A guy on YouTube agrees with a POV so the POV must be sustainable because...?

I will be the first to admit that I am woefully ignorant of the tenants of Islam. I find it hard to believe (not doubting you for a moment) that any major religion could survive with a foundation as twisted as that.

You have sent me into study mode to rectify a level of ignorance on my part. Thank you for the post Brother.:lifter

He's not the only one, Sig. That youtube vid was for a little comic relief, but there's nothing funny about the reality of the misdirection and ingratiation that has led to this. I doubt very seriously that I'm the only one with this view.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...or-threat.html

Was that guy wearing a star sapphire ring? Rolex? I'd bet he is or was a Brother? Loved his rant, especially when he said "I don't give a damn what he says. What does he do? I could say that i'm a damn cat, meow, meow. Does that make me a damn cat?" :lifter

But, on a more serious note. I am doing my homework as I said in my reply to PRB. I am coming to some interesting conclusions and will post some opinions on that later.

Back to my homework before the good SGM jumps my ass :D

Religions are the tectonic plates of the formation of human society operating at the speed of mankind.

Ecce homo.

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

Either you identify a root cause or you don't as it relates to an enemy. What was the one link between all of our recent bombings and attempted bombings etc, etc.....even Pontius Pilate would recognize that.

:pThere's only one "religion" as you call it (and I call it a violent ideology bent on the destruction of everyone that disagrees with them) that, to this day continues to murder little children in the name of allah.

Let's not discuss other religions, let's keep this on track and point the finger at the sub-human culture that call themselves muslims.

Tell me did you hear one islamic imam decry the recent muslin bombing? There's half a billion muslims and I've year heard one leader of an islamic country call the bombings an act against the islamic beliefs.

Well, what get's me also is...look at the Muslims human rights record....not good. Look how they treat women, and gays (even though most of them like boys, how hypocritical), where's the Lib "womens rights, Gay rights folks in this country denouncing Islam??? I guess it's all about denouncing us guess...:confused:

Points to make ya ponder....hhmmm

That's because they're too busy sitting in their ivory towers, poisoning young minds, right? That old guy with the power, money, and influence isn't so anxious to go and meet Allah, is he? Gee, I wonder why? Seems like it's always the young guys that do the dirty work...

But hey…., the unindicted co-conspirators of the Holy Land Foundation trial, CAIR, are all about lecturing America that the Boston Jihadis weren’t influenced by Islam…

They sure are efficient when it comes to condemning alleged backlashes to Jihad terrorism, but not Jihadi terrorism itself..

> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,1117524.story


I would beg to differ…

(The Reliance of the Traveler. Pgs 599-609)

"The Council on American Islamic Relations again offered sympathy to victims of the Boston Marathon bombing on Friday, but added a plea for Americans not to generalize and conclude that Muslim teachings influenced the suspect in any way."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,1117524.story

That made me laugh out loud........ typical response from CAIR, islam and it's teachings had nothing to do with those two cowards murdering women & little kids.

And I'm really enjoying the gov response that they will increase "security", that also makes me laugh.

Guys like the bombers have two goals; conversion/murder of every infidel in the world and 72 virgins.

My Response the Question
 

PRB-I have been doing my homework and although far from complete I think I can draw some tentative conclusions. First, let me explain my methodology. I have come at this from the POV of a secular humanist so please do not take offense at any apparent sacrilege – none is intended. Second, I have chosen to read, first, from the Muslim biographies of Muhammad (Al-sira) because this body of work appears to be the more reliable than the Hadith. I have chosen to begin here because I thought it would be more insightful to understand what Muhammad did rather than what he said (the Qur’an). Also, the question posed by this thread “Are we at war with Islam?” begs a comparison to the life of Jesus of Nazareth to arrive at a tentative answer to the question.

The short answer to that question is YES IMO. My reasoning follows. Muhammad seems to have co-opted the monotheist view first brought forth by Abraham and later espoused by Jesus. So he does not offer anything new in that regard. This view was first espoused by him in Mecca and for some reason, I have not read the Al-sira for his life in Mecca yet, he was exiled. I got the impression, however, that he was from a wealthy merchant class there. He received an appointment as an arbitrator in Medina and it appears that this was perhaps his most formative period.

Muhammad fashioned a political-theology that served his own interests- accretion of power and influence in Medina. Muhammad was also a military leader of sorts. His principle objective in Medina was to cobble together alliances with the Jews and the Christians. All of his actions seemed to be towards that end. Once his ends were met, he would then find a reason to quash the alliance and centralize his control. This was particularly evident in his treatment of the Jews and his marginalizing them by promoting the notion that they were not the children of Abraham and they were not the chosen people and accusing them of treachery and treason against him. Muhammad came to view only himself as the true messenger of God (Allah) thus going one step beyond the collective view of the Jews as the chosen ones. It seems to me that Muhammad was an egoist extraordinaire and a true tyrant.

IMO his views on slavery and women are very telling. He condemned unjustified cruelty towards slaves and women. Thus, I presume there is such a thing as justified cruelty to slaves and women in his mind! It would seem from the Al-sira that is the case as Muhammad was a life-long slave and concubine master.

On the other hand Jesus of Nazarreth never commanded an Army, all of his actions were consistent with his mission – De Oppresso Liber! Unlike Muhammad, Jesus did not espouse the egotistical notion that only he was the true messenger of God, but rather that we all are children of God. Nothing in the life of Jesus or his teachings suggests that he was attempting to accrete power and influence to himself or any single group, sect, or tribe. Had I lived in his time, I like to think that I would have volunteered to be a medical sergeant on his A-team.

Interestingly, I learned that Muhammad was vilified in the Middle Ages as the anti-Christ. Dante’s Inferno graphically depicted a disemboweled Muhammad in the 8th circle of Hell and even in modern day Salvador Dali depicted a disemboweled Muhammad in his Inferno series of lithographs. I actually have a print of this and never realized it was Dali’s depiction of Muhammad. Surprised there was not a Fatwa issued against these two guys.

Although I have not gotten into the subject of Modern Islam, it appears to me that Islam has not evolved since Muhammad. Given that, I can see no room for coexistence or compromise between Islam and Christianity. IMO, any attempt to negotiate, compromise, or appease will meet with abject failure and most probably will hasten the outcome that such efforts were attempting to avoid (eg. Neville Chamberlain’s negotiated agreement with Adolf Hitler)

References:
Aydin, Elif Eryarsoy. "Prophet Muhammad's Attitude Towards Slavery from the Perspective of Human Rights"
Watt in Encyclopedia of Islam, Banu Qurayza Article
Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, p. 116
Watt, Muslim-Christian Encounters, p.1

It is interesting reading and yup, very laborious at times.
You can spend days just looking at modern fatwah's that will make you laugh, cry and stare in disbelief.
The difference between Mohameds Meccan and Madinan period are crucial to us kafaars.
Islamists always trot out the early conciliatory verses (when Mo had no power and feared for his life) even tho those verses have been abrogated by his later works and verses when he was a powerful warlord.
When verses contradict in the Koran (often)...then 'that which came last is first'...and all of the later verses were warlike as they refered to the kafir.
It is an addicting study.