Many Muslims seem to believe that it is acceptable to teach hatred and violence in the name of their religion -- while at the same time expecting the world to respect Islam as a religion of peace, love and harmony.

"While many religious texts preach violence, the interpretation, modern usage and implementation of these teachings make all the difference." Words don't kill. If they did, we'd never have survived the bible.

Christians Crusaders murdered Jews and Arabs by the 1,000. The IDF kill Arabs in 1,000s now in Gaza. Israel is a Jewish state for a Jewish people. Ergo, Judaism is a religion of death, not peace, on the logic that "Muslims Should Prove that Islam is a Religi...

Many Muslims seem to believe that it is acceptable to teach hatred and violence in the name of their religion -- while at the same time expecting the world to respect Islam as a religion of peace, love and harmony.

"While many religious texts preach violence, the interpretation, modern usage and implementation of these teachings make all the difference." Words don't kill. If they did, we'd never have survived the bible.

Christians Crusaders murdered Jews and Arabs by the 1,000. The IDF kill Arabs in 1,000s now in Gaza. Israel is a Jewish state for a Jewish people. Ergo, Judaism is a religion of death, not peace, on the logic that "Muslims Should Prove that Islam is a Religion of Peace".

By a similar logic, American killed Iraqis by many 1,000s. Americas claim a Christian god. So are Christians, Jews or Muslims to be judged by words or actions?

What's one got to do with other? Muslims have all the right moment to adopt change of moderation wherever necessary. It is not a burden of proof but rather an opportunity

"What's one got to do with other?" I must be missing something. It's still not clear or certain who were the perpetrators of 9/11 or other incidents. I do know for certain who attacked Afghanistan, turning the then legal Taliban against the West. I do know who killed 1,000s of Iraqi. I do know who kills 1,000s of Arabs. I know of the CIA's past and present.

Do you expect Muslims to change words that do not kill while the West kills with extraordinary weapons? What am I missing? Do we expect that they ape u...

What's one got to do with other? Muslims have all the right moment to adopt change of moderation wherever necessary. It is not a burden of proof but rather an opportunity

"What's one got to do with other?" I must be missing something. It's still not clear or certain who were the perpetrators of 9/11 or other incidents. I do know for certain who attacked Afghanistan, turning the then legal Taliban against the West. I do know who killed 1,000s of Iraqi. I do know who kills 1,000s of Arabs. I know of the CIA's past and present.

Do you expect Muslims to change words that do not kill while the West kills with extraordinary weapons? What am I missing? Do we expect that they ape us but without the means or time to do so, and kill them for not compiling? We steal their only asset through Western appointed depots and complain at their lack of democracy. We foist Israel on them as an example of democracy yet there is little democratic about it. Hamas is elected totally democratically, yet we declare it meaningless. Why should Muslims have to prove anything to the racist West?

Do you expect Muslims to change words that do not kill while the West kills with extraordinary weapons? What am I missing?

The "reason" for the killing.

If a Christian state kills in order to defend against attackers, the defense isn't "because" they are Christian or "because" their attackers are Muslim, but because they are attacked. [That's the first part you are missing.]

Islam, on the other hand, attacks "because" they are Muslim and they are taught to hate and attack the non-Muslim (the infidel). [That's the second part you are missing.]

This makes the Muslim religion a threat to everyone who is not Muslim. The Muslim (extremists) claim peace but teach and practice vi...

Do you expect Muslims to change words that do not kill while the West kills with extraordinary weapons? What am I missing?

The "reason" for the killing.

If a Christian state kills in order to defend against attackers, the defense isn't "because" they are Christian or "because" their attackers are Muslim, but because they are attacked. [That's the first part you are missing.]

Islam, on the other hand, attacks "because" they are Muslim and they are taught to hate and attack the non-Muslim (the infidel). [That's the second part you are missing.]

This makes the Muslim religion a threat to everyone who is not Muslim. The Muslim (extremists) claim peace but teach and practice violence. [That's the third part you are missing.]


There are many more; but if you can't see these, you won't see the others either.

It's still not clear or certain who were the perpetrators of 9/11 or other incidents. I do know for certain who attacked Afghanistan, turning the then legal Taliban against the West. I do know who killed 1,000s of Iraqi. I do know who kills 1,000s of Arabs. I know of the CIA's past and present.

Everyone has a past, CIA, RAW, ISA, FBI, etc, etc. I say you're a conspiracy theory follower (and I am as well to some extent). You need to look past one excuse for the blame. My above clip is on the topic of stoning which is part of the Islamic Sharia instituted in handful of the Muslim countries. Now you tell me what's that got to do with the injustices done by CIAs of the world?...

It's still not clear or certain who were the perpetrators of 9/11 or other incidents. I do know for certain who attacked Afghanistan, turning the then legal Taliban against the West. I do know who killed 1,000s of Iraqi. I do know who kills 1,000s of Arabs. I know of the CIA's past and present.

