What Are Your Opinions On the Creation of the State of Israel?

[Plutarch]

As for the argument about jihads, I don't know much about this either, but you guys seem to be agreeing that terrorist groups like al Qaeda are not following the principles of a true jihad? So is it safe to say that these terrorists aren't true Muslims, or at least that they aren't very good Muslims? If so, then is it also safe to say that there is a generally universal set of principles governing Islam, and that those who do not adhere to these principles are the false or weak Muslims? Again, I wouldn't know. These aren't rhetorical questions.

Lastly, about the argument about who has the credentials over whom. I think that you guys are splitting hairs here. You both seem pretty knowledgeable about this topic (and both of you can also actually learn from each other), so why not just debate the issue with evidence? Just let the evidence speak for itself, instead of trying to discredit one another. Imo logic and reason is the most immediate route to an amicable resolution. Fuck that other shit.

 

[husnain1]

As for the argument about Pakistan's questionable "conduct", I don't know enough to say much. But Pakistan and the United States seem to not see eye to eye at times concerning the "War on Terror". Whether this is because Pakistan has interests invested in these persecuted "terrorists" or because Pakistan's mode of operation differs from that of the Americans (like how the United States has difficulties dealing with countries that have outlawed the death penalty). Either one wouldn't suprise me, especially the former. All nations had, have, and will continue to have dirty dealings with disreputable individuals or organizations (some of these being "terrorists"). I don't think that janklow has ever said the opposite, but I think that we can all agree that Pakistan is not a "terrorist nation". Unfortunately, some Westerners may think this, but certainly not all Westerners.

Which leads me to reiterate husnain's point that yes, Muslims are easily discriminated and misunderstood as a whole. Westerners aren't that stupid. It's just a mixture of innocent ignorance, fear/hate, and Western media bias. In the same way that Westerners are not aware that Muslim "terrorists" account for a very small percentage of Muslims in the world , Westerners may also not be aware that gang members (or even military servicemen) account for a very small percentage of Americans in the country. That may be a bad analogy, but this point is clearer given the fact that many Americans don't even know why these "terrorists" are doing what they are doing. They just think that they are bat shit crazy evil. Though some of these terrorist masterminds are actually very "intelligent" and see themselves as saints/matryrs/freedom fighters.

I agree with everything you said although I wish more people could be as objective as you are being

 

[husnain1]

As for the argument about jihads, I don't know much about this either, but you guys seem to be agreeing that terrorist groups like al Qaeda are not following the principles of a true jihad? So is it safe to say that these terrorists aren't true Muslims, or at least that they aren't very good Muslims? If so, then is it also safe to say that there is a generally universal set of principles governing Islam, and that those who do not adhere to these principles are the false or weak Muslims? Again, I wouldn't know. These aren't rhetorical questions.

Lastly, about the argument about who has the credentials over whom. I think that you guys are splitting hairs here. You both seem pretty knowledgeable about this topic (and both of you can also actually learn from each other), so why not just debate the issue with evidence? Just let the evidence speak for itself, instead of trying to discredit one another. Imo logic and reason is the most immediate route to an amicable resolution. Fuck that other shit.

this is a very tricky issue. as I stated before from an islamic viewpoint only God can determine their true faith. however, muslims do have an obligation to "correct" (including going to battle) groups such as al qaeda who are indiscriminately violating islamic principles. basically I think the issue with most of the muslim world is that they dont appreciate a foreign (read as non-muslim) force coming over in order to resolve an internal problem. muslims see each other as a family and even if one of its members is being a dick its up to them to fix the problem and not someone from the outside. although I do believe western powers (especially the US) can take some steps that would greatly reduce the tension in the muslim world. for example, one of bin laden's most fervent reasons for waging war on the US was because the US had troops in the holy lands of Saudi Arabia. Honestly, I bet if the US were to leave that would alleviate half the tension between muslims and the west (it seems like a very reasonable option if one truly wants peace).

I have no issues with debating solely on the evidence at hand.

 

[And Step]

Illegal, Immoral, Unnecessary, and.........the original inhabitants of that land are marginalized, discriminated, and ostracized anyway...so you know.

 

[janklow]

ironically for 1400 years there was no issue with jihad. now all of a sudden groups who have political motivations for their goals are supposedly waging jihad. its a convenient argument by the west in order to keep the "boogeyman" argument going. first it was the communists now its the muslims. you can't control any group or individual from claiming they are following a religious decree but you can differentiate between their actions and what the religion actually says. islamically only God can decide if they are or arent muslims so thats a moot point.

you say this as if the groups with political motivations are not the ones CLAIMING that they are waging jihad. this is why i am pointing out the difference between saying established religious authorities wouldn't agree with them and the vague concept of "universal agreement."

 

[janklow]

what gets me is that you continually make the same mistakes the most westerners make in regards to islam. you cant seem to differentiate the actions of people from their supposed beliefs. by your logic christianity must have some real issues since 99% of the crime committed in this country is by christians (whether they label themselves as such or not). the fact that many people dont disagree with al qaeda doesnt imply that its due to their religious beliefs. there is universal agreement on the principles of all religions however individuals dont always practice what they preach only difference is that islam is the only religion that gets blamed for its ideology.

didn't we cover this? YOU ARE A WESTERNER. by your own decree, since you refuse to allow for the concept of a Westerner learning something, you have no right to tell me you know anything about Islam.

and if you think Islam is the ONLY religion that catches static for its ideology, this just supports your claim about Westerners knowing zero about Islam.

 

[janklow]

(I personally think that the Israelities/Jews themselves were actually the definitive ones that demanded and effected the creation of Israel as a Jewish state, but that's neither here not there)

this is the whole beef about pre-Israel terrorism there, i think

 

[janklow]

I don't think that janklow has ever said the opposite, but I think that we can all agree that Pakistan is not a "terrorist nation". Unfortunately, some Westerners may think this, but certainly not all Westerners.

some of this comes down to janklow liking to argue on the internet. some of this comes down to people thinking they know janklow's beliefs better than he does.

 

[husnain1]

ironically for 1400 years there was no issue with jihad. now all of a sudden groups who have political motivations for their goals are supposedly waging jihad. its a convenient argument by the west in order to keep the "boogeyman" argument going. first it was the communists now its the muslims. you can't control any group or individual from claiming they are following a religious decree but you can differentiate between their actions and what the religion actually says. islamically only God can decide if they are or arent muslims so thats a moot point.

you say this as if the groups with political motivations are not the ones CLAIMING that they are waging jihad. this is why i am pointing out the difference between saying established religious authorities wouldn't agree with them and the vague concept of "universal agreement."

the universal agreement is with the PRINCIPLES of islam. we already established that human beings dont always follow the rules!

 

[husnain1]

what gets me is that you continually make the same mistakes the most westerners make in regards to islam. you cant seem to differentiate the actions of people from their supposed beliefs. by your logic christianity must have some real issues since 99% of the crime committed in this country is by christians (whether they label themselves as such or not). the fact that many people dont disagree with al qaeda doesnt imply that its due to their religious beliefs. there is universal agreement on the principles of all religions however individuals dont always practice what they preach only difference is that islam is the only religion that gets blamed for its ideology.

didn't we cover this? YOU ARE A WESTERNER. by your own decree, since you refuse to allow for the concept of a Westerner learning something, you have no right to tell me you know anything about Islam.



and if you think Islam is the ONLY religion that catches static for its ideology, this just supports your claim about Westerners knowing zero about Islam.

except that I AM MUSLIM as well! I think I would know better than you about my own religion as well as when it is being misrepresented!

 

[husnain1]

I don't think that janklow has ever said the opposite, but I think that we can all agree that Pakistan is not a "terrorist nation". Unfortunately, some Westerners may think this, but certainly not all Westerners.

some of this comes down to janklow liking to argue on the internet. some of this comes down to people thinking they know janklow's beliefs better than he does.

some of us wonder why janklow refers to himself in the third person. they have a term for that: multiple personality disorder

 

[Ajackson17]

We need to protect the estate and soverignity of Israel with our lives, because it's God's land not man's land. Ya'll in revelation time thinking silly.

