least that what the pilgrims returning to Europe told everyone. It's quite possible that many of their stories were exaggerated, but there's no question that a change had occurred and this was cause for a great deal of concern among Christian leaders in the West.
Not all of the causes were quite so noble. We know that the Italian merchant states, already powerful and influential, wished to expand their trade in the Mediterranean. This was being blocked by Muslim control of many strategic seaports, so if Muslim domination of the eastern Mediterranean could be ended or at least significantly weakened, then cities like Venice, Genoa, and Pisa had a chance to enrich themselves further.

The enthusiasm of the people who went off on the Crusades can't be ignored. Although there were a number of distinct campaigns launched, a general "crusading spirit" swept across much of Europe for a long time. Some Crusaders claimed to experience visions of God ordering them to the Holy Land. These usually ended in failure because the visionary was typically a person without any political or military experience. Joining a Crusade was not simply a matter of participating in military conquest: it was a form of religious devotion, particularly among those seeking forgiveness for their sins. Humble pilgrimages had been replaced by armed pilgrimages as church authorities used the Crusades as part of the penance people had to do to repay sins.

Another factor was the proliferation of younger sons. Traditionally in European noble families the eldest son would inherit all of the land. As a result, younger sons inherited nothing. Their growing numbers posed a threat to social stability because these young men had nothing to lose and everything to gain; redirecting their enthusiasm towards foreign lands proved to be a good means for releasing that energy. Not only were their numbers reduced through death, but they also captured new lands to colonize and control

http://atheism.about.com/od/crusades/a/crusades.htm

That is all!

I said "99% of terrorism eminating from Muslims". And I was refering to the present. My figure may be a slight exaggeration but not by much. The text of the bible doesnt support a violent Jihad of conquest. The text of the Koran and Haddiths do.
The new testament is all about "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", "turn the other cheek" and "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" etc. MARK

as I recall - Jerusalim never was actually what you call "Christian land" - if anything it was rather jewish. even Romans who controled it during the time when historically Christ was teaching there - they were not christians. yes, muslims emerged as religion even later than christians, but they were sort of closer geographically to that land than europian christians. jews even now don't belive in Christ - and as I know in Israel and particulalry in Jerusalim they are majority, not christians.

so, again once more - most of times religion is mabused and misused by politicians and other unscrupulous people. its spiritual purpose and value is lost and fogotten behind all the worldy ambitions - like wealth, land, resources. that was the main original point which was challenged.

BTW ustrader - cool icon !

THAT IS ALL !

1922 Christians were 51% of the population of Jerusalem after centuries of decline. Jerusalem and vicinity is the birthplace of Christianity. Islam originated from Arabia. Before the Muslim invasion of the area in the 7th century, the areas of present day syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and North Africa was populated with indigenous Christians, not Europeans. They didnt all convert and yet today Jerusalem is less than 2% Christian even with some immigration of European Christians. MARK

Jihad

In the West, the term 'jihad' has come to be known as something wholly negative - it has been somewhat simplistically described as waging a holy war against infidels. However, in Islam, jihad is something that is positive. It consists of two dimensions: the inner jihad that seeks to curb negative and self-destructive forces within; and the external jihad which is a struggle against violence and tyranny by means of words and actions. As for the latter, it has strict rules of engagement which prohibit destroying civilian life, harming animals and even chopping down trees.

The former type of jihad, said to be the most important, is that of the inner self. Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace, was reported to have said: "The best jihad one performs is that of helping oneself gain more knowledge of Almighty God."11 On another occasion, the Messenger of God addressed his companions, saying: "We are now returning from the minor jihad to the major jihad (that of the struggle of the inner self.)"

Divine Islam.com

I provided 9 cites from the hadiths that demonstrate that Jihad is war. You would have more credibility if you or Osmanli provided EVEN ONE cite to doctrine that supports your point. I know the reason you have not. MARK

I hope I misunderstand. Me? and OM in direct comparison?

