To Muslims

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by commonsense, I said the SAUDI FLAG has a sword on it. Take a look at it. You know, George Bush's buddies, the Saudi's? I'm as much a fan of Christianity as I am of Mohammedanism, so I take no particular offense to the references made here to the hymn "Onward Christian Soldiers" ...the next line of which is: marching AS IF to war.... Which is obviously a metaphorical reference serving to urge them to proselytize others, a trait shared by both Christianity and Islam. Anyone at all versed in history understands that the "Crusades" were minor as military efforts, generally carried out by privateers, for oportunistic and not ideological reasons, and fairly inconsequential even relative to their historical period.

What is the point concerning the flags. They have nothing to do with the symbols of Islam regardless. The point is conversion by the sword is not a commandment of Islam.

The crusades were neither minor nor inconsequential. They also sacked and destroyed the Christian city of Constantinople, which as a consequence weakened the defenses of Europe.The crusades were a significant military campaign that set in motion future efforts of Europe to conquer and control the Holy Lands. Which in turn brought the fall of Constantinople and Islamic invasions of Europe.Napolian in turn invaded the Middle East and failed.The outcome of the wars in the 1800's and WWI then resulted in the Allies trying divide up and colonize the Middle East.

The Allies supported the formation of the State of Isreal. Making them a party of a continuing Religious Conflict for the Control of the Holy turf. Historically this a long and bloody conflict. The consequeces extend to Yugoslavian conflicts which in turn contributed to the start of WWI, which also has a very bloody history and roots that go as far back as the Crusades.

Islam believes it is fighting a defensive war against invasions from Christian and Jewish Zionist claims and interests and they are justifyied in this view in history.

In reality there are no angels in these conflict. All are guilty of coveting land that in reality belongs to everyone.

[commonsense]

What is the point concerning the flags. They have nothing to do with the symbols of Islam regardless. The point is conversion by the sword is not a commandment of Islam.

That chicken-scratch above the sword on the Saudi flag says "There is only one true God and Allah is his name".....

R-i-i-i-ght.... No significance whatsoever.

By no means do I advocate what our present government run amok in its ostensible efforts to combat the violent clash of cultures exemplified by the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01, but it is pure blind acceptance of the destructive, anti-american propaganda being preached in our schools by our own domestic america-hating socialists that will be the end of our own culture---which immigration to the west proves it to be the envy of the world.

Whether it is the exception or not, schoolchildren across the arab world are in fact, in great numbers being fanatically militarized against the west, while our own are concurrently mislead not only about the threat to our own existence, but worse, the very validity of our own western culture.

Whether it is "perfect" or not, (by what ethical/moral standard?) the American way of life is the goal of the rest of the world apart from Mohammedan fundamentalists--- excepting also, of course, those who have come through the socialist-dominated school of western "education".

We are indeed in the middle of a cultural war, and americans on all sides are deluded or blind to the ulterior forces behind whichever outlook they subscribe to, or have been indoctrinated in...

Look to history and show me a culture better than ours, with all its flaws, that has brought more prosperity, health and peace of mind than does ours, even to the point of its own fatal flaw of its beneficiaries unwittingly advancing its own destruction from within, based on its own perverted, devolved version of its morality of "fairness"---while at the same time being attacked from without as well as by its self-serving "intellectuals" and "moralists" from within.

No society can survive that for long, and that is precisely the goal of our academics.

The answer?
A cultural reawakening within the confines of our superior morality, yet tempered with a little reality..... an understanding and acceptance of the limitations of human nature, by:
Rejecting the self-serving nature of power, regardless under which banner it flies, be it "patriotism" or politics...
But also a sociological reawakening of a demand for immigrant groups outside the traditional western roots of American culture to first, police themselves of their own radicals, who are the enemy of their own westernized ideals in coming here to improve their lives, and second, in this manner, prove themselves as being at least partially integrated with us culturally as well as short-term economically, lest America cease to exist.

There is much un-thought-out blather being bandied about in these posts decrying the sin of "colonization" by the west of less-developed parts of the world... clearly parroting of what their sick, socialist ideologue teachers and professors have told them, calling it a "sponging-off" of these ancient civilizations wealth, natural esources and corruption of their culture, causing them to cease to exist in their traditional, valid, sacrosanct forms...

Well now, largely, having adopted much of Western civilations standards, is it not logical, is it not "fair" to view their influx and destruction of our freedom, changing our concerns of violence in our evryday lives we never had before... and the degradation of our culture as equally invasive, equally brutal as was the colonizations of the past?

[Mia]

Mhd, I disagree (surprise, surprise....). I don't have to do all that you are saying to have a valid opinion.