 

[janklow]

the universal agreement is with the PRINCIPLES of islam. we already established that human beings dont always follow the rules!

i think the dispute is whether or not human beings actually do agree on what those principles are.

 

[janklow]

except that I AM MUSLIM as well! I think I would know better than you about my own religion as well as when it is being misrepresented!

i don't recall there being such a justification allowed. of course, you're now implying a westerner COULD learn something about Islam... which would make your blanket statements that westerners know nothing about Islam (a key part of your argument) moot.

this also brings us back to this: you're claiming that you have special status that allows you to automatically be right in a debate, something you seem to think i do while doing it yourself. there's also an unspoken presumption with "my own religion" that implies no one else can enter this debate also practicing Islam.

 

[janklow]

some of us wonder why janklow refers to himself in the third person. they have a term for that: multiple personality disorder

ssshhh, janklow can hear you

 

[husnain1]

the universal agreement is with the PRINCIPLES of islam. we already established that human beings dont always follow the rules!

i think the dispute is whether or not human beings actually do agree on what those principles are.

except that I already stated ALL people break rules pretty much all of the time, however only with muslims are the principles attacked instead of the people!

 

[husnain1]

except that I AM MUSLIM as well! I think I would know better than you about my own religion as well as when it is being misrepresented!

i don't recall there being such a justification allowed. of course, you're now implying a westerner COULD learn something about Islam... which would make your blanket statements that westerners know nothing about Islam (a key part of your argument) moot.

this also brings us back to this: you're claiming that you have special status that allows you to automatically be right in a debate, something you seem to think i do while doing it yourself. there's also an unspoken presumption with "my own religion" that implies no one else can enter this debate also practicing Islam.

you're really reaching here. when I say westerners dont know much about islam its obvious im referring to non-muslims in the west and not muslims (born or naturalized citizens).

as for the second part I (along with other muslims) am in a better position than you to judge whether or not my religion is being represented in its true light. no where am I implying that one HAS to be muslim to come to such conclusion (or not) although most "westerners" (notice the quotation marks!) do not have sufficient knowledge about the religion. yeah you might take the time to learn about the religion to come to the same conclusion I make but my point is that I am ALREADY making that conclusion since I do know the religion.

by the way yesterday was Pakistan's Independence Day!

 

[janklow]

except that I already stated ALL people break rules pretty much all of the time, however only with muslims are the principles attacked instead of the people!

"and if you think Islam is the ONLY religion that catches static for its ideology, this just supports your claim about Westerners knowing zero about Islam."

 

[janklow]

as for the second part I (along with other muslims) am in a better position than you to judge whether or not my religion is being represented in its true light. no where am I implying that one HAS to be muslim to come to such conclusion (or not) although most "westerners" (notice the quotation marks!) do not have sufficient knowledge about the religion. yeah you might take the time to learn about the religion to come to the same conclusion I make but my point is that I am ALREADY making that conclusion since I do know the religion.

considering that you spoke against blanket statements, i don't think it's reaching to call you out on one. as stated it doesn't allow for Westerners to learn about the topic and it ignores the fact that you might have bias as well. we don't presume that non-Muslims make inaccurate statements about their religion (or how it is practiced)? and if we do... why exempt Muslims?

 

[husnain1]

as for the second part I (along with other muslims) am in a better position than you to judge whether or not my religion is being represented in its true light. no where am I implying that one HAS to be muslim to come to such conclusion (or not) although most "westerners" (notice the quotation marks!) do not have sufficient knowledge about the religion. yeah you might take the time to learn about the religion to come to the same conclusion I make but my point is that I am ALREADY making that conclusion since I do know the religion.

considering that you spoke against blanket statements, i don't think it's reaching to call you out on one. as stated it doesn't allow for Westerners to learn about the topic and it ignores the fact that you might have bias as well. we don't presume that non-Muslims make inaccurate statements about their religion (or how it is practiced)? and if we do... why exempt Muslims?

because on the whole muslims are more versed in their religion than the average follower of other religions. I believe there have been studies/polls that can attest to this too. besides maybe just maybe for once it might be a good idea to actually listen to what muslims have to say.