# The peaceful religion of Islam



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Do you remember that Mosque in Najaf where Moqtada al-Sadr was holed up for weeks? Al-Sadr's goons were firing mortars at American troops from inside that Mosque .. but American troops showed restraint and never stormed the place. Finally Shiite cleric Ali al-Sistani, the most powerful Muslim cleric in Iraq, told al Sadr to clear out.

Now we have learned while al-Sadr was hiding in his Mosque his Islamic goons were quite busy. Their assignment was to kidnap dozens of women and children and bring them into the Mosque. There they would be murdered. I think it's possibly safe to say that many of the women were possibly raped before, maybe after, they were murdered. When al-Sistani ordered them out, Al Sadr and his gang of murderers left the bodies of the women and children inside the Mosque.

So ... what was the purpose? The Islamic killers fully expected American troops to storm the Mosque to get to them. When that happened, and after the smoke cleared, the innocent and peace-loving followers of Al Sadr would be able to show the bodies of innocent women and children who were killed in the brutal U.S. assault on this place of holy worship. Clever plan ... didn't work.

Never forget, especially now, the brutal, murderous nature of the Islamic killers. * They will murder their own sisters, mothers, sons and daughters if they think that they will then be able to use the western media to blame the deaths on American soldiers.* :eyeroll: And when the time comes, the Western media would of been be all-too-eager to relate the story just exactly the way al-Sadr wanted them to. :******: 
DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THIS ON ANY "MAINSTREAM" MEDIA OUTLET??


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

More info about those peaceful, fun loving muslims. Read this if you wnant to understand what mindset we are up against

Exhibition Killing
The Muslim "debate" on hostage-taking and beheading.

BY AMIR TAHERI
Sunday, October 3, 2004 12:01 a.m.

Who are we allowed to seize as hostage? Who are we allowed to kill?
For the past few weeks these questions have prompted much debate throughout the Muslim world. The emerging answer to both questions is: Anyone you like!

Triggered by the atrocity at a school in Beslan, in southern Russia, last month, the debate has been further fueled by kidnappings and "exhibition killings" in Iraq. Non-Muslims may find it strange that such practices are debated rather than condemned as despicable crimes. But the fact is that the seizure of hostages and "exhibition killing" go back to the early stages of Islamic history.

In the Arabia of the seventh century, where Islam was born, seizing hostages was practiced by rival tribes, and "exhibition killing" was a weapon of psychological war. The Prophet codified those practices, ending freelance kidnappings and head-chopping. One principle of the new code was that Muslims could not be held hostage by Muslims. Nor could Muslims be subjected to "exhibition killing." Such methods were to be used solely against non-Muslims, and then only in the context of armed conflict.

Seized in combat, a non-Muslim would be treated as a war prisoner, and could win freedom by converting to Islam. He could also be ransomed or exchanged against a Muslim prisoner of war. Non-Muslim women and children captured in war would become the property of their Muslim captors. Female captives could be taken as concubines or given as gifts to Muslims. The children, brought up as Muslims, would enjoy Islamic rights.

Centuries later, the initial code was elaborated by Imam Jaafar Sadeq, a descendant of the Prophet. He made two key rulings. Whoever entered Islam was instantly granted "full guarantee for his blood." And non-Muslims, as long as they paid their poll tax, or jiziyah, to the Islamic authority would be protected.

Recalling this background is important because what we witness in the Muslim world today is disregard of religious tradition in favor of political considerations.

A survey of Muslim views over the past weeks shows overwhelming, though not unanimous, condemnation of the Beslan massacre. But in all cases the reasons given for the condemnation are political rather than religious. Muslim commentators assert that Russia, having supported "the Palestinian cause," did not deserve such treatment.
Sheik Yussuf al-Qaradawi, a Sunni Muslim scholar based in Qatar, was among the first to condemn the Beslan massacre. At the same time, however, he insists that a similar attack on Israeli schools would be justified because Israeli schoolchildren, if not killed, could grow up to become soldiers. (Sheik Qaradawi also justifies the killing of unborn Israelis because, if born, they could become soldiers.)

That view is shared by Ayatollah Imami Kashani, a cleric working for the Iranian government. He claims that, regardless of what it has done against the people of Chechnya, Russia must not be attacked because it has supported "the greater cause" of Palestine. In other words Chechen Muslims are less worthy of consideration than Palestinian ones. That view is shared by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a grouping of 57 Muslim countries. Its secretary-general, Abdelouahed Belkeziz, has issued a strong condemnation of Beslan. But he has not said a word about dozens of other terrorists attacks carried out by Islamists across the globe.

