Visit the Ironworks Gaming Website Email the Webmaster Graphics Library Rules and Regulations Help Support Ironworks Forum with a Donation to Keep us Online - We rely totally on Donations from members Donation goal Meter

Ironworks Gaming Radio

Ironworks Gaming Forum

Go Back   Ironworks Gaming Forum > Ironworks Gaming Forums > General Discussion
FAQ Calendar Arcade Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-19-2003, 07:03 PM   #31
Yorick
Very Mad Bird
 

Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam)
Age: 53
Posts: 9,246
Quote:
Originally posted by Skunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorik:

I don't agree to disagree. You are incorrect in your accusation that I knew nothing of Islam and that I had made a grievious error about Muhammad.
You know, in Northern Ireland as a young officer, I saw how two Christian factions were so embittered upon 'misinterpretations' that they used passages from the bible (both Old and New Testament) as justification to blow off the arms and legs of women and children.

After apprehending a protestant paramilitary who had shot off the knee caps of a 15 year old 'alleged' car thief - we asked him what on earth gave him the idea that it was the right thing to do. He replied that the bible passage John 2:15 gave him ample justification:
“Making a whip of cords, he [Jesus] drove all of them out of the temple, with the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the moneychangers and overturned their tables.”
That animal went to prison - no doubt he reconciled that with various passages in the bible that related to jesus's persectution.
[/QUOTE]First up, the Wilsons of my family came from Northern Ireland. Secondly, when I was in Ireland I also went to some Catholic Churches (despite being a proestant) and heard messages of peace.

Put simply, to simplify "the troubles" as being a contest between two Christian factions is an extreme insult to the plight of the Irish people in the face of centuries of English repression. It has nothing to do with relgion and everything to do with RACE. The Catholics being Irish, and the Protestants descendents of Scottish and English colonists. Irish were forced to convert to Protestantism by their English overlords in exchange for food. Nothing to do with faith, and everything to do with politics.

Christians following Jesus on both sides seek peace, and would NOT retaliate, but turn the other cheek.

All that is shown by your verse and a subsequent reaction of "justified violence" shows complete stupidity from the protagonist. There is nothing in there that advocates his actions. All that would be justified if you emulated Jesus, would be forcibly throwing out people using a Church to rip off people seeking to worship God - sending a strong warning to corrupt televangelists mind you. He did not kill anyone, maim anyone, or even hit anyone. It's argued he didn't even use "miraculous power". The simple weight was the moral weight. Everyone knew the tax collectors and merchants were ripping people off. They themselves knew it. His violence was against inanimate objects, not life. It does say much about how God feels about people using religion for their own gain however.

A simple reading of the passage provides this truth. Reading of the passages I quoted backs up what I said. Need I remind you, you haven't as yet offered any alternate explainations of what I posted.

[ 10-20-2003, 01:22 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]
__________________

http://www.hughwilson.com
Yorick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2003, 08:29 PM   #32
Skunk
Banned User
 

Join Date: September 3, 2001
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Age: 63
Posts: 1,463
Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:

Need I remind you, you haven't as yet offered any alternate explainations of what I posted.
I feel that it would be ill-advised to continue a debate in the increasing irascible nature of the posting on this thread. So I am afraid that I will be unable to furnish you with the explanations that you requested.

I look forward to further debates in the future [img]smile.gif[/img]
Skunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2003, 01:21 AM   #33
Dundee Slaytern
Ironworks Moderator
 

Join Date: June 10, 2001
Location: Pasir Ris, Singapore
Age: 42
Posts: 11,063
Coincidentally enough, I happened across an article in the newspaper.

Quote:
What 'mujahideen' means in Arabic

A vocabulary list accompanying the article, "Expect new JI strikes" (ST, Oct 6), in The Straits Times Home Learning Centre defined mujahideen as "Muslim guerilla warriors engaged in a jihad (that is, a holy war against infidels)".

I would like to clarify what "mujahideen" and "jihad" actually mean in Arabic.

"Mujahideen" is the plural of the word "mujahid". A "mujahid" is anyone who struggles for a noble cause against enemies, tyranny, oppression or bad desires in order to regain honour, freedom or personal upliftment.