I can look at the doctrines and beliefs and lifestyle and have a good idea of what I am more comfortable with and what makes sense to me.

Also, was it not the first Alawite President that liberated women in Syria? I don't think it's a coincidence that every Sunni and Shia country oppresses women, and you will have to put up some hard facts to even try to convince me otherwise.

[Mia]

Commonsense, I know you said here that it was the Saudi flag, but you said elsewhere it was Iraq, and then realized that took you nowhere because that was Saddam, not Muhammad or Islam!!!! So now you're trying to play another useless angle.

And I thought it said "and Muhammad is His messenger..."

You should at least know what the 'f' you're talking about before you get on here with your bigoted rants that tell us more about you than what you're trying to tell us about them. Oh, wait, you are one of 'them', aren't you?

What in the hell are you even doing in this country?

[commonsense]

Mia,
You're a perfect student.

[Mia]

Not remotely related to topic, but thanks for the lesson.

[MHD_UK]

Originally posted by Mia, Mhd, I disagree (surprise, surprise....). I don't have to do all that you are saying to have a valid opinion. I can look at the doctrines and beliefs and lifestyle and have a good idea of what I am more comfortable with and what makes sense to me. Also, was it not the first Alawite President that liberated women in Syria? I don't think it's a coincidence that every Sunni and Shia country oppresses women, and you will have to put up some hard facts to even try to convince me otherwise.

Hi Mia,

Actually, I doubt that you have looked at the beliefs and lifestyle of Alawite, and that you ever lived among them for as long as I have. Their beliefs and lifestyle might look good in your opinion, but this does not mean they are real muslims and others are not!

"was it not the first Alawite President that liberated women in Syria?"

No.

"...every Sunni and Shia country oppresses women"

Untrue. Jordan is a Sunni country and it does not opress women. Egypt is a Sunni country and it does not opress women. Syria has a majority of Sunni (even in the government) and it does not opress women.

The thing is, the policy of a leader does not reflect, or emerge from, his belief or sect.

[Mia]

You can't say that. How can a persons religious beliefs not influence his policy? It absolutely does.

Also, I didn't say Sunni's and Shia's are not real Muslims, just that they say that Alawites aren't and if anything, they seem more real to me.

Key words "to me".

In Jorden, women most certainly are still oppressed. Maybe not in the capital, but in the surrounding areas. Queen Noor had to defy convention to attend her husband's funeral!

I don't know much about Egypt so cannot comment.

Alawites do not believe in all the restrictions on women that Sunni's and to a lesser extent Shia's do, so that has to be part of why Assad lifted the veil in Syria.

I've done my homework - he did that.

The Sunni scholars preach oppression of women, I have read the sites of theirs you provided for me, so it was your own sources that strengthened my belief about that!

In Sunni and Shia circles, women must leave the room when guests come over so the men won't see them. Please don't try to act like there are not archaic rules that lessen women.

I know more than you seem to think I do about it.

I know many people over here of all three of these so I have knowledge beyond reading.

You like to attempt to indoctrinate me on one way (yours) being the only right way and I simply don't agree with you!

If you said you've studied different brands of Christianity and one seemed closer to what you believe in your religion, I would respect that.

[farside]

[SIZE=2]The star and crescent is an ancient pagan symbol and was used on many Roman coins. As stated earlier in this thread, many Islamic countries use the star and crescent in their national flags. For pictures of the flags and coins go to

[/SIZE] http://members.lycos.nl/whatsthisthe...cent-star.html

[SIZE=2] Kind Regards,
Farside [/SIZE]

[Suburbanite]

the Ottoman Empire used the symbol, and they just influenced (forced) other muslim countries. It might also have ties to flags used by Rome pre-Christ.

[Mia]

The Ottoman Empire imposed a lot on Muslim nations and created a lot of the misconceptions Westerners have of Islam, IMO.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Mia, The Ottoman Empire imposed a lot on Muslim nations and created a lot of the misconceptions Westerners have of Islam, IMO.

Some misconceptions probably originated with the Ottomans, but the Christian opposition to Islam over the years creates many misconceptions, myths and false beliefs without any help from the Ottomans.

[Mia]

Originally posted by shunyadragon,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (shunyadragon,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Mia, The Ottoman Empire imposed a lot on Muslim nations and created a lot of the misconceptions Westerners have of Islam, IMO.

Some misconceptions probably originated with the Ottomans, but the Christian opposition to Islam over the years creates many misconceptions, myths and false beliefs without any help from the Ottomans.[/b][/quote]

I agree. Additionally, many of the practices with regard to women and many other things were actually learned from, and aquired due to Western influence.