Implicit in all this is that killing innocent people in the lands of the "infidel" is justified for as long as the victims are not citizens of states sympathetic to "the Arab cause," whatever it happens to be at any given time. That position was highlighted in the Arab reaction to the kidnapping of two French journalists by Islamists in Iraq last month. Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa led the call for their release with these words: "France is a friend of the Arabs; we cannot treat friends this way."

This was echoed by Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, spiritual leader of Hezbollah, who appealed for the release of the Frenchmen, something he has not done for any of the 140 foreigners who have been kidnapped in Iraq. Yasser Arafat has been more specific. "These journalists support the Palestinian cause and the Iraqi cause," he said in a statement issued in Ramallah. "We need guarantees for the security of friends who support us in battle."

In other words the Frenchmen must be freed because they support the Arabs, not because holding hostages is wrong.

The French authorities have reinforced that sentiment. Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin speaks of the Iraqi insurgency as "la résistance." And Foreign Minister Michel Barnier has announced that France would reject the international conference on Iraq, proposed by the Bush administration, unless "elements opposed to the occupation," meaning the terrorists, are invited.

Mr. Belkeziz, the OIC secretary-general has also promised to leave no stone unturned to ensure the release of the French hostages. The same Mr. Belkeziz has said nothing about hostages from some 30 other countries, including some members of his own organization. Nor has he been moved by the cold-blooded murder of 41 hostages, including Muslims, from 11 different nationalities.

Abbasi Madani, a former leader of the Front for Islamic Salvation, has started a hunger strike "in solidarity with our French brethren." This is rich coming from a man whose party and its allies caused the death of some 200,000 people in his native Algeria during the 1990s. *Mr. Madani never missed a meal in solidarity with the countless Algerians, including women and children, that his fellow Islamists slaughtered.* :eyeroll:

Yet even more disturbing is the attitude of Muslim organizations in France and Britain. Both have sent delegations to Iraq to contact the terrorists and ask for the liberation of two French, and one British, hostages. The French delegation, led by Mohamed Bechari, went out of its way to advertise France's "heroic opposition" to the Iraq war in 2003. "I am here to defend France's Arab policy," Mr. Bechari told reporters. "In Iraq as well as in Palestine, France is for the Arabs."

The two British Muslim delegates made their case in a different way by arguing that, although Britain participated in toppling Saddam Hussein, a majority of the British were opposed to the war. Thus British hostage Ken Bigley should be released not because hostage-taking is wrong but because such a move could strengthen anti-war sentiment in Britain.

By refusing to come out with a categorical rejection of terrorism, Muslim leaders and opinion-makers are helping perpetuate a situation in which no one is safe. *The 9/11 attacks against the United States were based on the claim, made by al Qaeda's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, that all citizens of democratic countries could be murdered because, being actual or potential voters, they have a share of responsibility for the policies of their governments.* :******: 
The assumption that only Americans and Israelis are targeted has proved false as Islamists have murdered hundreds of peoples from all faiths, including Islam, in a dozen countries in the past three years. *Today, it is enough for anyone to designate himself as an Islamic "mujahid," fighting for Palestine and opposing the "occupation" in Iraq, to get carte blanche from millions of Muslims, including many in authority, for kidnapping and "exhibition killing."* :sniper:

That no one, Muslim or "infidel," is safe was made clearer by a statement from Abu Anas al-Shami, the self-styled "mufti" of al Qaeda, who was reportedly killed in Iraq in an American air attack last month. "There are times when mujahedeen cannot waste time finding out who is who in the battlefield," he wrote. "There are times when we have to assume that whoever is not on our side is the enemy."

Al-Shami's position echoes a fatwa of the late Ayatollah Sadeq Khalkhali, one of the founders of the Islamic Republic in Iran. Ayatollah Khalkhali wrote: "Among those we seize hostage or kill, some may be innocent. In that case, Allah will take them to his paradise. We do our job, He does His."

Mr. Taheri is an Iranian political commentator based in Paris.


----------



## pointer99 (Jan 16, 2004)

those are two very good posts.

pointer


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

You Bob, are a separationist. By showing the differences between our cultures you will get nothing accomplished. History has proved this true. If you took a minute to think of the similarities that our cultures have you might see that we aren't so different after all.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Bob, I asked you before if you had an Islamic friend. You said yes. Have you shown him your post above? How about the subject line?

I don't understand what purpose this type of post serves?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The purpose is to illustrate the mindset of the people we are dealing with and yes the peaceloving religion of Islam is exactly what I say to him and at the moment he has no answer and just shakes his head and wonders what the heck is going on in his own religion and this man is devout not some phony using religion to justify killing.