"Jihad" comes from the root word "jahada", which means to endeavour, to strive or to work hard. FFFFFF">In Islam, "jihad" means to strive in the name of God, by disciplining oneself against desires such as greed, anger or lust. 00FFFF">Jihad can also mean to defend one's country or religion against aggressors.

The words "mujahideen" and "jihad" were included in the glossary of Islamic terms issued by Muis in October 2001.

Albakri Ahmad (DR)
Director
Religious Development and
Research Division
Majlis Ugama Islam
Singapura (Muis)
Sometimes it is not who is wrong or who is right, but if both... ...
__________________
Click On The Image For BG2 Information

Land of the Psycho-moe
Dundee Slaytern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2003, 02:00 AM   #34
Yorick
Very Mad Bird
 

Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam)
Age: 53
Posts: 9,246
Quote:
Originally posted by Skunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:

Need I remind you, you haven't as yet offered any alternate explainations of what I posted.
I feel that it would be ill-advised to continue a debate in the increasing irascible nature of the posting on this thread. So I am afraid that I will be unable to furnish you with the explanations that you requested.

I look forward to further debates in the future [img]smile.gif[/img]
[/QUOTE]Debate? You have not, as I have said posted a single counter explaination for the passages I quoted. All you attempted to do, was use a weak "out of context" argument, which was false. The one passage you quoted from the New testament you claimed was used by a person to justify violence, was easily shown to be a gross misunderstanding on the behalf of the perpetrator.

You on the other hand have offered no explainations of the passages I quoted, and now offer a feeble cop-out based on the atmosphere of this thread? The atmosphere exists because you insist on holding a frustratingly incorrect line without seeking to understand what you are defending.

It is clear you don't understand Islamic theology enough to make a coherant argument as to what the passages mean. All you have offered as any reason I should accept your word, is that you had some discussions with wise middle eastern men.

Convince me. Convince me that Jihad does NOT contain implications of a Holy War. Don't just ask me to accept your word. Pull apart the Qu'ran, the Hadiths. If you believe there are contexts supporting your position, show me them.

I have shown you quotes, I have explained the contexts, I have offered as further proof the numbers of adherants actions.

Attempts to deflect, such as using Northern Ireland are ridiculous.

Let's look at Northern Ireland again.

Divide and conquer. Wonderful British legacy. India/Pakistan, Eire/Ulster, Kuwait/Iraq, Palestine/Transjordan, Malaysia/Singapore.

Notice a similarity? Everywhere the British pulled out of, violence errupted. Singapores internal problems subsided, but hostility still remains between the Chinese Singaporeans, and the Malay Malaysians (when I was there Mahathir mobilised the army near the border because of a quote from the Singaporean leader). We all know how Ghandi felt about partition. We all know the result of the creation of the Kuwaiti state, of the creation of Palestine by Britain. Need I say more?

Blaming religion on the Troubles so flies in the face of history and reason.
It's convenient too. It's so much easier to say "Protestant" rather than Scottish/English colonial descendents.

Look at the names for further proof. The "Protestant" surnames are usually English/Scottish in origin. The "Catholic" names, Irish Gaelic.

As further proof, I offer that Catholics and Protestants live harmoniously side by side in every nation of the world other than Northern Ireland. A scientific approach to ascertaining cause and effect, would include looking at all the ingredients for constants in each scenario. For example, the constant in both the Inquisition and Crusades, is the political element. The inconsistency of the teaching of Christianity along with the political aims and objectives of the perpetrators.

Comparison with Islam shows

India/Pakistan - Muslims vs Hindus
Israel/Palestine - Muslims vs Jews
Talban in Afgahnistan - Muslims destroying Buddhist landmarks.
Libya - terrorism vs Islamicly perceived "Christian" nations England and America.
Iran/Iraq - Shiite Muslims vs Sunni Muslims
Saudi Arabia - Wahabist purges

Compare the fruit in the most ardent Muslims. Whether or not they are correct, whether or not they are right, they are justifying their actions in the words and recorded actions of their exemplar Muhammad. Just as he fought wars, so are his followers.
Jihad clearly is ABLE to be read as Holy War, by virtue of people today using it in the context of a Holy War.


