The war on terror?

[ripped off]

I first would like to thank those for their service to our fine country. Now for those of you who have never served and rely striclky on the information that you are given by the news media perhaps this link will shed some light on your misinformed views.
http://www.aish.com/movies/JP/PhotoFraud.asp

 

[akbuuur]

So you mean to say that the death of 1000+ lebanese are still worth less than 60ish israeli?
EDIT
if you want i can go and find things just like that... opposite view point though....

 

[37g joe]

Akburr you are a master at Al- Takeyya also spelled Al-Taqiyya how about you exlpain to every one what I am talking about or maybe they can just goolge it. ***) ***)

 

[dogstar]

How do you interpret it Joe? ..... Taqiyya ..... I would be intrested to here your translation....
Is it that muslims believe they can lie so they can kill their enemy or lie to keep their enemy from killing, ect. them...?? Is it OK for them to use it for offensive means or only defensive means......or do you see a difference ??

 

[akbuuur]

I decided ill just google it for em.
"al-Taqiyya should conform to specific rules vis-a-vis the situation
wherein eminent danger is present; these rules, listed in many books
of Fiqh (Jurisprudence), along with the severity of the danger
determine the validity, or lack of, al-Taqiyya itself. It is not
mandatory to practice it (al-Taqiyya) at all times; on the contrary,
it is permissible, and sometimes necessary, to abandon it (al-Taqiyya)
altogether; as in the case where revealing the truth will further the
cause of the religion, and provide a direct service to Islam; and
(when the revealing of the truth is such that it constitutes) a jihad
(striving) for (Islam's) sake; (verily,) in such a situation, wealth
and life should be forsaken. Furthermore, al-Taqiyya is prohibited in
instances wherein the killing of innocent people and the spread of
corruption will result; and in cases wherein the marring of the
religion will result, and/or a significant harm will befall the
Muslims, either by leading them astray or corrupting and oppressing
them.
Either way, al-Taqiyya, as the Shia uphold it, does not make of the
Shia a secret cooperative that seeks to destroy and corrupt, as the
enemies (of the Shia) wish to present them; (these critics launch
their verbal attacks) without really heeding the subject (of al-
Taqiyya); and (without even) laboring to understand our own opinion on
the matter (of al-Taqiyya).
Nor does it (al-Taqiyya) mandate that the religion and its injunctions
become a secret of secrets that cannot be disclosed to those who do
not subscribe to its teachings. How so, when the books of the
Imamiyah (the Shia) that deal with the (subjects of) Fiqh, Kalam, and
beliefs are in abundant supply, and have exceeded the limits (of
publications) expected from any nation professing its beliefs."
Funny thing is I'm not in any danger (or i dont feel like it).... was there any point to it? Its not a bad thing I'm defending my religion. Didn't know that could be a bad thing.

 

[37g joe]

The word "al-Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's
beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a
time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from
physical and/or mental injury." A one-word translation would be
"Dissimulation."
According to Al-Taqiyah, Muslims were granted the Shar'iyee right (legitimacy) to infiltrate the Dar el-Harb (war zone), infiltrate the enemy's cities and forums and plant the seeds of discord and sedition. These agents were acting on behalf of the Muslim authority at war, and therefore were not considered as lying against or denouncing the tenants of Islam.
They were "legitimate" mujahedeen, whose mission was to undermine the enemy's resistance and level of mobilization. One of their major objectives was to cause a split among the enemy's camp while downplaying the issues related to Islam ("Oh, I am not religious." "Oh, that is not Islam, you are mistaken, there is so much misinformation." "Oh, it is in the interpretation." "Brother, Islam is all about peace and love and music just like in the 60s.") In many instances, they convinced their targeted audiences that Jihad is not aimed at them, that indigenous people are not targeted. Meanwhile the (allegedly) "un Islamic" Muslims continued their attacks on the target's property and life (e.g. Lashkar-e Toyiba, Mujahideen and Osama Bin Laden's
declaration of war against innocent American civilians).
Al-taqiyya and dissimulation are words used for a practice of Muslims blatantly lying to non-Muslims. All but some of the most fundamental Muslims consider the act of Al-taqiyya or lying to non-Muslims to be a good work. This is very important when one remembers that, in Islam, salvation is determined by good works. This means that a Muslim lying to a non-Muslim is that Muslim doing a good work to earn salvation. It is almost equivalent to a Christian accepting Jesus as his savior. One of the big differences is that a Christian only needs to accept Jesus as his savior once to become saved forever but a Muslim must do his good works consistently and repeatedly to earn his salvation with the except of the greatest work of dying while fighting non-Muslims.
This is particularly important when one realizes that the only work which can guarantee salvation for a Muslim is to wage war against and kill non-Muslims or at least support those who do wage war against and kill non-Muslims. It is only logical that to lie in support of a war against non-Muslims could guarantee salvation for a Muslim because it would be considered supporting the war. This is a very powerful motivation for any Muslim to lie to any non-Muslim for any reason but especially when concerning any war or military effort against non-Muslims.
I have learned that, for this reason, it is very common practice for Muslims, especially leaders, to lie about the war against non-Muslims. These lies come in many forms such as denying that Islam is a war against non-Muslims, that the Koran teaches salvation through fighting and killing non-Muslims, feigning sympathy for the US concerning 9/11, or Muslim countries denying that they have military intentions against Israel, the US, or other non-Muslim countries.