Read the Quran... all of it. You won't find that in the Quran. The Quran is the only divine message in the currently named Islam religion, although the book has been brought to the people on several occasions before. The Sunnah, although it may be chock full of good examples of the life that Muhammad lived and I have no doubt that he lived an almost perfectly exemplary life. But he was a messenger (prophet) just as was Noah, Moses and his brother Arron, Abraham, Jesus. The very reason that God sent another messenger in Muhammed was that the people who heard the previous messengers and took their message, elevated them to a status above man and worshipped their life along with the word of God. This is a mistake, IMHO and certainly should not be construed as a judgement, that many Muslim people have made in slipping away from Islam. Muhammed was a man and he made human mistakes, although, almost certainly, not as many as most men. So when modern day Muslims look to the Sunnah for guidance from God they are actually taking guidance from a man.

So I full circle back to... there is a difference between Islam and Muslim.

Islam is the Religion based on following the divine path of God just as was the Jews and Christians.

Muslim are those who proffess to follow that religion.

????? Divine or not the Hadiths are Islamic doctrine and are recognized by Muslims as such. MARK

I would say both Christianity and Islam can be twisted into supporting many different actions. I think we all agree on that much.

Without much effort, however, it is clear to see how much easier it is to twist the Koran to support murder than the Bible. Does the Koran talk about Mohammad participating in actual war?

One of those jihad's was killing non-believers. I'm not sure if that quote was from the Koran or somewhere else, but it is much easier to justify killing non-believers if your prophet did. If this passage was from the Koran, then no twisting of words or meanings is required.

Who was Mohammad in history? I am under the impression that he was a conqueror. I don't know if he gained from his conquest, but I would imagine he did. (I may be completely off base here, someone please rebut if needed). Now compare that with Jesus. A man who forgave those who had turned on him as he was hanging from nails in a piece of wood. Someone has to do a lot of twisting to say that that man would justify conquest against pagans.

I will accept the possibility that Islam is not the problem; that, instead, it is the people's interpretation of it. However, a lot of people have that interpretation. It's not some fringe thing like the Wako stuff. A possible difference with the Crusades is that, during the Crusades, a few leaders paid for an army to kill people. In this jihad, each suicide bomber fully believes they are going to heaven over this. Again, I am no expert on the Crusades or Islam. Please "learn me sumtin' good" if I'm off base.

Seems to me the problem is that the Fundamentalist dont need to twist the words of Islamic doctrine at all. The text supports their position. Unfortunately it is the reformers within Islam that do the twisting of the words. Prior to the reformation Christian text was only for the clergy. Doctrine was what the people were told by the clergy. Not the case any more. MARK

You are using the Muslim terminology for Islam. The Quran has a whole other idea of what Islam is. Just as there are some Christian sects that would not fit into what other Christian sects would say, Allah says they are all wrong.

19. Maryam

(12) (To his son came the command): "O Yahya! take hold of the Book with might": and We gave him Wisdom even as a youth,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(13) And piety (for all creatures) as from Us, and purity: He was devout,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(14) And kind to his parents, and he was not overbearing or rebellious.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(15) So Peace on him the day he was born, the day that he dies, and the day that he will be raised up to life (again)!

19. Maryam

(33) "So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(34) Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute.

Divine Islam

First Pillar (Ash-Shahaadah) [Two Testimonies]

The First Pillar, and the most fundamental, is called the "Two Testimonies" (shahadatayn). These function as a sort of miniature creed. Every Muslim is required to affirm that "there is no god but God". and that "Muhammad is the messenger of God".

The first assertion, announcing that Islam is strictly monotheistic, might be compared to the Old Testament's: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is One." The second of the Two Testimonies tells the believer that this One God wishes to make his preferences known to his erring creatures, and has chosen a prophet like Moses in the Bible - to do this.

Muslim theology claims that God has sent prophets to every people, and that Muhammad was the last of them. After him, according to orthodox Muslim doctrine, the believers are to expect not another prophet, but the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

In Essence the first Pillar of Islam is the acceptance of the testimony that there is no deity but God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.


I agree with your statement "recognized by Muslims". But I disagree that it is Islam.

Who was Muhammed

Was Islam spread by the sword?