Dundee - great post mate. However, I must point out, I have acknowledged Jihad meaning strive/struggle. I have acknowledged the spiritual element to Jihad. I am speaking INCLUSIVELY, not EXCLUSIVELY as Skunk is doing. I am arguing both definitions exist. Skunk is arguing for an exclusively spiritual definition. Yet clearly vast, vast numbers of Muslims disagree, and based on what I have read, and shown here, so do I.

I don't seek irascibility. However, I do take umbrage at suggestions of ignorance or stupidity when a divergent opinion is expressed.

However apology accepted. No worries Skunk.
__________________

http://www.hughwilson.com
Yorick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2003, 04:17 PM   #35
GForce
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
RE topic ... That General Boykin is something else. I'm not really surprised about his comments. There are many more like him in offices of power. And there are many unlike him also in power. However, Boykin's likeness is more numerous sadly. What makes me uncomfortable are his statements: 1) his God chose Bush to be the President and go to war, 2) This is a Christian nation, and 3) the war is a crusade to drive out Satan. Arggggh! To wage war in the name of their religion?! That is pure discrimination and, dare I say it, racist, against all those who are not of "their kind". Why the hatred? Come on General! Is that why you joined the military just so you can have ALL that power and kill? Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I apologize to any who feel I went against any religion but I didn't. I hope I didn't seem that way. Namaste. I honor your spirit as I honor mine.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2003, 02:23 AM   #36
Chewbacca
Zartan
 

Join Date: July 18, 2001
Location: America, On The Beautiful Earth
Age: 51
Posts: 5,373
It seems we got an edited apology last week.


Article

Quote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An apology from Lt. Gen. William Boykin for casting the war on terrorism in terms that offended some Muslims originally included a promise that he would no longer speak at religious events, CNN has learned.

But that language was deleted on the advice of Pentagon attorneys and the press office, a Pentagon spokesman said.

Other statements also were withdrawn by the Pentagon, a spokesman said, included Boykin's belief that God put President Bush in the White House.

It's not clear why the changes were made.

As deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, Boykin is involved in analyzing intelligence needed for the war on terrorism.

A former head of U.S. Army Special Forces who is involved in the search for Osama bin Laden, he said in a June speech to a Christian prayer group that radical Muslims hate the United States "because we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and roots are Judeo-Christian and the enemy is a guy named Satan."

He also said that when dealing with a Somali warlord, "I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol."

Boykin's apology was issued Friday, but the Council on American Islamic Relations said his continued involvement in the war on terror sent a negative message to Muslims.

"This apology should be appreciated, but the question is do we want a person with extremist views ... in this position in the war on terror," said Nihad Awad, the group's executive director. "If he continues to be there it sends a very negative message to the Muslim world."

Boykin had told Pentagon officials he would stop making controversial speeches about his personal religious beliefs. The original language in his written statement read "the sensitivities of my job today dictate that further church speeches are inappropriate."

That portion of the statement was taken out in the final version distributed by the Pentagon press office.

Among the other excluded language:

• "I believe that God intervenes in the affairs of men, to include nations, as Benjamin Franklin so eloquently stated. Yes I believe that George Bush was placed in the White House by God as well as Bill Clinton and other presidents."

• "As a Christian I believe that there is a spiritual war that is continuous as articulated in the Bible. It is not confined to the war of terrorism."

• "The evidence that this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles is undeniable. We are a nation of many cultures and religions but the evidence of our foundation is historic."

The published statement by Boykin was stronger on this last point: "My references to Judeo-Christian roots in America or our nation as a Christian nation are historically undeniable."