 

[37g joe]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
How do you interpret it Joe? ..... Taqiyya ..... I would be intrested to here your translation...

You slipped dogstar When instead of using the word Al- Takeyya also spelled Al-Taqiyya you used Taqiyya which is interesting from my point since that unless you are Muslim or studied Arabic for some time you would not understand to substitute that for Al-Taqiyya to leave out the Al it shows a familarity with this term and subject and language that most people dont understand. Your name Dog star is also interesting to look at (also known as Sirius goes far back in arab culture and islamic culture.) and is even in the Quran> {it is He Who is the Lord of Dog Star(Sirius), (Qur’an, 53: 49) You have stated earlier your not a muslim but these tid bits seem to point other-wise does it realy mater wheter or not you are? No. But it does mater if you try to present your self as somthing you are not and lie about it. I dont know if you well admit it on here or not maybe I am wrong but seems to me that your just performing Al-Taqiyya (deception and dissinformation for the sake of allah)
Oh here is the quote from earlier just in case you delete it and say you never said that you where not a muslim.
Originally Posted by Dogstar
I not trying to support any one, I have an open mind and I suported phixer earlier in thee thread when I though an unjust comment was made to him...I am not Muslim but I do beleive in freedom of religon and I dont like anyone condeming any religon for what IMO is unreasonable reasons...We all have blood on our hands and I pray that God will forgive us all but I dont think he will...

 

[dogstar]

Yes, it makes sence that anyone in a WAR would result to lieing or misleading the enemy to prevent his own harm or acheive victory on the battle field. Any general or leader would do this if he/she though it would help.....and many do/have.
But the issue is rather all muslims feel that they are in a war....as I think you may feel...if the ones that believe they are then it would be excepted to do this just as a person from other religions fighting a war would do....how could a Christain soilder follow scripter in a war when Jesus said to turn the other cheek.....all how he interprates that.
Its all how the individul thinks about what any docterine means or has been led to mean...
One that will not except or beleive that all muslims do not beleive that their scriptures allow them to live in peace with non beleivers would feel like that.....
The way the scriptures in any religion are translated or interpreted to an individual is up to them and yes..people can be misled to beleive anything from someone they follow that wants them too for whatever their goal is in interpreting them the way they do to the people who follow them....
For someone that feels that every person of any religion believes or follow the same thing IMO is just not thinking for them selfs...
Just look at how many Christain sects or organizations there are from Catholics to Mormons to Zionist to BranchDavidians to the KKK to the Scientist.....and I left out a hundred others that call themselfs Christains.....they all dont beleive the same things....Do they, do you dance with snakes too....its OK if you do because thats YOUR religion...
You can interprate anything in the Qur'an any way you wish and use any interpetation or translation you wish for whatever reasons you so wish.....It still does not mean you know how anyone else interprates it....same thing with the Bible, or any other teachings of any other religion....
Q. 3:28, IMO.....and I can only say IMO, has been mostly understood to prevent being tortured, to escape persecution, keep from shedding blood, avoid danger, if coerced, to gaurd yourself from harm, to aquire needs, to mend relation ships, to make peace, or if threatened, as long as the heart remains pure to Allah...from the many interprtations that have been made about it...but of course anyone can interpate it as I said earlier..." anyway they wish to " as you may as well.
Many Sunnies dont agree that it even means you can lie at all and many may feel other wise and just not say so to avoid persecution in their own sect, IDK, how could I. and Shia feel it OK as long as your heart is true, but maybe not all of them.........but the verse is there and its all how one intprets it....Even John in Revelations qotes God has said that only a few, a remnaint from the churches will recieve the reward, so does that mean that a lot of Christains are being misled by their leaders and only a few truely get it.....or is that just anciant history too..?? All how you interprate it I quess....Just my thoughts ofcoures and time will tell...

 

[dogstar]

Originally Posted by 37g Joe
but seems to me that your just performing Al-Taqiyya (deception and dissinformation for the sake of allah)
Well, I will admit that I serve God or the Almighty or Allah or whatever you choose to call him when refering to me.......If you beleive that I am lieing about my true thoughs or performing as you call it then thats fine with me because Im not conserned with what you think about me...My conserne is what My God thinks about me.....And if I choose to hate the sin and not the sinner or to fight for him with words and not guns then thats my religion and what I beleive He wishes and if you beleive different then thats yours....

 

[37g joe]

You are correct to say Al-Taqiyya is not as popularly within the sunnis They aree much more upfront on what they belive and thier intentions to attack the west but it is still permissible for in thier terms the sake of the house of islam (Dar es salaam). My Interpetation of the text is irelavant it is the majorities interpetation and use of the practice that is what I am concerned about. The Fact that the Western world takes the word of people who in thier mind have every right to lie and Hide thier intentions of world domination. how can you make a treaty with a people who have every intention of breaking it . here is a good link I recomend people read it all. http://www.historyofjihad.com/

 

[akbuuur]

Accusing dogstar of being muslim doesnt make any sence to me... How would it further islam? Because a non-muslims words are heavier than that of a muslim? And the link about jihad... I didnt read cause I have to go in a bit. But I think you feel that all muslims are in some secret plot at destroy every other non muslim which is rediculous. You agree that the text means something different to everyone. There are obviously going to be extremists and so were at the starting point...
I have learned that, for this reason, it is very common practice for Muslims, especially leaders, to lie about the war against non-Muslims.
I find that funny because on the other hand you have the president of Iran. He outright says things. Where as Westernleaders tend to hide their work under their propganda machines. I was actually talking to one of my uncles about that. About what we think was one of the major flaws with the Muslim leaders. He said "Muslims tend to say alot of stuff, then do it. Where as the west will just do it and say they never did anything.

 

[dogstar]

Originally Posted by 37g Joe
My Interpetation of the text is irelavant it is the majorities interpetation and use of the practice that is what I am concerned about.
So now you know what the majorities of muslims beleive...( interpreting your statement )...I take that that you have spoken with that many, a majority....so your comment is a fact or I have interpreted it wrong and you have not spoken to a majority and are only voiceing your beleif or reliing on what others interpetations are or tell you ?? I dont beleive that you have spoken personally with a majority of all the muslims in the world, again, my interpretation, but I guess if anyone could do that, you could...
and of course they really told you the truth of what they beleive instead of pulling an Al-Taqiyya on ya.

 

[akbuuur]

and of course they really told you the truth of what they beleive instead of pulling an Al-Taqiyya on ya.
HAHA that sounds too funny. Its not "sike" anymore its "i was just al-taqiyya'n with yaaa".

anyways... :thinking:

 

[phixer]

