Okay, I think I got this Islam thing figured out.

[hoskins]

Chom, PM me and we'll take this offline. I've read a lot of your posts about Islam and the world situation right now. And it's just amazes me how much Americans don't know about the world.

Maybe what you don't know won't kill YOU. But it will kill lots of other people. It will subjugate millions of women. It will destroy other people's lives.

[hoskins]

I know you haven't been here long, so welcome aboard.

Just wanted to let you know that your own life experiences don't mean much to Chom, because he knows everything, despite what you've lived.

Hell, he's been telling me for years that clinton didn't gut the military in the 90's, all based on his experiences as a military brat years ago :laugh:

Thanks. The thing that I couldn't figure out when I came back here the second time (for college) is why there are so many people in this country that seem to hate it so much and want to tear it down.

You have no idea how lucky you are. Even the UK is nothing like this, I'm sorry to say. And the situation in the rest of the EU is really out of hand. And whatever nonsense you hear from the EU elite, the rest of the world still looks to the US to ultimately be the force for good. That hasn't changed.

[Sarge]

Thanks. The thing that I couldn't figure out when I came back here the second time (for college) is why there are so many people in this country that seem to hate it so much and want to tear it down.

You have no idea how lucky you are. Even the UK is nothing like this, I'm sorry to say. And the situation in the rest of the EU is really out of hand. And whatever nonsense you hear from the EU elite, the rest of the world still looks to the US to ultimately be the force for good. That hasn't changed.

I have a little idea, as I've been in the military for over 21 years, with four tours to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. I've seen enough of islam in those areas to have a little clue about what I'm talking about.

And yes, the EU has really gone down the tubes since I was stationed in England in 88. They have only themselves and their lax immigration laws to blame for the London bombngs and the current, ongoing rioting in Paris by muslim youths.

I hope you enjoy your stay here, as long as you're not "one of them"

[Johnny Punani2]

I sent you a private message hoskins...

Please share your background with everyone. Should be very interesting...

[chomerics]

Lunch money? Try something just a little more valuable. And I was Muslim at the time. I was a Muslim for 25 years. 18 years outside of this country. You have NO idea what you're talking about. You haven't lived it.

Which translations of the koran have you read? Bukhari? Ever visit family members and have them say "Fantastic!, the way they finally hit those buggers in New York".

I may not have been a Muslim, but I do know many Muslim people, and not a single one has professed the hatred you are spewing is taught in the US.

Outside the US, yes, there are radical sects of Islam, I've never said this ISN'T the case, but you were professing that the ENTIRE religion is based on hatred, and it is simply not correct, especially in the US!!!

[chomerics]

Problem is more and more of the radicals subscribe to the direct teachings now, unlike Christians who don't go for the literal "eye for an eye" thing anymore.

(That was you saying in all the other threads that George Bush has created more radicals, wasn't it?)

If you take to koran literally, what you get is exactly what hoskins describes.

Sarge, I don't deny that it is taught OUTSIDE the US in this radical form, hell we've had plenty of discussions on this and we BOTH know exactly where this originates.

I am also not equating Christians to Muslims, I am exuating ALL forms of radical religons. They are all lunatics on the fringes, and you have seen terrorism in this country by the extreme christians. . . People like Fred Phelps, abortion bombers etc.

[chomerics]

chomo you gotta tell me why you defend islam but not christianity? Really, you attack christians at the drop of a hat. But when it comes to islam you fight tooth and nail for them it seems. I would expect more consistancy and equal hate for all those who worship the invisible.

It's called balance and experience. Maybe if I grew up muslim and was disenfranchised by the religion, I would do the same against it, but since I have only read hatred professed from the RW, I give the otherside some much needed airtime.

As for defending Islam, I would be defending Christianity if people were saying that it is a religion based on hatred, and they want to distroy everyone not like them, but nobody takes that tact. It's called sticking up for things you do not personally believe in order to achieve balance and give an opposing viewpoint.

[Mad Mike]

No, only you would place a quote from a secular leader who abhored radical Islam as using Islam as propaganda to obtain power. You truly haven't a clue as to what Iraq was, who Saddam Hussen was, and how he operated, your ignorance of diplomacy shows in your post.