MT why don't you make a list of the similarities of our cultures, we have little in common with these maniacs and I'm damn sure not going to go politically correct to make your simple mind happy. So prove me wrong show me what you have in common with people that murder their own little kids in a church to make political points and shoot little kids running to their mothers in the back with those assault rifles you are always whineing about.

When I see the general Muslim population coming down on these monsters I'll shut up about it until then I'm going to point out what savages they are every chance I get and unfortunately thats often lately.

*Whens the last time you heard of any other culture rounding up a bunch of their own little kids and women and killing them in a church to make their enemies look bad. *
These people are sick vicious terrorist monsters and their religion seems to turn a blind eye to it and politically corectness that many in our own society have that actually fuels these types of things. 
Seabass, Evil is evil and no one should be ashamed to call it what it is. Our media in the name of political correctness and misguided respect for this so called culture is allowing these things not to be reported in the general news. Ask yourself and your liberal heroes in the media what good not telling the public the truth does, instead of insinuating that me pointing out their vicious activities somehow is harmful. Oh, I forgot, politically correct liberals don't want the truth, and apparently the truth is there is a very good reason this culture declined from the most influential one in the world to a bunch of the worst type of thugs.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"MT why don't you make a list of the similarities of our cultures, we have little in common with these maniacs and I'm damn sure not going to go politically correct to make your simple mind happy. So prove me wrong show me what you have in common with people that murder their own little kids in a church to make political points and shoot little kids running to their mothers in the back with those assault rifles you are always whineing about."

Well Bob, we both have strong religous convictions.
We both live and die by the dollar.
We both have half educated older men who want to make decisions for everyone else (ahem).
Neither of us appreciate a standing army.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

BS our religious convictions are dissimilar Christians value the sanctity of life, no one I know lives an dies for the dollar, older men are smarter BY FAR than Young men, I appreciate the standing army and if you had the brains of an ant you would realize without it you would be dead, or living under under communnism which I'm sure you would find fine and dandy.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Thank you Bob, for pointing out that without a standing army in Iraq we would all be dead, from their intercontinental rubble missiles. I suppose the value held on the sanctity of life is proved in the good book, with the killing of able by kain, or perhaps by the crusades.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT

If your going to bring up the Crusades, I have talked to too many liberals that nock Christians for that without an understanding of what happened. If you go back to just before the Crusades you will find that the Crusades were in retaliation. Radical Moslems were off the deep end killing Christians long before Christians retaliated. They burned the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and killed every Christian they could find. You keep disappointing me more all the time MT. What is it that makes you think Christians are bad, and that radical Moslems are our fault?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman I do not think that Christians are bad, else I would be a hypocrite. I do not think that we should have encroached on their holy sites, but I do not give credence to the radicals. The Iraqis however were simply not a threat.


----------



## pointer99 (Jan 16, 2004)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Thank you Bob, for pointing out that without a standing army in Iraq we would all be dead, from their intercontinental rubble missiles. I suppose the value held on the sanctity of life is proved in the good book, with the killing of able by kain, or perhaps by the crusades.


keyword here is IRAQ.....

bob never said anything about a standing army in IRAQ. i think what he meant is a standing army ready to defend this country. IRAQ was out of the equation.

mt you better face facts sonny....there are people out there that want to kill us. it has been so throughout our history. in the past decade it has taken on a whole new level of intensity.

we have got to break the will of these thugs and we are winning despite what you hear from the media. al quaida is on the ropes. there esteemed leader is hiding in a cave like a rat. afraid to talk on a cell phone. people in his organization when given the opp to surrender with amnesty in saudi arabia jumped at the chance. why? they know their days are numbered. he delivers his message by courrier to his generals and when they pass it on usin todays technology we wack em.

if we remain stedfast in what we are doing we will be victorious. it's just a matter of time.

pointer


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

You have got me there pointer, I used the wrong terminoligy. I meant an occupying army, not a standing army.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

> we are winning despite what you hear from the media. al quaida is on the ropes. there esteemed leader is hiding in a cave like a rat. afraid to talk on a cell phone. people in his organization when given the opp to surrender with amnesty in saudi arabia jumped at the chance. why? they know their days are numbered. he delivers his message by courrier to his generals and when they pass it on usin todays technology we wack em.


