Anti-Islamic Sentiment on RF

[.lava]

In all fairness, .lava, I do not believe you are going to find the real story, in present day Turkey, that depicts the Ottoman era in anything but glowing colours. Reality is far different, based on on-the-ground reports from the people being attacked by the various Muslim armies, over several centuries, and by those traveling through the lands and witnessing the aftermaths. What do you know about the Armenian Genocide? The Armenian genocide is just the last chapter of a very long story of Ottoman aggression.

Armenian Genocide
Armenian National Institute

as long as Armenian government refuse to open archieves, there is nothing to talk about because it is not more than a gossip.

you can find truth anywhere. you don't trust our sources. i don't know why. our archieves are open to entire world, Armenian issue included, written in 3 languages. Russian and Armenian archieves also contain same process but we can't read them. therefor i find it funny. once they used a picture of a dead woman and they claimed she was an Armenian lady who got killed by Turks. then it turned out to be picture of a Jewish lady who got killed by Nazis and the very same picture still remains in Holocaust museum in Germany. who are they fooling? then there was another picture with many dead men. they were all naked. they represented it to entire world as dead Armenian who brutally killed by Turks but thank God guys were naked and anyone who could tell the difference of circumcised man would admit all those men were Muslims. this is really pathetic. but there is a propaganda and it goes on. Armenian insists to keep their archieves closed. who knows? maybe soon they burn all the papers, an accident may destroy all evidence. at least our archieve contains papers written by Russians as well. do you care to read? probably not. probably as usual, you need reason, not truth, so go for it

.

 

[YmirGF]

as long as Armenian government refuse to open archieves, there is nothing to talk about because it is not more than a gossip.

you can find truth anywhere. you don't trust our sources. i don't know why. our archieves are open to entire world, Armenian issue included, written in 3 languages. Russian and Armenian archieves also contain same process but we can't read them. therefor i find it funny. once they used a picture of a dead woman and they claimed she was an Armenian lady who got killed by Turks. then it turned out to be picture of a Jewish lady who got killed by Nazis and the very same picture still remains in Holocaust museum in Germany. who are they fooling? then there was another picture with many dead men. they were all naked. they represented it to entire world as dead Armenian who brutally killed by Turks but thank God guys were naked and anyone who could tell the difference of circumcised man would admit all those men were Muslims. this is really pathetic. but there is a propaganda and it goes on. Armenian insists to keep their archieves closed. who knows? maybe soon they burn all the papers, an accident may destroy all evidence. at least our archieve contains papers written by Russians as well. do you care to read? probably not. probably as usual, you need reason, not truth, so go for it

.

I do agree that it is puzzling that Armenia won't open it's archives. I don't have a good reason for that, but while reading the Russian 65 page report, I came across this cryptic bit from the Director of the Russia-based Institute of Political Studies and political analyst Sergey Markov.

In your opinion, what is the reason behind the U.S. Congress move?

It should be noted, that this issue has been raised on numerous occasions. Of course, actions against Armenians in that historical period were very cruel. But one needs to understand that it took place a long time ago. I believe the recent decision by the Committee on Foreign Affairs was result of long-term efforts of pro-Armenian and Greek lobby in the U.S. Of course, this document would not have been adopted if Washington had not deviated from policy of accepting Turkey as its political ally in the Middle East and South Caucasus.

Bold added, for emphasis. He makes the statement, "Of course, ... were very cruel" in full knowledge of the Russian report. Food for thought, .lava. <Source>

 

[Ozzie]

as long as Armenian government refuse to open archieves, there is nothing to talk about because it is not more than a gossip.

you can find truth anywhere. you don't trust our sources. i don't know why. our archieves are open to entire world, Armenian issue included, written in 3 languages. Russian and Armenian archieves also contain same process but we can't read them. therefor i find it funny. once they used a picture of a dead woman and they claimed she was an Armenian lady who got killed by Turks. then it turned out to be picture of a Jewish lady who got killed by Nazis and the very same picture still remains in Holocaust museum in Germany. who are they fooling? then there was another picture with many dead men. they were all naked. they represented it to entire world as dead Armenian who brutally killed by Turks but thank God guys were naked and anyone who could tell the difference of circumcised man would admit all those men were Muslims. this is really pathetic. but there is a propaganda and it goes on. Armenian insists to keep their archieves closed. who knows? maybe soon they burn all the papers, an accident may destroy all evidence. at least our archieve contains papers written by Russians as well. do you care to read? probably not. probably as usual, you need reason, not truth, so go for it

.