According to the Quran: -

(256) لا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ قَدْ تَبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ فَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِالطَّاغُوتِ وَيُؤْمِنْ بِاللَّهِ فَقَدِ اسْتَمْسَكَ بِالْعُرْوَةِ الْوُثْقَى لا انْفِصَامَ لَهَا وَاللَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ
(256) Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

(256) Nulle contrainte en religion! Car le bon chemin s'est distingué de l'égarement. Donc, quiconque mécroît au Rebelle tandis qu'il croit en Allah saisit l'anse la plus solide, qui ne peut se briser. Et Allah est Audient et Omniscient.

(256) Niemand soll zu einem Glauben gezwungen werden. Der Weg der Wahrheit ist klar und von dem des Irrtums abgegrenzt. Wer die Taghût-Teufel verwirft und an Gott glaubt, hält an dem unauflösbaren Bund fest. Gott hört alles und weiß alles.

Al-Qur'an, 2.256 (Al-Baqara [The Cow])

Also referred to as "Ayat-ul-Kursi" (Throne of the Qur'an)

thus, no one can be forced to become a Muslim. While it is true that in many places where Muslim armies went to liberate people or the land, they did carry the sword as that was the weapon used at that time. However, Islam did not spread by the sword because in many places where there are Muslims now, in the Far East like Indonesia, in China, and many parts of Africa, there are no records of any Muslim armies going there. To say that Islam was spread by the sword would be to say that Christianity was spread by guns, F-16's and atomic bombs, etc., which is not true. Christianity spread by the missionary works of Christians. Ten-percent of all Arabs are Christians. The "Sword of Islam" could not convert all the non-Muslim minorities in Muslim countries. In India, where Muslims ruled for 700 years, they are still a minority. In the U.S.A., Islam is the fastest growing religion and has 6 million followers without any sword around.

This I can not verify... I understand that the "Sword of Islam" is a metaphor for "Truth" As in Truth can not be smitten by the mightiest sword.

What is Jihad?

The word "Jihad" means struggle, or to be specific, striving in the cause of God. Any struggle done in day-to-day life to please God can be considered Jihad. One of the highest levels of Jihad is to stand up to a tyrant and speak a word of truth. Control of the self from wrong doings is also a great Jihad. One of the forms of Jihad is to take up arms in defense of Islam or a Muslim country when Islam is attacked. This kind of Jihad has to be declared by the religious leadership or by a Muslim head of state who is following the Quran and Sunnah. The Arabic word Jihad has many meanings and does not just mean Divine or Holy war.

Well, it doesnt break very often. Likely because doctrine proscribes death for apostates who break the hand hold. MARK

anyway, dixon - I'm sure those people who are serious and sincere would always find a lot things to say to you, as well as prove their words by real quotations from reliable sources such as real scriptures as necessary.

however I must point out that you have given an impression of very stubborn and staunch adherence to the very thing which Badawi has been talking about - prejudice - as it has been quoted in the first post of this stress:




you show the perfect example of stereotyped mentality. and I think no amount of common sense reasoning nor providing you with evidences is ever gonna change that.

funny, but reminds me of what my father told me once, after I have repeatedly defeated him in some debate and he practically admited that he has to admit my conclusion. I asked him: do you admit you must agree with this point if you claim to be logical? he said - yes. so, then do you agree with this point ? NO ! why? and his answer was so travially simple: "BECAUSE I DON't LIKE IT !!! "

unfortunately there are more people like you who are staunchly stubborn in their prejudices, and yet even more unfortunate that many of them are foreign policies makers and enforcers !


although US 'could win over Muslim world'



that's the point - not america bashing, but reasoning based on common sense, to help America be a rightfull leader in true sense - respected and supported, not despised and hostlie to !

what do you say, Dixon ? still wanna brand them all as islamo-faschists who follow teachings of violence ?

EEEEEHHH ya freakin #@%#. The topic is Islamic doctrine, not Muslims. Ive not made comments about Muslims in general, only the fundamentalists.
Ive read two translations of the koran cover to cover. Read all the hadiths, probably 15 books written by Islamic scholars and several books on the history of the Islamic empire. I think your the one stubbornly holding onto your views based on ignorance. MARK

alright, learned scholar ! thanks for showing your enlightened self , such an ignorant person as myself can hardly continue talking to your likes - who simply switches to personal offences rather than even trying to have a civil discussion.