Everyone has a past, CIA, RAW, ISA, FBI, etc, etc. I say you're a conspiracy theory follower (and I am as well to some extent). You need to look past one excuse for the blame. My above clip is on the topic of stoning which is part of the Islamic Sharia instituted in handful of the Muslim countries. Now you tell me what's that got to do with the injustices done by CIAs of the world? Can we justify stoning and all such corrupt and out dates laws of the religion because CIA may be killing Iraqis, Jews the Palestinians and Indians the Kashmiri freedom fighters?

It is easy to ignore the ugly side of the self and blame others for the injustices done, but eventually people need to avail an opportunity to not only correct what's wrong within themselves but defend and live in dignity.

then let's advocate the abolishment of stoning-to-death-for-adultery in Islam alongside the abolishment of capital punishment for treason in Secularism. Is that fair and reasonable?

More than, IMO. Are we concerned how one Muslim acts against another? Or is how the Western imposed despot stooge leaders acting on our behalf, misrule their subjects. In my lifetime, females went from being chattels of their husbands to their equal partners. Should Muslims hurry up and ape the virtual breakdown of Western society? So, what business is it of ours how then manage among themselves.

When you note here the remarks of an obvious racist bigot then we may be closer to realising what's g...

then let's advocate the abolishment of stoning-to-death-for-adultery in Islam alongside the abolishment of capital punishment for treason in Secularism. Is that fair and reasonable?

More than, IMO. Are we concerned how one Muslim acts against another? Or is how the Western imposed despot stooge leaders acting on our behalf, misrule their subjects. In my lifetime, females went from being chattels of their husbands to their equal partners. Should Muslims hurry up and ape the virtual breakdown of Western society? So, what business is it of ours how then manage among themselves.

When you note here the remarks of an obvious racist bigot then we may be closer to realising what's going on. Who has benefited from turning the West against the Muslims and vice versa? Divide and conquer is about the oldest trick in the book. So who gains from setting Christians against Muslims? Who murders Gaza's children?

If Muslims were attacking non Muslim states then the issue of Islam being peaceful or not would have relevance. As the West has attacked Muslim states, why not query what passes for Christianity, if it is peaceful? Obviously it would fail. I admit that Muslims have done themselves no favours in their rhetoric or internal laws, but unlike F-16s and the drones of death, their words and actions are broadcast far and wide by the hostile compliant unrepresentative press.

It's not helping them to get along with the rest of the world.

True, and why should they have any trust in our words while decades of our deeds betray us. Of course this is politics. I just hope that it's not racism, well except the one obvious case.

in my lifetime, females went from being chattels of their husbands to their equal partners.

As a woman, I don't think we're quite equals yet. Perhaps at home, with some, but not all. Women in other countries endure forced circumcisions, "girl soldiers" are being raped by their own military men, the Falun Gong women and I could go on and on, but you already know what goes on in Darfur the DRC,, etc.I can't turn a blind eye and say it's acceptable because it's not. I can't do a lot of it, but I do what I can. This isn't racism, just concern. And yes, it would be better for any and all other countries to get along with the rest of the world. What fault can you find in that? It...

in my lifetime, females went from being chattels of their husbands to their equal partners.

As a woman, I don't think we're quite equals yet. Perhaps at home, with some, but not all. Women in other countries endure forced circumcisions, "girl soldiers" are being raped by their own military men, the Falun Gong women and I could go on and on, but you already know what goes on in Darfur the DRC,, etc.I can't turn a blind eye and say it's acceptable because it's not. I can't do a lot of it, but I do what I can. This isn't racism, just concern. And yes, it would be better for any and all other countries to get along with the rest of the world. What fault can you find in that? It's not forcing Western ideas, but trying to find humane levels in our fellow man in order to help others to overcome the brutalities they are suffering.

As a woman, I don't think we're quite equals yet. Perhaps at home, with some, but not all. Women in other countries endure forced circumcisions

Under the law in most Western countries, women are equal. The practice may be different.

On ClipMarks, as righthand and ratcatcher2, I'll put my record circumcision and rape up against any other's here.

In Jerusalem many many religious females are treated abominably. Segregation on public transport, modesty laws on female dress, the wearing of the burqa, next to no divorce in all male religious courts, earn the family wage while raising a family while the father studies until 40, are just a few examples of what is NEVER reported i...

As a woman, I don't think we're quite equals yet. Perhaps at home, with some, but not all. Women in other countries endure forced circumcisions

Under the law in most Western countries, women are equal. The practice may be different.

On ClipMarks, as righthand and ratcatcher2, I'll put my record circumcision and rape up against any other's here.

In Jerusalem many many religious females are treated abominably. Segregation on public transport, modesty laws on female dress, the wearing of the burqa, next to no divorce in all male religious courts, earn the family wage while raising a family while the father studies until 40, are just a few examples of what is NEVER reported in the Western, biased, Zionist controlled media. Please anyone, doubt me.