Originally Posted by akbuuur
Accusing dogstar of being muslim doesnt make any sence to me... How would it further islam? Because a non-muslims words are heavier than that of a muslim? And the link about jihad... I didnt read cause I have to go in a bit. But I think you feel that all muslims are in some secret plot at destroy every other non muslim which is rediculous. You agree that the text means something different to everyone. There are obviously going to be extremists and so were at the starting point...
I find that funny because on the other hand you have the president of Iran. He outright says things. Where as Westernleaders tend to hide their work under their propganda machines. I was actually talking to one of my uncles about that. About what we think was one of the major flaws with the Muslim leaders. He said "Muslims tend to say alot of stuff, then do it. Where as the west will just do it and say they never did anything.
Interesting observation, but can see your point. Slick willy was a prime example of this. The reason why many western politicians use propaganda is because of political correctness. If they were to push an issue too strongly they would undoutedly offened someone and potentially loose some of their voter base. Most politicians flip flop around because of this and are able to safely guage the popularity of a position through the propaganda machine, if the majority supports it they are all in, if not they can hide in the smoke screen and take a different position.
If Iran was a democracy thier leaders would face the same propaganda machine, I mean do they even have taboid newpapers there? :hilarious In Iran what the boss says goes and no one is going to publicly dispute that. I think a lot of the problem with western politics is Political correctness. However... the seperation between church and state is what allows free speech without reprisal.

 

[akbuuur]

Yea irans government is interesting one of myfreinds is there right now and me and him were chatting online about the up's and down's of the government and how overall approval is of the government. The president of today won a "landslide" if i remember correctly, last year but out of all of the arab world it seems like he is the only one who has the guts to say whats on his mind.
If Iran was a democracy thier leaders would face the same propaganda machine, I mean do they even have taboid newpapers there?
haha ill ask him to check on the tabliods for ya. If you all have any questions concering living and stuff in iran you can ask me now cause hes comming back soon.. i think in 2 weeks?
In many ways though the seperation between church and state is what allows free speech without reprisal.
Now say they were to seperate the "church and state" it wouldnt make much sense because the Irani's pride them self on being the "Islamic Republic of Iran". Unless I missunderstood.
Lastly,
what do you think about the conclusion of this battle-i was going to call it a war but i am 99.9% sure its not done. Winners? Losers? Why? and How?

 

[phixer]

Originally Posted by akbuuur
Yea irans government is interesting one of myfreinds is there right now and me and him were chatting online about the up's and down's of the government and how overall approval is of the government. The president of today won a "landslide" if i remember correctly, last year but out of all of the arab world it seems like he is the only one who has the guts to say whats on his mind.
If Iran was a democracy thier leaders would face the same propaganda machine, I mean do they even have taboid newpapers there?
haha ill ask him to check on the tabliods for ya. If you all have any questions concering living and stuff in iran you can ask me now cause hes comming back soon.. i think in 2 weeks?
Now say they were to seperate the "church and state" it wouldnt make much sense because the Irani's pride them self on being the "Islamic Republic of Iran". Unless I missunderstood.
Lastly,
what do you think about the conclusion of this battle-i was going to call it a war but i am 99.9% sure its not done. Winners? Losers? Why? and How?
Right ! the government there is based on religion and because of it, the leaders are not subjected to the same type of propaganda as the western leaders. For instance, it is much more offensive to mock a religious leader than a politician. If someone were to speak out against one of the leaders in Iran they would in effect be speaking out against the religion itself. I suppose there are different ways of interpreting it though. So what holds this type of government together is a shared religious belief system.
What holds a democratic government together (besides money :hilarious ) is a belief system based on individual freedom of choice and freedom of speech.
Do you mean the Israli cease fire akbuuur? if so I dont think its anywhere near over. No winners only losers on both sides.
The reason is because until a persons thought process is changed, there can be no mutal understanding. There is no way to completely wipe out all enemies and the ones that do remain will continue to strike back anyway they can.
This is why a cultural change needs to take place on both sides. The problem is that religion is getting in the way of it. I really dont think any God wants people to destroy themselves. I could be wrong?