Well, thats the best news I've heard in a long time.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Seabass I find it heartening that you see that as good news unbeliveably there are many people in this country that don't, 
Thank George Bush


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

http://www.indystar.com/articles/6/184725-8126-010.html

More news in the War on Terror...this time regarding some information found in Iraq. A computer disc was found containing information about schools in California, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, New Jersey and Oregon. What was the information about? Information like photos, floor plans, as well as an Education Department report on how to prepare and respond to a crisis. And why would this information be there?

*Because terrorists put it there. * Terrorists in Iraq that are preparing to strike the United States. *And why would they strike a school? * Just like they did in Beslan, Russia, where Islamic terrorists shot innocent children, the terrorists know that killing people's kids would get the biggest reaction. *They have absolutely no respect for innocent non-Muslim human life, and they will do everything possible to kill as many Americans (young and old) as possible.*

Somebody should ask Kerry...if Iraq is not a terrorist threat, then why was this material found in Iraq? Because it is a terrorist threat, that's why.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Bob, this disk was found recently. Iraq has become a hotbed for hatred of America since we invaded, henceforth the terror presence there has increased since our invasion. If one spilled a can of pork and beans on the ground, one couldn't very well say that the pork was there all along, now could they?


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Most of Iraq and all the Holy Shrines have been off limits to westerners since the late 70's when Sodamn Insane took over. It looks like one shouldn't covet Holy Ground. 8)


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Iraq has become a hot bed for hatred of America since we invaded,


 No it hasn't this is what you don't understand and I'm going to try to explain again. The huge majority of Iraqis are happy that we did this and want us to stay until things are stabilized they realize that we are not interested in taking their oil ect. Who the hell wouldn't be gald to get rid of Saddam thats the key to your next quote, and I'll answr it for you


> henceforth the terror presence there has increased since our invasion


yes you have correctly noted something for a change ( maybe theres hope for you after all) but the *why* is where you're lacking understanding. Its not a hatred of us by the general Muslim populations of these countries* its the knowledge by the fundamantalist Isalmic Jihadist that a free and Democratic Iraq is the first step in tumbling the influence and power of the Jihadist movement*. Thats why they are fighting so hard and why terrorists are flocking to Irag from other areas of the world to fight this battle which is a good thing because the more of them we kill the better off both the Iraqis and we will be in the long run. 
Same goes for Iran the greatest part of the population is tired of being lorded over and made to live within the 14th century rules imposed by the fundamantalist Islamic mullahs, *the Iranian Mullahs are well aware of this and are desperate to hang on to power so they have currenty formed a alliance with Al qaida* to try and defeat or derail the democratization of Iraq. These Mullahs know full well a free Iraq will spill into Iran and their reign will be over. *Herein lies the biggest danger the world now faces and thats the alliance of the Mullahs with nuclear weapons and if they slip one to Al quaida and they smuggled it into the US and Detonate it ( remember they have publicly sworn to kill 4 million of us next time) our cities citizens will flee, our economy will be destroyed, and the world will descend into a Nuclear war.* This is why its so important that we stop the Iranian nuke program. And Kerry won't do it he is an appeaser and has been all his life and to believe he has suddenly changed his world view at this point in his life is naive, he has been on the wrong side of every defense issue for the last 20 years and this is historical fact not my opinion. Sometimes you have got to take a stand and that time is now. And this isn't an Dem Vs Rep thing, its Kerry, there are some Dems that would do this thing right but hes not the one.


----------



## sevendogs (Sep 19, 2003)

Now, we have a new ingredient in this war. This is abundance of faithful muslims willling to die by killing a few or a lot of infidels. This is a real weapon of mass destruction, which Bush's administration totally ignored. Brainwashing is going on is Islam schools across Pakistan, Indonesia and other muslim countries. They boas that they caught 70% of Alquada leadership. This is what they knew after 9/11. Since then many more new dedicated memebers joined and expanded worldwide.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

In the spirit of openness, tolerance and equal rights, Saudi Arabia has decided to hold their first national elections. Not bad...considering the Kingdom's status as an Islamic dictatorship. Elections would be progress, right? Well, not exactly. *You see, women are not allowed to run for election, nor are they allowed to vote in this election. Add this to the other laws in Saudi Arabia, where women need their husband's permission to study, travel or work. Simply put, in Saudi Arabia women are treated like property. * How nice, but the Saudis will probably get a pass from the media and the U.N. on this one.

*Now, contrast that with the elections just held in Afghanistan. These elections, made possible by the United States, not only allowed all women to vote, but encouraged them to run. * So what thanks do we get in this world? Absolutely none, except some whining about how people may have been allowed to vote more than once.

According to the left, that's only allowed in Chicago, New York and Florida.


----------