Where do you get your ideas:

Let's face the reality of the matter: the secular west wants the
"freedom" to "fuck-up" a normal husband/wife committed relationship, by
allowing the adultery, but without any "accountability".

Whose reality are you referring to? You refer to accountability as divorce. Well, secular folks get divorce the very same as spiritual ones. In fact divorces in the secular world would be tremendously more statistically speaking. Your thought is backwards & doesn't hold water.

The secular mind does not like the concept of "accountability" with reference to marriage.

There are places that grant only men divorces by saying the words, "I div...

Where do you get your ideas:

Let's face the reality of the matter: the secular west wants the
"freedom" to "fuck-up" a normal husband/wife committed relationship, by
allowing the adultery, but without any "accountability".

Whose reality are you referring to? You refer to accountability as divorce. Well, secular folks get divorce the very same as spiritual ones. In fact divorces in the secular world would be tremendously more statistically speaking. Your thought is backwards & doesn't hold water.

The secular mind does not like the concept of "accountability" with reference to marriage.

There are places that grant only men divorces by saying the words, "I divorce thee!" three times. Some of them decide to skip right past that little ritual and set them on fire, thus divorce is final...as is her life, usually.

How do you condone the treatment of women in Darfur? Is that okay with you too? Just curious.
Read more >> Options >>

1) You misunderstand me. Once again in plain terms, the secular mind wants the "freedom" to screw around while in a committed relationship (i.e. marriage), but with no accountability.
1.1) It's worth noting that Islam accepts the reality of the male condition pertaining to human sensuality and allows the practise of multiple "committed" relationships, i.e. polygyny, but with clearly stipulated *responsibilities*. The secular male mind wants the same, but with no accountability of commitment and responsibility.
2) True there are places in the world that grant a male the "exclusive" right to divorce. But where in Islam is this considered legitimate? Once again, the truth of the matter is quite...

1) You misunderstand me. Once again in plain terms, the secular mind wants the "freedom" to screw around while in a committed relationship (i.e. marriage), but with no accountability.
1.1) It's worth noting that Islam accepts the reality of the male condition pertaining to human sensuality and allows the practise of multiple "committed" relationships, i.e. polygyny, but with clearly stipulated *responsibilities*. The secular male mind wants the same, but with no accountability of commitment and responsibility.
2) True there are places in the world that grant a male the "exclusive" right to divorce. But where in Islam is this considered legitimate? Once again, the truth of the matter is quite clear in Islam: both the woman and the man are each given exclusive rights to acquire a divorce, so the male cannot hold a woman in marriage against her will. This is quite explicit in the Quran.
The woman can acquire a divorce even without the man pronouncing the divorce.
And just a note: the pronouncement "I divorce thee" 3 times on the spot is not considered valid. I can discuss the details, but I want to keep this as short as possible.

Once again in plain terms, the secular mind wants the "freedom" to screw around while in a committed relationship (i.e. marriage), but with no accountability.

Hogwash. The divorce rate is slightly lower for the secular minded than the religious (at least in the U.S. where the woman doesn't have to feel her life is threatened to get one).

[source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm]

Religion
% have been divorced


Jews
30%


Born-again Christians
27%


Other Christians
24%


Atheists, Agnostics
21%

Islam accepts the reality of the male condition pertaining to human
sensuality and allows the practise of multiple "committed" relationships..[/q...

read more»

Once again in plain terms, the secular mind wants the "freedom" to screw around while in a committed relationship (i.e. marriage), but with no accountability.

Hogwash. The divorce rate is slightly lower for the secular minded than the religious (at least in the U.S. where the woman doesn't have to feel her life is threatened to get one).

[source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm]

Religion
% have been divorced


Jews
30%


Born-again Christians
27%


Other Christians
24%


Atheists, Agnostics
21%

Islam accepts the reality of the male condition pertaining to human
sensuality and allows the practise of multiple "committed" relationships..

Can the women screw around "with" accountability like the men do? No?

So the MEN can have multiple sex partners but the women can't? Sounds like adultery with religious permission. I guess that makes it okay (if you're male).

Yeah, women can get a divorce in Islam, all right... in two pieces.

By the way... what is "honor killing?"

@AcesLucky, you got to sometime come out of generalities and Islamophobe MSM feeding.

What NewtralHuman is talking about is what's available and practiced (though I have questions for him which I'll ask later). There are rules and facts which are ideals and then there are realities. Woman can have multiple sex partners as long as it is civilized and not a sexual misconduct (means, marriage, divorce, marriage, so on and so forth). Having a one-night stand without moral implication is as you may say non-religious .... but does it really have to be religious or non-religious?

Women can certainly get a divorce as a Muslim, and allow me to say this, unlike Christianity, marriage in Islam is ...

@AcesLucky, you got to sometime come out of generalities and Islamophobe MSM feeding.