So it's ironic we criticise so much on some of those things!

[Comrade]

Well, we don't do them anymore and they do, I don't think its that ironic (assuming you are right and say, the Koran doesn't define treatment of women).

[Mia]

Comrade, the Quran defines a woman's role better than the Bible and gives her more stature and status than the Bible.

Westerners DO still treat women badly in the home and in society. :rolleyes:

You need to clarify which Westerners you are comparing to which "them's" to more accurately and intelligently discuss or debate the differences.

I shall wait with baited breath..... (to win, that is)

[Comrade]

What do I care bout what the Bible says, I'm not a Christian, and I don't know about you but I don't think we have a Christian version of sharia going on.

Really? I don't see a whole lot of that going on. Please point me to the nearest woman being beaten with sticks by roving bands of religious police for driving or revealing her face or walking without a family member around so I can see for myself.

Meanwhile, I'm going to go think about women CEOs and child care areas at offices.

(it's 'bated', as in abate-ment or suspension)

[farside]

[SIZE=2]The Story of the Printing Press built by Gutenberg (1436) [/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]I. Printing Press in Europe[/SIZE]

"Thus, intellectual life soon was no longer the exclusive domain of church and court, and literacy became a necessity of urban existence. The printing press stoked intellectual fires at the end of the Middle Ages, helping usher in an era of enlightenment. This great cultural rebirth was inspired by widespread access to and appreciation for classical art and literature, and these translated into a renewed passion for artistic expression. Without the development of the printing press, the Renaissance may never have happened. Without inexpensive printing to make books available to a large portion of society, the son of John Shakespeare, a minor government official in rural England in the mid-1500s, may never have been inspired to write what are now recognized as some of history's greatest plays. What civilization gained from Gutenberg's invention is incalculable." Source - http://www.ideafinder.com/history/in...s/story039.htm

[SIZE=2]II. Printing Press in Islam (Ottoman Empire)[/SIZE]

"The classic case was the printing press, which Islam vigorously resisted. In 1485, a decree by the Ottoman sultan, Beyazid II, banned this new invention, on the grounds that it would be sacrilegious to use the Arabic language in mechanical equipment. The Koran and Arabic were so closely entwined that the language itself demanded pious treatment, which it wasn't likely to get from printers. Furthermore, printing threatened Islamic calligraphers, who became its powerful enemies. Jewish publishers could operate in Turkey only so long as they did not use Arabic.[color=blue] Printing in Arabic was illegal until the first half of the 18th century, and even then it grew slowly. When Napoleon arrived in Egypt in 1798, Cairo had no presses.[/color] By then, European thinkers had been educating one another through books for more than two centuries." Source - http://www.robertfulford.com/Islam.html


[SIZE=2]Kind Regards,
Farside[/SIZE]

[Mia]

Originally posted by Comrade, What do I care bout what the Bible says, I'm not a Christian, and I don't know about you but I don't think we have a Christian version of sharia going on. Really? I don't see a whole lot of that going on. Please point me to the nearest woman being beaten with sticks by roving bands of religious police for driving or revealing her face or walking without a family member around so I can see for myself. Meanwhile, I'm going to go think about women CEOs and child care areas at offices. (it's 'bated', as in abate-ment or suspension)

One more time, you will need to clarify which countries of which you speak.

Name one instance of anything remotely like that in Syria, for instance, which is a Muslim country.

Doesn't happen. Women over there are protected more than here. They don't have anything to fear from rape, like I do just walking to my mailbox or out of a mall, and they are just as protected by police from within their home as here.

I brought in the Bible because it is believed that this treatment of women in countries like KSA, who do what you describe, come from the religion, which it does not, any more than mistreatment of women over here comes from the Christian or any other religion.

KSA is the way it is because the rulers twist the religion to suit their purposes.

Guns don't kill people, people do, right?

Well, religious leaders treat women badly, not the religion.

Savvy? ;-)

[Comrade]

If you fear being raped going out to your mailbox then you need to try and figure out what the 2nd amendment is for, or move out of that neighborhood.

Yes, I am talking about fundamental Islam. Wahhabi stuff. The roving bands of men with sticks? Saudi Arabia.

I really can't take the arguement seriously that women are as mistreated over here and women have it just fine and dandy in Iran, and I've yet to see you say that any mistreatment of women is sanctioned by the government (I'm pretty sure rape is illegal), so I don't see your point.

And I don't believe our "treatment" of women stems from the Bible. I think our "treatment" of women stems from thirty years of feminism.

(btw, I think you meant Libya)