 

[akbuuur]

ill write in a sec im playing a online game but that was some interesting thoughts

 

[phixer]

Alright man, check back with ya later. I have to run also, got homework to do, sometimes I would rather count socks. :hilarious

 

[akbuuur]

First well start with Iran, they had some protests in 2000 about civil liberties, they did not attack the religious leaders(if you dont know, theres the Imam who has supreme say in all matters, then theres the president), yet they were attacking the politcal leader, who was Khatami at the time. The protestors didnt accomplish their goals but I guess you win some you lose some eh?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/644938.stm
Quote:
Do you mean the Israli cease fire akbuuur? if so I dont think its anywhere near over. No winners only losers on both sides.
The reason is because until a persons thought process is changed, there can be no mutal understanding. There is no way to completely wipe out all enemies and the ones that do remain will continue to strike back anyway they can.
This is why a cultural change needs to take place on both sides. The problem is that religion is getting in the way of it. I really dont think any God wants people to destroy themselves. I could be wrong?
Yes, I mean the Israeli, Lebanese ceasefire and I agree with you about not being over hence the term 'battle'. I dont feel neccesarily that it is religion in theway of it, as there are orthodox jews whoh oppose the state of Israel and some other jewish movements against the state of Israel. I'm not sure if you saw the interview of Ahmadinejad(the only reason I spelled it right was because I googled it) he says himself that he is not anti-semitic(which btw is a coined term, a semite -A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians. www.dictionary.com) but he is anti-zionist. I think he said something like:
"Where did the hollocaust take place?"
"Germany."
"Then why is it that arab land was given when it was the europeans who brough upon the hollocaust" or something along those lines.
Also, if you havent noticed I dont support the state of Israel one bit, yet for psychology class I married a jew who happens to be one of my really good freinds. And obviously no God wants people to destroy themselves... unless your a greek...

 

[phixer]

Originally Posted by akbuuur
First well start with Iran, they had some protests in 2000 about civil liberties, they did not attack the religious leaders(if you dont know, theres the Imam who has supreme say in all matters, then theres the president), yet they were attacking the politcal leader, who was Khatami at the time. The protestors didnt accomplish their goals but I guess you win some you lose some eh?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/644938.stm
Quote:
Do you mean the Israli cease fire akbuuur? if so I dont think its anywhere near over. No winners only losers on both sides.
The reason is because until a persons thought process is changed, there can be no mutal understanding. There is no way to completely wipe out all enemies and the ones that do remain will continue to strike back anyway they can.
This is why a cultural change needs to take place on both sides. The problem is that religion is getting in the way of it. I really dont think any God wants people to destroy themselves. I could be wrong?
Yes, I mean the Israeli, Lebanese ceasefire and I agree with you about not being over hence the term 'battle'. I dont feel neccesarily that it is religion in theway of it, as there are orthodox jews whoh oppose the state of Israel and some other jewish movements against the state of Israel. I'm not sure if you saw the interview of Ahmadinejad(the only reason I spelled it right was because I googled it) he says himself that he is not anti-semitic(which btw is a coined term, a semite -A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians. www.dictionary.com) but he is anti-zionist. I think he said something like:
"Where did the hollocaust take place?"
"Germany."
"Then why is it that arab land was given when it was the europeans who brough upon the hollocaust" or something along those lines.
Also, if you havent noticed I dont support the state of Israel one bit, yet for psychology class I married a jew who happens to be one of my really good freinds. And obviously no God wants people to destroy themselves... unless your a greek...
:hilarious
I used Wikpedia, Zionism = " The ideology that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, where the Jewish nation originated over 3,200 years ago and where Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states existed up to the 2nd century CE. "
"Certain individuals and groups have seized on the term "Zionism" and have misused it to justify attacks on Israel. In some cases, the label "Zionist" is also used improperly as a euphemism for Jews in general by those wishing to whitewash anti-Semitism (as in the Polish anti-Zionist campaign and Zionology)."
"If you advocate the abolition of Israel...that means in fact that you're against the people who live there. If you are, for example, against the existence of Malaysia, you are anti-Malay. If you are against the existence of Israel, you are anti-Jewish."
Ahmadinejad is anti-zionist and the Nazis were anti-semetic, cant really see how one is any better than the other.
Without a seperation of church and state it is very easy for religious beliefs to influence popular culture and dicatate law. Anyone who dosent agree convienently gets labeled anti - (insert name of religion here). Which is only a word but due to PC scares most politicians. The Turkish government is a good example of how Islam can co-exist with democracy.