What NewtralHuman is talking about is what's available and practiced (though I have questions for him which I'll ask later). There are rules and facts which are ideals and then there are realities. Woman can have multiple sex partners as long as it is civilized and not a sexual misconduct (means, marriage, divorce, marriage, so on and so forth). Having a one-night stand without moral implication is as you may say non-religious .... but does it really have to be religious or non-religious?

Women can certainly get a divorce as a Muslim, and allow me to say this, unlike Christianity, marriage in Islam is not sacred, it is a social-contract (you have religious implications of divorcing in Christianity, where as in Islam, there is no religious implication, though some would argue there are societal and cultural implications which are relative).

I don't agree with either of you and find it hard to believe that the Muslim men are allowed multiple sex partners inside of a marriage AND the women are also allowed multiple partners. You claim to like things simply put, candid and cut through the rhetoric, right? So, Bullshit! Pure bullshit! You mentioned the stoning to death and paralleled it to the death penalty. Once more, bullshit. We don't have the death penalty for adultery. In fact, did you not lay claim to the progressiveness in the Muslims marriage regarding multiple sex partner? Come on! The stones are thrown at the women and not the men. This topic is not a debatable one. I am a woman that doesn't like, as Aces mentioned, Hono...

I don't agree with either of you and find it hard to believe that the Muslim men are allowed multiple sex partners inside of a marriage AND the women are also allowed multiple partners. You claim to like things simply put, candid and cut through the rhetoric, right? So, Bullshit! Pure bullshit! You mentioned the stoning to death and paralleled it to the death penalty. Once more, bullshit. We don't have the death penalty for adultery. In fact, did you not lay claim to the progressiveness in the Muslims marriage regarding multiple sex partner? Come on! The stones are thrown at the women and not the men. This topic is not a debatable one. I am a woman that doesn't like, as Aces mentioned, Honor killings, Stoning, buring of women for divorces, forced circumcisions and being told women are equal to me in the Mulim world. I know the equality doens' t

@ arifsali

The Freethinker reported:

Muslim arrested for beheading his wife.

"A NEW York man who established a TV station in the hope of portraying
Muslims in a more positive light, is today in prison after police found
the headless body of his recently divorced wife."

That beautiful woman's name was Aasiya Hassan.
---

Shall I give you examples of honor killings? You say NewtralHuman is talking about what's available vs. what's practiced???

Did her head just fall off?

If this is just Islamophobia on my part, perhaps you can tell me why I've heard this story before?

And you want to know the ne...

@ arifsali

The Freethinker reported:

Muslim arrested for beheading his wife.

"A NEW York man who established a TV station in the hope of portraying
Muslims in a more positive light, is today in prison after police found
the headless body of his recently divorced wife."

That beautiful woman's name was Aasiya Hassan.
---

Shall I give you examples of honor killings? You say NewtralHuman is talking about what's available vs. what's practiced???

Did her head just fall off?

If this is just Islamophobia on my part, perhaps you can tell me why I've heard this story before?

And you want to know the neat thing, arifsali? Any given person, without the slightest hint, when asked "guess the religion of the beheader?" would get it right 100% of the time, wouldn't they?

Why is that?

(Hint -- it has nothing to do with Islamophobia.)

find it hard to believe that the Muslim men are allowed multiple sex partners inside of a marriageAnomaly100

Sorry, I didn't read any further than that. You are misquoting. There is no such thing as Muslim men allowed multiple sex partners inside of a marriage.

Islam does allow a possibility of having more than one marriages at the same time, but it also disallows it right away by having stringent and impossible to meet criteria. The Islamic rule as I understand was context bound and was appropriate during the war times when there were way too many widows around to take care of. Later generation has misused the practice (the known figure of having four wives at the sam...

find it hard to believe that the Muslim men are allowed multiple sex partners inside of a marriageAnomaly100

Sorry, I didn't read any further than that. You are misquoting. There is no such thing as Muslim men allowed multiple sex partners inside of a marriage.

Islam does allow a possibility of having more than one marriages at the same time, but it also disallows it right away by having stringent and impossible to meet criteria. The Islamic rule as I understand was context bound and was appropriate during the war times when there were way too many widows around to take care of. Later generation has misused the practice (the known figure of having four wives at the same time) but if people follow the essence of the rule, it is not possible to have more than one wife. Hence, it is practically not allowed.

I am a woman that doesn't like, as Aces mentioned, Honor killings, Stoning, buring of women for divorces, forced circumcisions

Okay, let's go slow, shall we? I am a man and I don't like none of these things either, you see my clip above, the point I'm making?

BTW, what you mean by forced circumcisions? If you're talking about female circumcisions as practiced by few cultures than that is ... cultural. The male circumcision is applicable in both Judaism and Islam and in fact, it has recently been claimed to prevent diseases (which I am not suggesting should be the only excuse). There's nothing wrong with male circumcision, not sure what your beef is btw.

I personally don't...