Pentagon officials also had said that the news media took Boykin's statements out of context, but the final statement did not address that issue.
__________________
Support Local Music and Record Stores!
Got Liberty?
Chewbacca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2003, 03:05 AM   #37
Chewbacca
Zartan
 

Join Date: July 18, 2001
Location: America, On The Beautiful Earth
Age: 51
Posts: 5,373
It has been mentioned that Islamic Extremism may not be as heavily critisized like the General's remarks have been. In light of this I consider this commentary:
Link
Quote:
Wrong and Divisive

Tuesday, October 21, 2003; Page A24


PRESIDENT BUSH rightly took issue yesterday with the anti-Semitic comments of Malaysia's prime minister. Mr. Bush took Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad aside during the economic summit in Bangkok "and told him that what he said was 'wrong and divisive,' " according to White House press secretary Scott McClellan. "It stands squarely against what I believe in," Mr. McClellan quoted the president as saying. Mr. Mahathir had told an Islamic conference last week that "the Jews rule the world by proxy" and urged Islamic nations to unite against being "defeated by a few million Jews." He received a standing ovation from his colleagues -- making Mr. Bush's expression of disapproval all the more necessary.

Would that Mr. Bush's sense of outrage at religiously inflammatory remarks was so finely tuned when it comes to members of his own administration. Thus far he has found nothing to criticize in remarks disparaging of Islam by Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, his deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence. In videotapes of appearances before church groups -- obtained by military analyst William N. Arkin and first described on NBC and in the Los Angeles Times -- Gen. Boykin, in Army uniform, describes the United States as a "Christian nation" and says he knew he would capture a Somali warlord because "I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol." Gen. Boykin casts the war against terrorism as a "spiritual battle," saying that "Satan wants to destroy this nation, he wants to destroy us as a nation, and he wants to destroy us as a Christian army."

Gen. Boykin now argues that his "idol" reference was to the worship of money and power, not Allah. But a review of the full text of his remarks cannot support this reading. In fact, the full text only adds to the questions about his suitability. At the Good Shepherd Community Church in Sandy, Ore., last June, just after he received his third star and was named to his Pentagon post, Gen. Boykin said, "Don't you worry about what these courts say. Our God reigns supreme."

Some of his comments also raise questions about Gen. Boykin's fitness to oversee military intelligence, questions of religious bigotry aside. He describes taking photographs during a helicopter tour before leaving Mogadishu, Somalia, and then finding an unexplained black mark on the developed pictures, which he explains as a manifestation of evil. "Ladies and gentlemen, this is your enemy," he tells the Good Shepherd audience. "It is not Osama bin Laden, it is the principalities of darkness. It is a spiritual enemy that will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus and pray for this nation and for our leaders." He also offers this take on Sept. 11: "Whether you realize it or not, I believe there were at least two more airplanes that were headed for major installations in this country. I believe that there was one headed for the White House, and there was one headed for the Capitol, but they were thwarted by the hand of God."

Gen. Boykin's comments have already become political fodder -- for those who push the belief that the United States is waging war on Islam, not on terrorism, and for those who would excuse other forms of religious intolerance. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher, praising Mr. Mahathir's speech, said, "We hope that those who condemned Mahathir's speech lend more attention to the words of the American general . . . who demonstrated hostility toward Islam and Muslims."

But from the Bush administration, there has not been a syllable of criticism. Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday that it didn't seem Gen. Boykin had violated any rules. "We're a free people," said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. On ABC's "This Week" Sunday, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice ducked the question -- twice. The president ought to be forthright about comments that are wrong and divisive -- whether they're uttered by a foreign leader or by one of his own generals.
__________________
Support Local Music and Record Stores!
Got Liberty?
Chewbacca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2003, 03:20 AM   #38
Chewbacca
Zartan
 

Join Date: July 18, 2001
Location: America, On The Beautiful Earth
Age: 51
Posts: 5,373
Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
This is why I brought up Islam. You keep speaking about extreme Christianity, or extremist Christianity, but totallt ignore the necessity of defining it by using the respective teachings.

The words of the General in the original news article illustrate some of what I think Christian extremism is. It surely ain't Mother Theresa, more like Pat Robertson.

Here is a site to provide an overview of Christian extremist groups and ideaologies including information about Christian violence through out history, reconstructionists, and the radical right.

Link
__________________
Support Local Music and Record Stores!
Got Liberty?
Chewbacca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2003, 03:36 AM   #39
Luvian
Ironworks Moderator
 

Join Date: June 27, 2001
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Age: 44
Posts: 6,766
Hum... before this thread, I had never heard of jihad as anything other than a holy war, the arab equivalent of the word crusade. I looked at dictionary.com and they define it as physical or spiritual war against infidel and for belief. Does anyone have any links discussing more about the other aspects of the word jihad?