I've shown you actual quotes of Saddam referencing Islam AND JIHAD. Do you have some kind of reading problem?

Please by all means, back up your statement with some facts. Show me some quotes from Saddam saying he abhored Islam in any fashion. Because the one without a clue is you.

BTW nice ad hominem attack. :laugh:

[Prosperity]

I've shown you actual quotes of Saddam referencing Islam AND JIHAD. Do you have some kind of reading problem?

Please by all means, back up your statement with some facts. Show me some quotes from Saddam saying he abhored Islam in any fashion. Because the one without a clue is you.

BTW nice ad hominem attack. :laugh:

why do you take some of Saddam's words as absolute truths and others as blatant lies. It is obvious that Saddam uses Islam to gain political points with the religious conservative crowd. Just like he used pan-arab bs in the war against Iran.

[hoskins]

I may not have been a Muslim, but I do know many Muslim people, and not a single one has professed the hatred you are spewing is taught in the US.

Outside the US, yes, there are radical sects of Islam, I've never said this ISN'T the case, but you were professing that the ENTIRE religion is based on hatred, and it is simply not correct, especially in the US!!!

Like I said, there are Muslims, particularly in the West, who are good people in spite of Islam. I believe that happens because people are inherently good and if they are removed from Islam, either because they don't study it very well or because they take on Kafir friends, then they become nominal Muslims.

But that's changing. People are becoming more educated in Islam and there is no doubt fundamentalism and the call for sharia and the caliphate is rising dramatically even among so called "moderate" Muslims who live here in the US.

But ultimately Islam is as much a political movement as it is a religion. And you cannot arbitrarily seperate the two. We call the polical movement (the establishment of the caliphate and sharia) Islamism. But there's no truth in that. Islam IS Islamism. and Islamism is Islam.

The other thing you have to remember is that to become a Muslim or to accept Islam, particularly after you study the life of the prophet, you have to accept a massive cognitive dissonance. After that, it's hard sometimes to be honest with yourself about that Islam is, let alone other people.

[The Sir]

Don't we have some muslims posting here at ES?

[Sarge]

Like I said, there are Muslims, particularly in the West, who are good people in spite of Islam. I believe that happens because people are inherently good and if they are removed from Islam, either because they don't study it very well or because they take on Kafir friends, then they become nominal Muslims.

But that's changing. People are becoming more educated in Islam and there is no doubt fundamentalism and the call for sharia and the caliphate is rising dramatically even among so called "moderate" Muslims who live here in the US.

But ultimately Islam is as much a political movement as it is a religion. And you cannot arbitrarily seperate the two. We call the polical movement (the establishment of the caliphate and sharia) Islamism. But there's no truth in that. Islam IS Islamism. and Islamism is Islam.

The other thing you have to remember is that to become a Muslim or to accept Islam, particularly after you study the life of the prophet, you have to accept a massive cognitive dissonance. After that, it's hard sometimes to be honest with yourself about that Islam is, let alone other people.

You were speaking of the EU.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1605653,00.html

The return of the caliphate

There is no reason why the west should set its face against the vision of a reunited Islamic world

Osama Saeed

Tuesday November 1, 2005

The Guardian

It came as news to many Muslims, and probably non-Muslims too, that one of the things "fundamental to our civilisation" is opposition to any recreation of the Islamic caliphate. That is according to the home secretary, Charles Clarke, speaking last month as an honoured guest of the neocon Heritage Foundation in the US.

It follows hard on the heels of similar comments made by both Tony Blair and George Bush. With such luminaries pushing the policy, there must be significance to the words. The caliphate was wiped from the map, the message seems to be, and they want to keep it wiped.

The institution they attack is the idea of a united political leadership of the Muslim world, which was destroyed in 1924 after about 1,350 years. Following the death of the Prophet Muhammad, caliphs were appointed to the leadership of the Muslims. In the ensuing centuries, the centre and nature of this power moved around, resting in Istanbul at the time of its destruction.

In its dynamic period, the Islamic caliphate was at the heart of a great civilisation, leading the world in science, philosophy, law, maths and astronomy.