I am a woman that doesn't like, as Aces mentioned, Honor killings, Stoning, buring of women for divorces, forced circumcisions

Okay, let's go slow, shall we? I am a man and I don't like none of these things either, you see my clip above, the point I'm making?

BTW, what you mean by forced circumcisions? If you're talking about female circumcisions as practiced by few cultures than that is ... cultural. The male circumcision is applicable in both Judaism and Islam and in fact, it has recently been claimed to prevent diseases (which I am not suggesting should be the only excuse). There's nothing wrong with male circumcision, not sure what your beef is btw.

I personally don't like to be all over on the context of one particular clip but since this thread has been lingering on for a while and you guys seems to be all over, I'll let that pass. I did make this clip only the topic of stoning and other out-dated Sharia practices as instituted by the Islamic state. I have not made this clip on the topic of out-dated cultural practices as instituted by the people on their own (honor killings and female circumcision falls under this criteria).

Hope I'm clear here.

AcesLucky, I can find you more examples of honor killing not strictly practiced by Muslims alone. So your argument is stereotyping.

The fact that others may practice honor killing in no way subtracts from the fact the Muslims do. So yes, it may very well be a stereotype by now, but is it true?


The second point is that the cowardly honor killing of women is not practiced in America except by Muslims who maintain the culture of Islam. Is it a phobia for me to want to keep such practices out?

--

I have not made this clip on the topic of out-dated cultural practices as instituted by the people on their own (honor killings and female circumcision falls under this crite...

read more»

AcesLucky, I can find you more examples of honor killing not strictly practiced by Muslims alone. So your argument is stereotyping.

The fact that others may practice honor killing in no way subtracts from the fact the Muslims do. So yes, it may very well be a stereotype by now, but is it true?


The second point is that the cowardly honor killing of women is not practiced in America except by Muslims who maintain the culture of Islam. Is it a phobia for me to want to keep such practices out?

--

I have not made this clip on the topic of out-dated cultural practices as instituted by the people on their own (honor killings and female circumcision falls under this criteria).

Referring to the title... female genital mutilation and beheading don't seem to portray a "peaceful" Islam.

In order for Islam to portray itself as peaceful, those types of practices must end as well.

My basic beef is with the so called Islamic governments who implement such outdated practices based on religion...

If you don't mind, I'd like to extend that to all governments (including my own) who implement such outdated practices based on religion.

But your point is perfectly stated regarding Islam. Unfortunately going against traditional Qur'an is a form of apostate behavior and is not tolerated. (Though I don't think any of the aforementioned behavior is supported by the Qur'an except killing apostates.)

Islam practices theocracy. Secular laws can advance. But how do you tell a god he's wrong? In Islam, you can't.

I'm afraid Islamic culture will never advance until ...

My basic beef is with the so called Islamic governments who implement such outdated practices based on religion...

If you don't mind, I'd like to extend that to all governments (including my own) who implement such outdated practices based on religion.

But your point is perfectly stated regarding Islam. Unfortunately going against traditional Qur'an is a form of apostate behavior and is not tolerated. (Though I don't think any of the aforementioned behavior is supported by the Qur'an except killing apostates.)

Islam practices theocracy. Secular laws can advance. But how do you tell a god he's wrong? In Islam, you can't.

I'm afraid Islamic culture will never advance until they allow secular law to supersede religious law. And I don't think that will happen very soon.

I'm afraid Islamic culture will never advance until they allow secular law to supersede religious law. And I don't think that will happen very soon.

The Irish Catholic church ruled not just in matters with any religious connect. The Irish government back then had to seek approval on political issues.

The Mother and Child Scheme was a healthcare programme in the Republic of Ireland that would later become remembered as a major political crisis involving primarily the Irish Government and Roman Catholic Church in the early 1950s. The scheme was referred to as the Mother and Child Service in legislatio...

read more»

I'm afraid Islamic culture will never advance until they allow secular law to supersede religious law. And I don't think that will happen very soon.

The Irish Catholic church ruled not just in matters with any religious connect. The Irish government back then had to seek approval on political issues.

The Mother and Child Scheme was a healthcare programme in the Republic of Ireland that would later become remembered as a major political crisis involving primarily the Irish Government and Roman Catholic Church in the early 1950s. The scheme was referred to as the Mother and Child Service in legislation. A brochure, "What the new service means to every family", was prepared and explained the new service but was not issued to the public, the scheme was engulfed in crisis before this could happen.

An excellent Minister of Health, Dr Noel Brown, who had single handedly eliminated TB from Ireland, was brought down by the church on this health issue.

In England, the church had similar powers. How about America. How short are our memories when we wish to stick it to the Muslims?!

If we only commence since Islam became a faith, which of Christians and Muslims have invaded other countries? No contest!

Christians, without a doubt; and violently so.

So why pick on Islam to prove what is untrue in practice by Christians and the Jews only state?

Excellent observation and a legitimate question. Unfortunately, the answer has to do with civility in the present, not the past.