I reckon EU hesitation to include Turkey would have been mediated by a reasonable willingness by Turkey to account for the Armenian Genocide. After all, this ranks third in the 20th Century Genocide Hall of Infamy.

 

[Metempsychosis]

maybe it is because name of Islam is used by Western authorities. have you ever heard of Christian terrorist? this trend, calling criminals and terrorist "Islamic" is choice of Western. they are not called Arabic, Turkish or Iraqi terrorists, they are all called Islamic as if Islam, the religion itself and its holy book approve terror

.

Right!!!

They call themselves Islamic, though.

Haha

 

[England my lionheart]

if that's true then how come all those nations even after centuries living under Ottoman authority, did not lose their own ID, forget their own language, switch religion and forget their own religion and lose its buildings, still have their own wealth and everything? why don't Greek today speak Turkish just like Algerian people speak French? IMO there must be some difference between because out come appears to be different. to me, colonization has different purpose. it is about money. they intented to take away wealth of other nations and they did. they left poor nations behind them with a corrupted ID. i don't see the same result with Ottoman. actually i find it strange that after spending 400 years under flag of Ottoman, Greeks are still Greeks, Bulgarians are still Bulgarians. they still have their centuries old religious buildings, they still speak their language, they are still practicing their own religion..etc they are still themselves with everything they had and still have

.

What about the Kurds though,Turkey has tried to eradicate their language,even banning Kurdish songs.
What i find puzzleing about the treatment of the Kurds in Turkey Iraq and elsewhere is that possibly one of Islams greatest leaders Sahaladin was a Kurd.

 

[Sahar]

In this case I shall teach of your scholar "BUT". That ayah has a consense of the Jama'a of the salaf scholars. Do you know anything about Wala'a and Bara'a?

What about Al Wala' wal Bara'?
What she said doesn't contradict this concept. The Muslim hates disbelief, but not the disbeliever himself. Hating the sin not the sinner. I demand you to be more responsible in your approach to non Muslims.

Do Muslims Hate non-Muslims? - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar
I think that what you said about Muslims’ hatred of non-Muslims is nothing but a great misunderstanding of the spirit of Islam and who Muslims are. As a basic principle of Islam, we, Muslims, do not hate anyone on account of their cultural, religious, or ethnic backgrounds. Islam teaches us to interact with all people and wish good for the whole mankind.

However, Muslims hate Kufr, or disbelief in Allah, the Almighty. Since we love all people, we hate their disobedience of Allah, the Most High. So, even when people deny the existence of Allah we do not hate them personally; however, we hate their disbelief and disobedience of Allah, Exalted be He.

​

 

[Sahar]

All the Muslims I know personally believe that it is not ethical to kill someone for changing faiths. Its just that I have read a few on this site who believe it's ok. All my Muslim brothers and sister please tell me what you think.

After we silenced you and as the thread didn't end as we wished, I think it's fair now to answer your question. Actually the traditional thought among Muslim scholars and lay Muslims that there is a death penalty for who leaves Islam. The scholars disagree on some details concerning the penalty issue.
On the other hand, there are very good revisions for this opinion by respectable Muslim thinkers and scholars.
Personally, I believe that freedom of belief is extremely well established in the Qur'an and the Ayaat on this are very strong:
[And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed &#8211; all of them entirely. Then, [O Muúammad], would you compel the people in order that they become believers?] (Yunus 10:99)

[And say [O Muhammad]: 'The truth [has now come] you're your Sustainer: let, then, him or her who wills, believe in it, and let him or her who wills, reject it.] (Al-Kahf 18:29)

​

[And so, [O Prophet,] exhort them; your task is only to exhort. You can not compel them [to believe].] (Al-Ghashiyah 88:21-22)

​

[There shall be no compulsion in matters of faith] (Al-Baqarah 2:256)
And others...

You just can't force others to believe...This can't be forced at all, no matter what, unless you want to create a hypocrite and hypocrisy is very frowned upon in Islam, it's seen as far worse than frank disbelief.

 

[tumbleweed41]

have you ever heard of Christian terrorist?

The Sons of Freedom
The National Liberation Front of Tripura
The Lord's Resistance Army
The Army of God
Various Christian Identity groups.
The KKK
Eric Robert Rudolph
Stephen John Jordi
Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe
Scott Roeder
Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons and Kaye Wiggins
Martin Uphoff
David McMenemy
Clayton Waagner
Shelley Shannon
James Kopp

However, I agree with your assessment that these individuals and groups are seldom referred to as "Christian Terrorists" by the mainstream media. Although their motivations are based on their religious beliefs, they are more often referred to as "extremists" in an attempt to set them outside the norm. And while there has been discussion before about those in the Muslim community who remain silent, or less than vocal about their opposition to violence perpetrated in the name of Islam, there seems to be an equal silence from the Christian community as a whole on the issue of Christian Terrorism.

 

[Storm]

The Sons of Freedom
The National Liberation Front of Tripura
The Lord's Resistance Army
The Army of God
Various Christian Identity groups.
The KKK
Eric Robert Rudolph
Stephen John Jordi
Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe
Scott Roeder
Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons and Kaye Wiggins
Martin Uphoff
David McMenemy
Clayton Waagner
Shelley Shannon
James Kopp

However, I agree with your assessment that these individuals and groups are seldom referred to as "Christian Terrorists" by the mainstream media. Although their motivations are based on their religious beliefs, they are more often referred to as "extremists" in an attempt to set them outside the norm. And while there has been discussion before about those in the Muslim community who remain silent, or less than vocal about their opposition to violence perpetrated in the name of Islam, there seems to be an equal silence from the Christian community as a whole on the issue of Christian Terrorism.

True... There's definitely a double standard at play.

 

[kai]

True... There's definitely a double standard at play.

Yep whats good for the goose is good for the gander,


Trouble is where there's blood and turmoil there's headlines where there's peaceful condemnation there's a small line somewhere on page 29.

 

[Storm]

Yep whats good for the goose is good for the gander,


Trouble is where there's blood and turmoil there's headlines where there's peaceful condemnation there's a small line somewhere on page 29.

That, too.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

After we silenced you and as the thread didn't end as we wished, I think it's fair now to answer your question. Actually the traditional thought among Muslim scholars and lay Muslims that there is a death penalty for who leaves Islam. The scholars disagree on some details concerning the penalty issue.
On the other hand, there are very good revisions for this opinion by respectable Muslim thinkers and scholars.
Personally, I believe that freedom of belief is extremely well established in the Qur'an and the Ayaat on this are very strong:
[And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed – all of them entirely. Then, [O Muúammad], would you compel the people in order that they become believers?] (Yunus 10:99)

[And say [O Muhammad]: 'The truth [has now come] you're your Sustainer: let, then, him or her who wills, believe in it, and let him or her who wills, reject it.] (Al-Kahf 18:29)

​

[And so, [O Prophet,] exhort them; your task is only to exhort. You can not compel them [to believe].] (Al-Ghashiyah 88:21-22)

​

[There shall be no compulsion in matters of faith] (Al-Baqarah 2:256)
And others...

You just can't force others to believe...This can't be forced at all, no matter what, unless you want to create a hypocrite and hypocrisy is very frowned upon in Islam, it's seen as far worse than frank disbelief.

Thank you.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Also, the Muslims have encroached on the East too, during that time, overrunning Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent, also through conquests. Did you think the Hindu wanted Muslims and their religion at their doorsteps? And through conquests, they took many Hindu women as slaves and concubines.

Yes there are many stories were where the brave Rajputs rode off to there death knowing that they would lose there life in battle. All the women and children stayed back and committed suicide rather then be converted and become slaves. The Portuguese also had the Indian Goa Inquisition from 1560 to 1812. we have no idea how many Hindus,Muslims and Jews they killed because most of the records were destroyed. No culture is perfect.

This is the story of the middle eastern countries in contact with non monotheist cultures.

In Europe I would say the the Muslim were a bit more civilized then the Christians. The Moors treated the Jews in Spain much better then the Christians did.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Funny! I see much of the problems in the Middle East due to Islamic Colonisation once the Ottoman empire crumbled that's when nation status was able to become a reality for the middle eastern peoples before that they were ruled by Turkey( Ottoman)

I am not defending Islamic Colonialism. The way the English created the boundaries between states is still a problem today.
Just look at Iraq with three different Ethnic groups in the same country. The way the small country of Britain kept control, divide and conquer, then feed the ethnic tensions.

 

[Metempsychosis]

This is the story of the middle eastern countries in contact with non monotheist cultures.

The cause of this problem is the illogical anti-idolatry theory put forth by abrahamic religions which normally creates stereotypes...

monotheism remains most intolerant religious doctrine...

 

[Autodidact]

they haven't been treated worse than other people?? what do you mean by that? is there some kind of competition that i am not aware of?

Muslims have not, as a group, been victims of genocide. They haven't been rounded up into camps and slaughtered. Muslim countries are independent. Other than Iraq, they are not under occupation. Nowhere in the west is practicing Islam prohibited.

what's Dar Al Islam, Autodidact?

Dar al Islam. Dar al-Islam. From that link: Dar al-Islam are Muslim lands (whether or not they are governed in accordance to the Shariah).

you know, i am a Muslim and i never get any chance to hear about this issue as you do. can you explain how come this happens?

I would think you know the answer to this better than I.

i mean, we study Qur'an, we have lectures, we live according to Qur'an and everything but we are never taught about it. but non-Muslims talk about it because they are taught...by whom?

As my name indicates, I am self-taught. I get my information from a variety of sources, including you, so please let me know if it's wrong.

and why?

Islam represents a huge percentage of the world's population, so I think it's important to understand it's influence on the world and its world-view.

i applaud your mother. she must be very strong woman. how old is she?

She passed away over 40 years ago. She was an ordinary woman who survived much suffering. Her view was that her revenge on the Nazis was to live and give birth to four children, of whom I am one. Because of what she went through, she believed that prejudice was wrong and harmful, and refused to engage in it.

 

[Caladan]

The cause of this problem is the illogical anti-idolatry theory put forth by abrahamic religions which normally creates stereotypes...

monotheism remains most intolerant religious doctrine...

Are you saying that civilizations with a polytheistic religions kept to their borders, have not gone on conquests, and have not established empires, with vassal states, slave labor, and subject populations through massive military campaigns?

Is this some kind of post-post-modern neo-neo-pagan ideology and propaganda that actually survives the study of history?
pagan civilizations have mastered conquest, occupation and yes atroticies. vast empires with their own pantheons have established themselves very well without the so called venom of Abrahamic monotheism.
lets all relax, and get a dose of prespective. religion and politics have never been this simple, lets not insult ourselves and our intelligence.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

shhhh thats all supposed to have never happened!

Kai you know history as well as anyone.

This is my view of the big part of the problem between the Islamic cultures in the Middle East and the secular west.

The Muslims are P***** off at their repressive Governments.(Turkey excluded)
We have been propping these repressive Governments up with arm sales and money. Why because we need the oil from the area and we like stability and yes dictatorships provide stability. They get angrier and angrier and more radicalized. You add Israel into the mix and you got a powder cage ready to explode. Next we vote in our ex-president who said and did every thing he could to make the situation worse.

Then we end up with our talking heads on the news who say things like "They hate us because of our freedom" The American public has such a poor knowledge of; History,Geography and foreign current events that they buy load this crap.

Muslims are not the only ones at fault, we have caused a large part of this problem.

There are two potential methods to keep this pot from boiling over:

-Hold the lid on the pot as it is boiling over. This will burn our hands.
-Turn off the stove. Lower the heat.

I believe the 2nd solution is much more rational.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Are you saying that civilizations with a polytheistic religions kept to their borders, have not gone on conquests, and have not established empires, with vassal states, slave labor, and subject populations through massive military campaigns?

Is this some kind of post-post-modern neo-neo-pagan ideology and propaganda that actually survives the study of history?
pagan civilizations have mastered conquest, occupation and yes atroticies. vast empires with their own pantheons have established themselves very well without the so called venom of Abrahamic monotheism.
lets all relax, and get a dose of prespective. religion and politics have never been this simple, lets not insult ourselves and our intelligence.

The Dharmic faiths do have there problems. (Caste system to name one) But religion being used as a motive for state expansion is not one of it's historical vices.

 

[Metempsychosis]

Are you saying that civilizations with a polytheistic religions kept to their borders, have not gone on conquests, and have not established empires, with vassal states, slave labor, and subject populations through massive military campaigns?

No,I am not saying that...Pagans have committed crimes and invaded others.

Is this some kind of post-post-modern neo-neo-pagan ideology and propaganda that actually survives the study of history?
pagan civilizations have mastered conquest, occupation and yes atroticies. vast empires with their own pantheons have established themselves very well without the so called venom of Abrahamic monotheism.

Abrahamic hatred towards idol worship is just over the top ,I am sure this is backed by their religious philosophy.While I believe this hatred is much lesser in Christianity and Judaism,it is magnified in Islam.

This is the major reason why Islam has had such a deadly and destructive effect on the native religions of the East(which are actually monotheistic).