More recently, the Muslim world has had artificial lines drawn all over it, most notably by Mr Sykes and Mr Picot during the first world war. The borders were defined for the colonial masters to extract what they needed and keep the natives divided. Western leaders are still determined today to defend these borders.

However, if Bush and Blair are serious about reform in Muslim countries, it must include not just democratic reform, but also economic development. As the people of the US and the EU know, creating economic blocks to allow this to happen is an imperative. No one argues that each federal state would be better off on its own not being part of the US. The EU managed to bring together a war-ravaged continent, on the basis of economic cooperation, which has led to further union. India and China are emerging economically because of their size, an advantage the Islamic world would also enjoy if united.

There can be no doubt that there will eventually be a similar model for Muslim countries. Both the US and EU are structurally unique, and so will be any Islamic model. Instead of a president or a commission, there might be what is called a caliph. It's not the names but what the institutions do - and how they are accountable - that matters.

There is no point in comparing the political form a caliphate might take to those in centuries past. Institutions such as the British monarchy or the papacy have existed for centuries, but bear little resemblance today to what's gone before. A restored caliphate is entirely compatible with democratically accountable institutions.

But what about the issue of sharia? Opposing it is apparently also one of the western world's raisons d'etre, according to Clarke. Terms such as "sharia" and "caliphate" have important meanings to Muslims quite different from the distorted connotations they often carry in the west. The aim of Islamic law, contrary to popular belief, is not punishment by death or amputation of body parts. It is to create a peaceful and just society, with Islamic scholars over centuries citing its core aims: the freedom to practise religion; protection of life; safeguarding intellect; maintaining lineage and individual rights. This could be the basis for an Islamic bill of rights.

These principles don't seem dramatic and far-flung, or even dissimilar to those in the west, so Bush, Blair and Clarke should explain why they oppose them so vehemently. Their stance belies their claim that they differentiate between al-Qaida and Islam as a religion, giving added credence to those who believe they are conducting a war against Islam itself, not just terror. In their meddling in other people's affairs they have forgotten it is for people themselves to decide how they are governed.

The irony of Clarke's Washington speech was that it was supposed to be about creating global security. The lack of legitimate leadership, coupled with a sense of humiliation, has led to widespread political instability in the Muslim world with its consequences for the wider world. The naked self-interest of divide and rule has backfired.

The vision of any kind of new caliphate, shared by Muslims worldwide, is a distant one. Right now, even talk of bringing down trade barriers and free flow of people across Muslim states seems radical. But it is a vision that is needed, and one that should actually be supported by the US and Britain if they are sincere about the development of the Muslim world. The revival of a strong Muslim civilisation would be for the betterment of the whole world.

· Osama Saeed is a spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain

osama@iwitness.co.uk

[hoskins]

I sent you a private message hoskins...

Please share your background with everyone. Should be very interesting...

Thanks, I think I'm going to wait until the sting of Sunday's loss has subsided a bit. I'm a little on edge this week and I know it puts an edge into my writing.

I'm sorry if it came across that I hate Muslims. I hate Islam because it's a very destructive and dangerous political ideology. And I'm angry with Muslims who try to hide that fact or gloss over it. It's deceitful and I have a real problem with that. But for the most part I know how the cult operates. And I know most Muslims are victims more than anything else. I hope one day they will be saved.

And I'm horrified at the partnership or alliance that is emerging between the leftists in America and Islam. I understand why it's happening, because the left and Islam have a common enemy. But it's really scary, really stupid, and really dangerous.

I saw some pictures from a Anti-Israel rally in Berkeley. Some idiots were there with a sign that read "Queers for a free Palestine".

Are you kidding me???? Do these people have any idea how gay people are treated in Muslim countries? I'm sure a majority of gay people oppose Islam because obviously Islamic law is 10 times worse than the worst caricature of a right-wing theocracy. But this merry band of anti-establishment jackasses in Berkeley obviously weren't thinking this through too well.

[chomerics]

I've shown you actual quotes of Saddam referencing Islam AND JIHAD. Do you have some kind of reading problem?

Oh yea, the words of Saddam proves that he was a threat, man, how much Kool Aid have you actually had this week?

One more time Saddam was a SECULAR leader. You do know what that means don't you? It means that he didn't have a state sponsered religion!!!

Do you have ANY inclinging WHY he ran a secular country? Here, why don't you do some reading of actual FACTS, not propaganda, you do know the difference don't you?

Saddam Hussein as a secular leader

Saddam saw himself as a social revolutionary and a modernizer, following the model of Nasser. To the consternation of Islamic conservatives, his government gave women added freedoms and offered them high-level government and industry jobs. Saddam also created a Western-style legal system, making Iraq the only country in the Persian Gulf region not ruled according to traditional Islamic law (Sharia). Saddam abolished the Sharia law courts, except for personal injury claims.

Gee Mike, why do you think he was the ONLY country in the Middle East that DIDN'T rule according to Islamic Law??? Oh yea, I almost forgot because he LOVED Islam:doh: :hammer:

Continue reading. . .

Domestic conflict impeded Saddam's modernizing projects. Iraqi society is divided along lines of language, religion and ethnicity; Saddam's government rested on the support of the 20 percent minority of largely working-class, peasant, and petite bourgeoisie Sunni Muslims, continuing a pattern that dates back at least to the British mandate authority's reliance on them as administrators.

The Shi'a majority were long a source of opposition to the government due to its secular policies, and the Ba'ath Party was increasingly concerned about potential Sh'ia Islamist influence following the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The Kurds of northern Iraq (who are Sunni Muslims but not Arabs) were also permanently hostile to the Ba'athist party's Arabizing tendencies. To maintain his regime against sources of opposition, the core of Saddam's government was made up of a retinue of close relatives and members of his Tikriti tribe.

In dealing with Shiites, Kurds, Communists, and other likely regime opponents, the government tended either to provide them with benefits so as to co-opt them into the regime, or to take repressive measures against them. The major instruments for accomplishing this control were the paramilitary and police organizations. Beginning in 1974, Taha Yassin Ramadan, a close associate of Saddam, commanded the People's Army, which was responsible for internal security. As the Ba'ath Party's paramilitary, the People's Army acted as a counterweight against any coup attempts by the regular armed forces. In addition to the People's Army, the Department of General Intelligence (Mukhabarat) was the most notorious arm of the state security system, feared for its use of torture and assassination. It was commanded by Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti, Saddam's younger half-brother. Since 1982, foreign observers believed that this department operated both at home and abroad in their mission to seek out and eliminate perceived opponents of Saddam Hussein. [3]

Saddam's internal security regime achieved notoriety for its extreme ruthlessness. In 1982, an assassination attempt was mounted against Saddam in the town of Dujail 40 km (25 miles) north of Baghdad. In retaliation, Saddam's security forces attacked the town, killing and executing up to 160 of its inhabitants, including a number of children. Around 1,500 townspeople were sent to prison and tortured, and the entire town was punished by having 1,000 square kilometres (250,000 acres) of farmland destroyed; replanting was only permitted 10 years later. The events in Dujail became the subject of criminal charges following Saddam's overthrow in 2003. [4]

Saddam justified Iraqi patriotism by claiming a unique role of Iraq in the history of the Arab world. As president, Saddam made frequent references to the Abbasid period, when Baghdad was the political, cultural, and economic capital of the Arab world. He also promoted Iraq's pre-Islamic role as the ancient cradle of civilization Mesopotamia, alluding to such historical figures as Nebuchadrezzar and Hammurabi. He devoted resources to archaeological explorations. In effect, Saddam sought to combine pan-Arabism and Iraqi nationalism, by promoting the vision of an Arab world united and led by Iraq.

As a sign of his consolidation of power, Saddam's personality cult pervaded Iraqi society. Thousands of portraits, posters, statues and murals were erected in his honor all over Iraq. His face could be seen on the sides of office buildings, schools, airports, and shops, as well as on Iraqi currency. Saddam's personality cult reflected his efforts to appeal to the various elements in Iraqi society. He appeared in the costumes of the Bedouin, the traditional clothes of the Iraqi peasant (which he essentially wore during his childhood), and even Kurdish clothing, but also appeared in Western suits, projecting the image of an urbane and modern leader. Sometimes he would also be portrayed as a devout Muslim, wearing full headdress and robe, praying toward Mecca.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

So please is this why we invaded Iraq Mike, because Saddam doesn't like us? Is that your point? Oh wait, you HAVE NO POINT!!!!

Do you want more evidence that Saddam was a secular leader?

How about from the CATO Institute???

The Bush administration hopes that Iraqis will replace Saddam Hussein's secular socialism with a new breed of secular liberalism. This ideal government would be committed to free enterprise, respect the rights of women, be tolerant toward ethnic and religious minorities, be favorably disposed towards Israel, and open and hospitable for American diplomats and businessmen.

source

Well, I guess that thought's right out the window huh. . .Secular libralism HA, what a freakin JOKE!!!

Do you want more, or are you going to tuck your tail between your legs and give up? Do you STILL not believe that Saddam ran a secular government? Do you still not understand WHY he ran the government like he did?

You see Mike, not only are you completely oblivious to everything that goes on in the world, you haven't a single clue as to how or why Saddam was ABLE to rule in a country like Iraq for 25+ years. No, you think inside your bubble, that everything is fine, well bubble boy, things are not fine, they are as bad as your lame arguments about Saddam not being secular.

[chomerics]

And I'm horrified at the partnership or alliance that is emerging between the leftists in America and Islam. I understand why it's happening, because the left and Islam have a common enemy. But it's really scary, really stupid, and really dangerous.

Well, I am a leftist and I am not making an alliance with Islam.

The only really dangerous thing is your rhetoric because it leads to fear and prejudices. You may have you own personal beliefs based on experience in the ME, but based in America it is NOT how things work. Maybe you should spend more time at US mosques, and learn the Islam they teach, or talk with some of the ES Muslims, because their experience is nothing like youre. This is America, not some piss ant third world country, so that may have something to do with it.

[hoskins]

Sarge, MAB are the most unbelievable spin-meisters. And even they are considered too "moderate" by other groups.

"Freedom of Religion" under Sharia is a joke. If you are non-Muslim at the time your community comes under control of the caliphate, then, yes you do not have to become muslim. You can continue to practice your religion in private as long as you submit to all the Sharia laws, EVEN if they may contradict your religion. There is never any question about which religion is the supreme law of the land. But you can be a second class citizen, and pay a special tax (otherwise called protection money), if you want. Of course your kids will go to state schools where they will learn the "truth" about how Islam is the only real religion, etc., etc. (Pick up a state accepted textbook from Saudi Arabia if you're curious.)

But maybe some people don't mind living like that, fine, but the killer freedom issue is for the Muslims. If we lived under a caliphate, all you guys who are Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, whatever can continue. But I, because I was born a Muslim, cannot! If I choose to follow the way of Buddha, I'm done. I'm an apostate, and that is a capital crime. So if your parents are Muslim, you have no freedom to choose your own religion. And neither will your children.

[MoeRedskins]

When the Muslims started saying "It's a religion of peace", we misunderstood.

It sounded like they were saying "peace", but it was the other word that

sounds the same, "piece."

So it's actually "A religion of Piece"

As in :

1- They want a PIECE of everyone.

2-They want their suicide bombers to blow up people into PIECES.

3-They only have a PIECE of truth - the other 99 % of their religion is a lie.

And this is a post of ignorance

[hoskins]

Well, I am a leftist and I am not making an alliance with Islam.

The only really dangerous thing is your rhetoric because it leads to fear and prejudices. You may have you own personal beliefs based on experience in the ME, but based in America it is NOT how things work. Maybe you should spend more time at US mosques, and learn the Islam they teach, or talk with some of the ES Muslims, because their experience is nothing like youre. This is America, not some piss ant third world country, so that may have something to do with it.

I probably failed to mention I have lived in this country, on and off, for a total of 16 years.

So please ask your Muslim friends whether they believe in Sharia law. Or whether they believe that eventually the whole world should live under Sharia. That's a direct, easy question. See what response you get.

And go to a mosque one day. Not the interfaith stuff or the Eid prayers. Just normal Friday service. After the khutba (sermon), there are a number of supplications usually in Arabic. At the large mosque here in Falls Church, it will be in Arabic. At the smaller services like you find downtown in office buildings or in schools, it's sometimes a weird mix of Arabic and Urdu. Count how many times you hear the word "Yahud" in the supplications.

An interesting comment you make about "piss ant" countries. Liberals often talk about how it's horrible that American women could potentially have to live without abortions and so forth, but it seems like they don't give a rat's butt about how 700+ million Muslim women live in other countries.

And keep in mind the Muslims in the "piss ant" countries are the VAST majority of Muslims in the world. If you go to a large mosque like the one in Falls Church, VA, you'll see that even in America the majority of muslims are recent immigrants or visitors/students from those same ME countries. And they bring with them the same Islam we were taught back home.

[hoskins]

Another experiment for you Chom, since you live in Boston.

Go to the MSA meetings at MIT or Tufts. Listen to the prayers there. Listen to what they hope for in terms of their world vision. Go to the lectures they sponsor and the rallies.

And then go to small mosque in Dorchester. I think it was called Masjid Quran if I remember correctly. Ask the Imam about Jews, what he thinks about them. Better yet, get someone Muslim to ask him and record it so he'll tell the truth. I don't know what you look like, but if you appear to be non-muslim, he probably won't tell you the truth. But since you are friends with so many Muslims, all you have to do is ask them to ask for you.

Read Irshad's Manji's book to hear what her experiences were like in Canada.

[Ignatius J.]

Asking a muslim if they think the whole world should live under sharia is a dumb question. The answer will be yes, but it won't mean what you think it means.

Ask a christian if they think we should all live according to god's laws and they will say yes, too. In your world you think that means we have to stone people? Not at all. and no real christian thinks that we should either.

So your "experiment" is pretty meaningless.

[hoskins]

For those of you in the DC area. Go the ADAMS mosque near Herdon/Sterling one day. They've cleaned up their rhetoric a lot since several years ago. But again count how many "Yahud"s you hear in the Arabic. Ask the imam what he thinks about the caliphate.

[hoskins]

Asking a muslim if they think the whole world should live under sharia is a dumb question. The answer will be yes, but it won't mean what you think it means.

Ask a christian if they think we should all live according to god's laws and they will say yes, too. In your world you think that means we have to stone people? Not at all. and no real christian thinks that we should either.

So your "experiment" is pretty meaningless.

Right, no real Christians believe in stoning people. But Muslims do. Sharia law is documented and practiced elsewhere in the world today. It's not ambigious about whether gay people should be executed or whether fornicators should be stoned. Muslims (and their apologists) like to imply that there could be some "new" improved Sharia. But where is that documented? According the Islam, the quran is immutable. Which makes Sharia immutable.

Ask a Christian if they think Leviticus should be the law of the land. Ask a muslim whether Sharia should be the law of the land. You see the difference?

Ask a Christian whether the law of the land should be that if you are Christian and change your mind you should be killed.

[Ignatius J.]

nevermind. I think this is better said in a pm.

[hoskins]

nevermind. I think this is better said in a pm.

You're right. It's sort of ridiculous to talk about this on a sports site anyway.

I understand that people who grew up in the west automatically respect any religion and political movement. I think that's admirable as a default reaction. But in this case, I think it's dangerous.

But whatever. A few of you have PMed. Anybody else who wants any references to where to buy Bukhari or any other source books, PM me.

I'm going to put together recordings and transcripts and publish those on my own site hopefully by the end of this year. If I can pull back the curtain on this religion a little, maybe that's my tribute to all those who have lost their lives to the "Religion of Peace".

Chom, feel free to have the last word on this...

[Sarge]

Well, I am a leftist and I am not making an alliance with Islam.

Hasn't that been you defending islam and dogging Christianity, or did someone hack your account?

Maybe you should spend more time at US mosques,

You mean the Saudi one in Fairfax VA that has maps of the ME with no Isreal depicted?

That'll help.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/008046.php