I was the one who has started this topic - trsut me, I know what I made it about, otherwise read againg the Original Post.

you were the one who has switched it into anouther direction - never mind that... however you were defeated by someone else (I had no intentions to fight with you) and failed to honestly admit that - an in the end simply ended up in insults, while refusing to come back to the main point - "shift in attitude".

sure - you are much more educated that such an ignorant person as me !

I was only refering to your views on Islamic doctrine. Your level of knowledge about Islamic doctrine is probably on par with most westerners.
And my insults were no worse than your insults directed at me.
And the topic of MY POSTS that you were responding to were about Islamic doctrine. Ive made no generalizations about Muslims as you have accused me of.
And who defeated me? Certainly your not refering to Yang or Osmanli?

MARK

Yes, but here, clearly, the Quran disagrees with that doctrine.

Oh well, Mai Bpen Rai, Boh Bpen Yang, No se preocupa. I wasn't aware that we were in a battle of winner and loser, you and I. If that is what you seek, I have nothing to fight about on the subject. Neither you nor I, in this context, would be the judge of who won and lost anyway. I was simply expressing the point that Islam (one thing) is not being brought into this scenario in an honest way (by whichever doctrine you quote and research). Very much the same as Christianity (one thing) wasn't brought into the ancient crusades scenario in an honest way. Both are/were clouded by greedlust. But both are/were a powerful tool to be used against the God fearing. Both are/were twisted and distorted in favour of the designs of the initiators.

Unfortunately it was the USA that suggested to UBL that he use 'Holy War' to rally support and give his Mujahadeen an unyielding will to fight and die during the days of the Russian occupation. I think it went to his head causing what was previously perceived as a wonderful and mysteriously fascinating people to seem, to many around the world, as if they are all mad dogs. I can't accept this nose bleed drop in (mis)perception as a fact. So working from a point of ignorance I sought the truth as close as I could arrive. My unfaultering conclusion is that the people of the region, and in most cases because of Islam, are in fact a wonderful and mysteriously fascinating people. Not mad dogs at all.

There are those out there who will still feed the mind altering drug of misinformation to the people. Many of these, not most of these, people will succumb to the allure and be affected in a negative, possibly fatal, maybe eternally (certainly not the call of ANY man), negative way by this.

I agree with BBY - and I said same thing (misuse and abuse of religion) in other way.

and yes, I think he and people like him would always defeat you. hopefully their understanding of things will prevail.

otherwise - reasoning that Islam is evil and source of violence is gonna to accomplish nothing else than what recent events had :

Koran blunder transcends media vs. White House



particulalry this last paragraph in the article is synonimous to my point that religion mustn't be misused for political ambitions, and can't be allowed to be misinterpreted :



narrow-minded attitudes only create more hostility and hatred - nothing else.

How so? Entire books have been written trying to counter the dominant Muslim view that death is the penalty for apostasy. Wonder why, if it is so "clear"? Usually requires assuming some of the Hadiths are false. MARK

4.89 . They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve , that ye may be upon a level ( with them ) . So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah ; if they turn back ( to enmity ) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them , and choose no friend nor helper from among them ,

Oh my! Your denial is deep. Sure Yang, just keep on believing this has nothing to do with Wahabbism or what the Muslim Brotherhood has been teaching for decades. Just remove the influence of the US and it all goes away.
Like I said before, people like you and Osmanli ensure that Islam will never be reformed. MARK

One more time. Muslim and Islam is not the same. Christian and Christianty is not the same. Especially when you secularise, which too is not Islam. Reason... there is only one Islam and Islam is all there is, according to the words of Allah in the Quran.

I saw on the news today where some people in some christian sect were doing weird stuff with cats blood and other attrocious stuff. So is that christianity?

If Muslim doctrine is so concise and clear what's the problem between the Sunnis and Shia? They, by secularising, have stepped away from Islam into something that isn't Islam, yet they still call it Islam. My clear understanding, of one most important fact, from what I know of the Quran, and I am no scholar of it, is, Allah dishes out the punishment, Allah decides who goes to heaven, there is no thing that can not be dispensed by Allah. Have faith in Allah not in the words of men.

Did you have a point other than contradicting your earlier claim that "clearly, the Quran disagrees with that doctrine." MARK

Contradicting? How so? Doctrine is the creation of men, not Allah, just as is the compilation of the various Bibles some 200 years after the death of Jesus.

You started with the claim-
"clearly, the Quran disagrees with that doctrine"
and now-
"If Muslim doctrine is so concise and clear what's the problem between the Sunnis and Shia?"
The koran does not disagree "with that doctrine", "clearly" or otherwise. MARK

I still lose your line of thought. sorry.

There is no Shia nor is there Sunni in the Quran. There is only Islam. There is no doctrine there is only the word of Allah as received by Muhammed from the Angel Gabriel. Everything else (doctrine) comes from man, hence, it is the problem not the solution. Muslim is what someone calls themself as a self proclaimed identifier. Islam is Islam. It preceded the Quran, It preceded Muslims, It preceded Christianity, It preceded Judaism, It preceded Noah, It preceded Adam. Man, as has happened so many times before, has corrupted it to fit his needs.

Sure you do. Still waiting for you to back up this claim that the Koran "CLEARLY" doesnt support death for apostates, and your still avoiding the issue. Typical, I find, when discussing Islamic doctrine with a Muslim. MARK

apperantly not all in the world consider Islam as source of all the violence and terror. in fact in the capital of US only few weeks ago was held by the The Center for the Study of Islam & Democracy



Islam & Democracy - last 2005 conference paper
Abstracts and Final Papers:
"Democracy and Development: Challenges for the Islamic World"

6th Annual Conference
Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy

April 22-23, 2005
Marriott Wardman Park Hotel
2660 Woodley Road NW
Washington, D.C. 20005

and as they state in their objectives :



that is important : raising the consiousness, not opposite - making it degrade further by creating unnecessary more hatred and hostility.

there are a lot of interesting observations and thoughts.



perhaps our friend dixon better try bring up his ideas there, since he is so inclined to be a scholar in Islamic studies ?

one thing is sure though: there are a lot of people in this world who realy try to find mutual understanding. otherwise why would in the Washington DC, the caiptal of US, such an institution be founded and maintained ?

I think your friends at CSID probably formed such a group precisely because they recognized the problem. MARK

my friends, huh ? I never even been there in Washington DC and couldn't've possible met them even once to befriend any of them.

so, don't think - just ask them, why don't you? why they've formed their CSID - instead of guessing. you are american too, right? and a scholar in Islamic studies - must be able to contribute a lot of your knowledge of habith etc. as well as elighten them regarding the depths of the problem !

or at least - bother to read what they have to say - some alternative opinions to your own, also well quoted and based on reliable sources etc. - as you claim to be.

Ran across this. Seemed relevant as Yang tries to convince everyone that "clearly, the Quran disagrees with that doctrine" refering to death for apostates. And his similiar arguements about a "Caliphate of love"
Canada has a group similiar to our organization, "The Center for the Study of Islam & Democracy", called the "Islamic Institute of Civil Justice". They were the force behind the Ontario’s Arbitration Act which paved the way for Muslims in Canada to resolve disputes by applying the Shariah if both parties consent. In a caliphate there would be no option. Anyway, Canada has some sanity and doesnt allow them to apply shariah if to do so would violate Canadian law. The Muslims are pushing for an even more universal application of all Shariah laws, taking precedence OVER Canadian law. Here is some exerpts from an essay on their website-

" The sayings and the doings of the Prophet, the decision and practice of the Caliph Abu Bakr, the consensus of the opinion of the Companions of the Prophet and all the later Muslim jurisconsults, and even certain indirect verses of the Quran, all prescribe capital punishment for an apostate. "

" The apostate has to choose between Islam and the sword; he cannot be given quarter, nor will he be allowed to become a dhimrniy i.e. a resident non-Muslim subject of the Muslim State, on payment of the yearly protection tax"

http://muslim-canada.org/conductpt3ch6.html

MARK