America was founded on the concept of separation of church and state. It was why our founding fathers wanted to get away from England (both kings and popes asserted what they called "divine right").

Of course, everyone knew it was B.S. but the justice system was such th...

If we only commence since Islam became a faith, which of Christians and Muslims have invaded other countries? No contest!

Christians, without a doubt; and violently so.

So why pick on Islam to prove what is untrue in practice by Christians and the Jews only state?

Excellent observation and a legitimate question. Unfortunately, the answer has to do with civility in the present, not the past.

America was founded on the concept of separation of church and state. It was why our founding fathers wanted to get away from England (both kings and popes asserted what they called "divine right").

Of course, everyone knew it was B.S. but the justice system was such that the kings were put there by god and thus answered to no one but god, and everyone else answered to the king.

The founding of America, however, was to get away from the concept of divine right by firmly stating an authority "of the people, for the people, by the people".

The result was "secular" laws, which developed and evolved with the needs of the people derived by the people.

But Islam is currently stuck in a time warp. Their laws are theocratic and any attempt to escape the authority of the theocracy is met with punishment by those supposing to enforce such laws and intentions. It's an illegitimate authority that won't relinquish its power over the masses.

As a result, the difference is in how people are treated in the present. Not who was the more guilty of barbarism in the past.

Fine up to

But Islam is currently stuck in a time warp.

True too but we read too much into that. Why should we expect them to move as fast as the West or in the same direction? In the Dark Ages, Muslim society kept civilization alive. Now we believe we are superior.

America has gone backwards at a rate of knots that might lead to a complete breakdown of society. Family values is a lip service notion in any comparison with Arab values. Cut throat capitalism with all the wannabes, contributed to the race to met them as they move slowly towards us. Why foist a failing system on them?

The example of the one 'democracy' of the Jews only state isn't exactly going to win new fr...

Fine up to

But Islam is currently stuck in a time warp.

True too but we read too much into that. Why should we expect them to move as fast as the West or in the same direction? In the Dark Ages, Muslim society kept civilization alive. Now we believe we are superior.

America has gone backwards at a rate of knots that might lead to a complete breakdown of society. Family values is a lip service notion in any comparison with Arab values. Cut throat capitalism with all the wannabes, contributed to the race to met them as they move slowly towards us. Why foist a failing system on them?

The example of the one 'democracy' of the Jews only state isn't exactly going to win new friends to our notions. The West managed to assassinate their leaders of true democracies in the past. We refuse to recognise the truly democratically elected Hamas! So again I say, why should "Muslins prove that Islam is a religion of peace", unless we are elevating Islamophobia as legitimate now to replace the barely departed racism?!

Not a word that I could dis agree with but at odds with the title. So

So again I say, why should "Muslins prove that Islam is a religion of peace", unless we are elevating Islamophobia as legitimate now to replace the barely departed racism?!

Is this not the same as:
Asking an American Jew to prove the impossible that they have double loyalty to the US and Israel!
Asking a Democrat to prove he's as loyal as a Republican!
Asking an American Black that he's as loyal as a White guy!
Asking an American Catholic to prove he's as loyal as a true American Protestant!
Asking a Zionist to prove that they really don't like killing kids - future terrorist!
Asking a 1,000 questions tha...

Not a word that I could dis agree with but at odds with the title. So

So again I say, why should "Muslins prove that Islam is a religion of peace", unless we are elevating Islamophobia as legitimate now to replace the barely departed racism?!

Is this not the same as:
Asking an American Jew to prove the impossible that they have double loyalty to the US and Israel!
Asking a Democrat to prove he's as loyal as a Republican!
Asking an American Black that he's as loyal as a White guy!
Asking an American Catholic to prove he's as loyal as a true American Protestant!
Asking a Zionist to prove that they really don't like killing kids - future terrorist!
Asking a 1,000 questions that feed our mini and maxi prejudices on a daily basic.

I believe NONE of these loaded prejudiced questions, BUT to counter balance the prejudice of the US/Zionist media and the consequences is that I must appear pro-Muslim. In truth, I am not, but to get balance, someone must ask nasty questions to highlight the crap. I say this here, Arifsali, as I believe that you have not been infected with the US prejudice of most.

@ratcatcher2

You make a series of very good points. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps we should not expect Muslims to prove that Islam is a religion of peace.

Our media certainly shows Islam at its worst, from the mutilation and domination of women to suicide bombing.

Maybe these things should be embraced into western culture as an admission that our own culture should follow the superior standards of Islam.

I'm not saying that western culture is inherently better, just secular and can evolve with the sensibilities of the people as they see fit.

Islamic culture cannot evolve with the sensibilities of the people as long as their sensibilities come from a non-evolving book. A book some beli...

@ratcatcher2

You make a series of very good points. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps we should not expect Muslims to prove that Islam is a religion of peace.

Our media certainly shows Islam at its worst, from the mutilation and domination of women to suicide bombing.

Maybe these things should be embraced into western culture as an admission that our own culture should follow the superior standards of Islam.

I'm not saying that western culture is inherently better, just secular and can evolve with the sensibilities of the people as they see fit.

Islamic culture cannot evolve with the sensibilities of the people as long as their sensibilities come from a non-evolving book. A book some believe came from a god!

How can god be litigated when he's wrong? He can't, and so he can't be wrong. The result is that no one can develop from where that book already is. It cannot grow, it cannot evolve, it cannot change.

But the sensibilities of that book, unfortunately, are not harmonic with western (or any modern) culture. It just doesn't fit.

So perhaps the decision that derives the most happiness for each party is by allowing Muslims to live in Muslim countries (that practice Muslim theocracy) and not try to import Islamic culture into western society.

Clearly they will be much happier there, not here. (But America allows for freedom of religion. Islam calls other religions infidel, so they are not very welcome.) So perhaps the solution is to keep the two separate.

Thus, Islam need not prove its peacefulness to the west; they can keep their brand of civility and morality amongst their own.

Better?

But why always Muslims. Hindus have just as crazy practices - from our point of view - but they seldom get covered in the US corporate media. There are crazy practices in Jerusalem with males in garb of 100's of years ago, that never get covered in the US.

Stooge states with the legacies of the colonial Brits run these states with no effort to encourage democracy by the true masters - the US. So should we blame the US for all the ills of the Middle East?

India may have laws forbidding barbaric and discriminatory practices but the truth is they are more honoured in the breach than the observation. China stopped binding females feet. You stopped hanging @iggers for holding hand with white ...

But why always Muslims. Hindus have just as crazy practices - from our point of view - but they seldom get covered in the US corporate media. There are crazy practices in Jerusalem with males in garb of 100's of years ago, that never get covered in the US.

Stooge states with the legacies of the colonial Brits run these states with no effort to encourage democracy by the true masters - the US. So should we blame the US for all the ills of the Middle East?

India may have laws forbidding barbaric and discriminatory practices but the truth is they are more honoured in the breach than the observation. China stopped binding females feet. You stopped hanging @iggers for holding hand with white girls, but still practice a fair deal of racism. King might have lived to see a Black elected president but for assassins' bullets, so memories of lynching are not forgotten. A Catholic president was assassinated.

So, "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" especially if a murderous Christian!!!

India may have laws forbidding barbaric and discriminatory practices but the truth is they are more honoured in the breach than the observation. China stopped binding females feet. You stopped hanging @iggers for holding hand with white girls, but still practice a fair deal of racism. King might have lived to see a Black elected president but for assassins' bullets, so memories of lynching are not forgotten. A Catholic president was assassinated.

Humans have had a retched past because of various superstitions, weird beliefs and power structures, and a host of other things.

Today, our secular laws allow us to grow out of these injustices and barbaric practices.

Does Islam h...

India may have laws forbidding barbaric and discriminatory practices but the truth is they are more honoured in the breach than the observation. China stopped binding females feet. You stopped hanging @iggers for holding hand with white girls, but still practice a fair deal of racism. King might have lived to see a Black elected president but for assassins' bullets, so memories of lynching are not forgotten. A Catholic president was assassinated.

Humans have had a retched past because of various superstitions, weird beliefs and power structures, and a host of other things.

Today, our secular laws allow us to grow out of these injustices and barbaric practices.

Does Islam honor secular law higher than religious tradition? So far, it has not been demonstrated.

The sins of the world's past in no way exonerate the sins of Islams' present. Why can't you see this?

"My context of "Muslims should prove that Islam is a religion of peace" is the various so called Islamic states and governments who let their policies corrupt the name of religion. Take Saudi Arabia, take Pakistan, what have they done to reform the outdated Sharia..."

Exactly. Especially Saudi Arabia; they have wealth and a long standing political footprint in the world. They can make all the difference in the Islamic world and beyond, but they won't stand up against Wahabi extremism because they don't want to change their religious authority! Otherwise the kings wouldn't be able to claim "divine right".

The power structure would have to live or fall by democracy! And power...

"My context of "Muslims should prove that Islam is a religion of peace" is the various so called Islamic states and governments who let their policies corrupt the name of religion. Take Saudi Arabia, take Pakistan, what have they done to reform the outdated Sharia..."

Exactly. Especially Saudi Arabia; they have wealth and a long standing political footprint in the world. They can make all the difference in the Islamic world and beyond, but they won't stand up against Wahabi extremism because they don't want to change their religious authority! Otherwise the kings wouldn't be able to claim "divine right".

The power structure would have to live or fall by democracy! And power is hard to give up. So they use religion to suppress social evolution.

I'd not hold up those Saudis @@@@@ as representing anything but greed.

There is a substance to your argument and I used to have same line of reasoning. However, we have to realize what is practical and real in contemporary times (regardless of what the past suggest). Saudis Arabia is the center of gravity when it comes to majority Muslim representation. If they become a model tolerant and pluralistic society than things would eventually change everywhere. But instead what we see now is that they have no real interest in going that direction. Keeping the political argument aside (of Palestinian and Israel equation and it's consequent implications on Muslim world) the non-M...

I'd not hold up those Saudis @@@@@ as representing anything but greed.

There is a substance to your argument and I used to have same line of reasoning. However, we have to realize what is practical and real in contemporary times (regardless of what the past suggest). Saudis Arabia is the center of gravity when it comes to majority Muslim representation. If they become a model tolerant and pluralistic society than things would eventually change everywhere. But instead what we see now is that they have no real interest in going that direction. Keeping the political argument aside (of Palestinian and Israel equation and it's consequent implications on Muslim world) the non-Monolithic Muslim world needs to reign in their renegade extremists and they need to eventually bring a common-sense front face to the world.

Back to the point: do Muslims have to prove that Islam is a religion of peace? This question is relevant, since we live n' act in relative terms. Our govt. USA practises global tyranny with out approval, with the justification that "our way of life is superior" to the other; hence we should spread our secular capitalistic ideology in the world via predatory means (especially predatory economic means). Islam's agenda is pretty straightforward: Islam is to rule above all other ideologies/ways-of-life, but in a humanly beneficial way. So yes, Islam advocates ruling over humanity or a people, but without oppressing them, especially in economic terms and allowing them to practice their ideology s...

Back to the point: do Muslims have to prove that Islam is a religion of peace? This question is relevant, since we live n' act in relative terms. Our govt. USA practises global tyranny with out approval, with the justification that "our way of life is superior" to the other; hence we should spread our secular capitalistic ideology in the world via predatory means (especially predatory economic means). Islam's agenda is pretty straightforward: Islam is to rule above all other ideologies/ways-of-life, but in a humanly beneficial way. So yes, Islam advocates ruling over humanity or a people, but without oppressing them, especially in economic terms and allowing them to practice their ideology such that those practices are not unjust or oppressive. Islam's objective is to establish peace in the world but by establishing justice/fairness first. Wiping out oppression (in every shape and form) is a given. The only way for Muslims to *prove* this is to establish a model Islamic State and practice the laws of God as established in the Koran, and everything will be ok. And yes women will be treated well. By-the-way, women (more so than men) in the west understand this about Islam and convert to Islam.

arifsali,
I suppose you're not quite familiar with the history of the Muslim world, especially the time period of Muhammad (the prophet of Islam) and the following 4 leaders. There are groups of Muslims spanning the whole world who are working toward establishing a universal Islamic State with provinces or states under it; pretty much like our USA. They are working toward establishing their own system of governance: by the people, of the people and from the people; legislated by the laws established by God as revealed in their Koran. And yes they intend to do away with current regimes who get away with legislating "Islamic" laws with the help of paid scholars along with the influence of west...

arifsali,
I suppose you're not quite familiar with the history of the Muslim world, especially the time period of Muhammad (the prophet of Islam) and the following 4 leaders. There are groups of Muslims spanning the whole world who are working toward establishing a universal Islamic State with provinces or states under it; pretty much like our USA. They are working toward establishing their own system of governance: by the people, of the people and from the people; legislated by the laws established by God as revealed in their Koran. And yes they intend to do away with current regimes who get away with legislating "Islamic" laws with the help of paid scholars along with the influence of western powers.
I am not arguing with any of you; I'm simply expressing what I observe.
Given though that you folks seem to complain so much about women's rights in Islam, is your complains against women's rights in Islam *proper* or women's rights as practised in Muslim communities?
And why do we find so many females in the west convert to Islam if their rights are so threatened by Islam?
I think this is a reasonable question to ask. Would like a straightforward answer before anyone goes off on tangents.

I say you don't know much about Islam or Muslims to claim that "they" are working towards creating some sort of world government. First of all, Islam is not monolithic. Second, the group you describe as established in the initial years of the founding, are all dispersed and none of them hold any majority or have any spokesperson (save a few minorities). Third, if you're referring to few fringe extremist organizations who are working towards creating a big and huge world wide Islamic government, than you can consider that a hype created by the Western media because there have already been quiet a few such Islamic governments and none of them have dominated the world, ever in the history. ...

I say you don't know much about Islam or Muslims to claim that "they" are working towards creating some sort of world government. First of all, Islam is not monolithic. Second, the group you describe as established in the initial years of the founding, are all dispersed and none of them hold any majority or have any spokesperson (save a few minorities). Third, if you're referring to few fringe extremist organizations who are working towards creating a big and huge world wide Islamic government, than you can consider that a hype created by the Western media because there have already been quiet a few such Islamic governments and none of them have dominated the world, ever in the history. It is simply a baseless fear-mongering to think that a Utopian Islamic government could take over the whole world (even an Islamic world). Not going to happen, never have.

I don't know what your demographic is but where I am, I don't see huge number of Western females converting to Islam.