[ 10-21-2003, 03:38 AM: Message edited by: Luvian ]
__________________
Once upon a time in Canada...
Luvian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2003, 03:52 AM   #40
Chewbacca
Zartan
 

Join Date: July 18, 2001
Location: America, On The Beautiful Earth
Age: 51
Posts: 5,373
Quote:
Originally posted by Luvian:
Hum... before this thread, I had never heard of jihad as anything other than a holy war, the arab equivalent of the word crusade. I looked at dictionary.com and they define it as physical or spiritual war against infidel and for belief. Does anyone have any links discussing more about the other aspects of the word jihad?
Here is post from GD a while back where I reference this explanation:

Quote:
This word has been in frequent use in the Western press over the past several years, explained directly or subtlely, to mean holy war. As a matter of fact the term "holy war" was coined in Europe during the Crusades, meaning the war against Muslims. It does not have a counterpart in Islamic glossary, and Jihad is certainly not its translation.

The word Jihad means striving. In its primary sense it is an inner thing, within self, to rid it from debased actions or inclinations, and exercise constancy and perseverance in achieving a higher moral standard. Since Islam is not confined to the boundaries of the individual but extends to the welfare of society and humanity in general, an individual cannot keep improving himself/herself in isolation from what happens in their community or in the world at large, hence the Quranic injunction to the Islamic nation to take as a duty "to enjoin good and forbid evil." (3:104) It is a duty which is not exclusive to Muslims but applies to the human race who are, according to the Quran, God's vicegerent on earth. Muslims, however, cannot shirk it even if others do. The means to fulfil it are varied, and in our modern world encompass all legal, diplomatic, arbitrative, economic, and political instruments. But Islam does not exclude the use of force to curb evil, if there is no other workable alternative. A forerunner of the collective security principle and collective intervention to stop aggression, at least in theory, as manifested in the United Nations Charter, is the Quranic reference "..make peace between them (the two fighting groups), but if one of the two persists in aggression against the other, fight the aggressors until they revert to God's commandment." (49:9)

Military action is therefore a subgroup of the Jihad and not its totality. That was what prophet Mohammad emphasized to his companions when returning from a military campaign, he told them: "This day we have returned from the minor jihad (war) to the major jihad (self-control and betterment)."

Jihad is not a declaration of war against other religions and certainly not against Christians and Jews as some media and political circles want it to be perceived. Islam does not fight other religions. Christians and Jews are considered as fellow inheritors of The Abrahamic traditions by Muslims, worshipping the same God and following the tradition of Abraham.

The rigorous criteria for a "just war" in Islam have already been alluded to, as well as the moral and ethical constraints that should be abided by. Modern warfare does not lend itself to those moral standards; and therefore, war should be replaced by some other alternative for conflict resolution. An enlightened and resolute world public opinion can overcome and subdue war oriented mentalities.

The key is a change of heart. Just as there is a constructive role for forgiveness in interpersonal relations, so might this be possible in international relations provided justice, and not force, is the final arbiter.

We have to acknowledge again, for the sake of honesty, that historically all traditions, Muslim, Christian, Jew as well as others, had their lapses in honestly following the valued ideals of their religions or philosophies. We all made mistakes, and we still do. Muslims are no exception, and time and again religion was exploited by ambitious tyrants or violated by ignorant mobs. This is no reflection on religion, but it shows how desperately humanity is in need of better education, more enduring concern for human dignity, rights and freedom, and vigilant pursuit of justice, even at the price of curbing political and economic greed.
__________________
Support Local Music and Record Stores!
Got Liberty?
Chewbacca is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Senior Project is Finished!!! Griefmaker General Discussion 9 05-08-2005 03:34 AM
Senior Moment Arvon General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) 5 04-07-2004 04:37 AM
If you were A Child of A Dragon and A Sorceress who would you worship? Jedimaster General Discussion 2 04-22-2002 01:07 PM
If you were a Ranger/Mage who would you worship? Jedimaster General Discussion 6 04-19-2002 10:11 AM
senior citizen story John D Harris General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) 1 09-07-2001 11:51 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved