Tolerance, acceptance of Islam a valuable lesson

[Shirien]

is my way the right way?

The way of The Quran and Sunnah and the way of the first 3 generations is the right way.

I ask Allah subhana wa ta'ala to guide me to the straight path, ameen.

Cognescenti, your logic is flawed, and hardly worth my time in replying. Compromising in religion is not an option.

it's obligitory for us to covey the message, and it's also obligitory for those who receive the message to accept the message before they die. However, with that said the hearts belong to Allah. He guides whom he wills.

If you actually read my writing, I never once said im "anti-american" or anything of that sort. I simply tell it how it is and reveal the injustices done to Muslims in the west through media propoganda.

I convey what Islam TRUELY teaches, rather than what CNN teaches Islam teaches.

yes, it is true the Victory of Allah is near.. because Allah 'az wa jal says so in The Quran, and everything in the Quran is truth.

so in essence, the statements that you had a problem with me about, were in reality Statements Allah made in His book. you openly declare you're disbelief in Islam(may Allah guide you, ameen).

So in that case it's really not worth my time to argue back and forth with you. especially because you have a problem with the words of the One who created you...

have a nice day, and i ask Allah sincerely from my heart to guide you and to show you the truth, ameen.

Shirien

 

[Muezzin]

I believe the resentment against Cho not being labelled a terrorist was completely misplaced. By that logic, the boys at Columbine are terrrorists, as was the psycho at Dunblane. The absence of any political motive precludes the label's use.

I'll look forward to a small notice in the LSU newspaper when you are led away to <insert name of favorite US prison where torture is routinely practiced on the direct order of Alberto Gonzalez> because of your tax protest. You want to be the Muslim equivalent of Patrick Henry then do something about it and quit whining.

This sort of bitterness was completely unjustified and is instead indicative of a bias on your part. To use your own logic: You want people to stop thinking Americans are a bunch of right-wing gung-ho arrogant stereotypes who shout down any form of disagreement? Stop acting like one.

 

[Uthman]

brother Muezzin,

The absence of any political motive precludes the label's use.

I disagree with this. The definitions of terrorism are many, but even the ones that I have seen do not claim that terrorism is comprised solely of political motives. They could be religious, ideological e.t.c.

But in all honesty, I don't think a dictionary is even required to define terrorism. The term is pretty self-explanatory.

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

^^It is..

 

[Cognescenti]

And I thought Muslims had chips on their shoulders...

Perhaps you are right..this idea that all problems Southwest of the Dardenelles are magically the fault of some Western governmental or media cabal is tiresome.

The truth is, everyone is hypersensitive. 'Victory of Allah is near' means 'God will be victorious'. It's not a threat. It's a statement of fact for people who believe in a deity. If you think it is a threat, you are either woefully uninformed or simply acting like a jumpy idiot.

Look...I assumed it was some statement of the rightness of one's belief...I merely suggested (politely at that point) it could easily be misperceived. I was not so politely told to go jump in a lake (with a few Quranic citations thrown in for good measure)

I don't agree with whining for whining's sake, but I also don't agree with justifying my obvious bias against a certain group because of an altercation with a hairy Syrian ambassador from said group.

"hairy Syrian Ambassador"...that is pretty funny.

"obvious bias against a certain group"????...completely unfair characterization! Dang that makes me angry. Did I make any generalizations except my premise that cultural misunderstanding are perceived differently by those on opposite sides?

No more caustic sarcasm solely calculated to cause offence. Grow up.

Not fair either. You are perhaps right about the causticity but it wasn't calculated to cause offence and was certainly not more so than the shot acorss my bow.

Why is it than any non-Muslim who makes a vigorous argument against the claim of systematic maltreatment of Muslims by the media or the US Government or <insert name of Western entity here> is a racist or Islamophobe?

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Why is it than any non-Muslim who makes a vigorous argument against the claim of systematic maltreatment of Muslims by the media or the US Government or <insert name of Western entity here> is a racist or Islamophobe?

You know we could ask u the same.

 

[Cognescenti]

You know we could ask u the same.

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate?

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

When we do the same, do some of you not almost die trying to prove us wrong and claim we dont know anything? If you really want to be treated that way, it's best to start with yourself, then bother trying to tell someone else what is true/false, right/wrong according to your "book."

Elaborate enough I hope?

Now I'm off to do some calculus hw...

Peace.

 

[Cognescenti]

When we do the same, do some of you not almost die trying to prove us wrong and claim we dont know anything? If you really want to be treated that way, it's best to start with yourself, then bother trying to tell someone else what is true/false, right/wrong according to your "book."

Elaborate enough I hope?

Now I'm off to do some calculus hw...

Peace.

I think it is quite natural for an American or a Brit to take offense when someone makes what they feel is an incorrect generalization or insulting claim about their country. That is a bit different from making the charge that the speaker is racist. I have yet to see a non-Muslim say..."oh..you just hate white people"

If you figure out how delta-epsilon proofs work, let me know.

 

[Khan-Ghalgha]

is my way the right way?

The way of The Quran and Sunnah and the way of the first 3 generations is the right way.

I ask Allah subhana wa ta'ala to guide me to the straight path, ameen.

Cognescenti, your logic is flawed, and hardly worth my time in replying. Compromising in religion is not an option.

it's obligitory for us to covey the message, and it's also obligitory for those who receive the message to accept the message before they die. However, with that said the hearts belong to Allah. He guides whom he wills.

If you actually read my writing, I never once said im "anti-american" or anything of that sort. I simply tell it how it is and reveal the injustices done to Muslims in the west through media propoganda.

I convey what Islam TRUELY teaches, rather than what CNN teaches Islam teaches.

yes, it is true the Victory of Allah is near.. because Allah 'az wa jal says so in The Quran, and everything in the Quran is truth.

so in essence, the statements that you had a problem with me about, were in reality Statements Allah made in His book. you openly declare you're disbelief in Islam(may Allah guide you, ameen).

So in that case it's really not worth my time to argue back and forth with you. especially because you have a problem with the words of the One who created you...

have a nice day, and i ask Allah sincerely from my heart to guide you and to show you the truth, ameen.

What would you think if some jehova witness comes up to you and says that if you won't accept jehova as the true God then you will not be resurrected after you die and vanish forever? Thought about it? That what Cognesti thinks(I think so) reading your posts, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

I think it is quite natural for an American or a Brit to take offense when someone makes what they feel is an incorrect generalization or insulting claim about their country.

Its naturally ok for an American or Brit to feel insulted about a a piece of land, but it's not ok for a Muslim to feel insulted when their identity is being degraded to the point of emotional stress?

That is a bit different from making the charge that the speaker is racist.

How so? Your still attacking something someone finds close to them.

I have yet to see a non-Muslim say..."oh..you just hate white people"

YOU have yet to see it, doesnt mean it doesnt exist. You need to escape the mentality of Utopia sometimes and hit gear back to reality.

If you figure out how delta-epsilon proofs work, let me know.

I'm past delta-epsilon proofs. I'm taking calc 2 rite now. Got an A

Peace

 

[Shirien]

What would you think if some jehova witness comes up to you and says that if you won't accept jehova as the true God then you will not be resurrected after you die and vanish forever? Thought about it? That what Cognesti thinks(I think so) reading your posts, correct me if I'm wrong.

again, i dont need to say so because Allah subhana wa ta'ala says so in the Quran itself, which was revealed to all mankind.

surely i wouldnt approach anyone with dawah in this way, but seeing as though they already received the message and still rejects it, makes it different.

wallahu ta'ala alem.

 

[snakelegs]

brother Muezzin,

I disagree with this. The definitions of terrorism are many, but even the ones that I have seen do not claim that terrorism is comprised solely of political motives. They could be religious, ideological e.t.c.

But in all honesty, I don't think a dictionary is even required to define terrorism. The term is pretty self-explanatory.

i agree with muezzin. "terrorist" in my mind is someone who attacks innocents in the name of a cause - an ideology, a religion whatever. and "christian terrorist" in this case is even more far-fetched. i do not think he did it in the name of religion. he was simply a nut case.
you have a valid point about the portrayal of muslims in the media, but i don't think this case was a good example to make your case at all.

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

^^It being in the name of an ideology or political agenda is not the only definition. This is something many fail to grasp. So i dont agree with Muezzins statement. Terrorism isnt confined to one definition, let alone even 2. Its chosn to be the main definition because thats the context its always used in.

 

[Muezzin]

Perhaps you are right..this idea that all problems Southwest of the Dardenelles are magically the fault of some Western governmental or media cabal is tiresome.

Tell me about it.

Look...I assumed it was some statement of the rightness of one's belief...I merely suggested (politely at that point) it could easily be misperceived. I was not so politely told to go jump in a lake (with a few Quranic citations thrown in for good measure)

Yes, you were polite at first, but I don't think that her reply was impolite (though it could have been phrased more clearly), I think you simply took it the wrong way.

But I apologise if you feel I treated you unfairly.

"hairy Syrian Ambassador"...that is pretty funny.

Only with your set up

"obvious bias against a certain group"????...completely unfair characterization! Dang that makes me angry. Did I make any generalizations except my premise that cultural misunderstanding are perceived differently by those on opposite sides?

Funny. One line in your post really made me angry as I felt it was unfair.

Fine. Don't compromise. Show your intolerance of the dominant culture in which you are living, and you can expect reciprocity.

Seriously, what the hell? All she said was, in religion, there is no compromise. As in, 'I'm not going to go drinking just because someone asked me to, since it's against my religion'. You seemed to interpret it as some sort of sign of extremism, and then used it as a basis to justify reprisals ('expect reciprocity').

Look, when Muslims say stuff like 'there is no compromise in Islam', it's not to spite others, it's just a statement of fact. You then distorted her words into some absurd notion that Muslims should object to 'kuffar taxes' and kuffar this and that... By that logic, simply living in a non-Muslim country would be compromising, which is ludicrous!

In this case, however, I concede that there was misunderstanding on all sides (including mine), so I apologise if my generalisation was so inaccurate as to be offensive. It was improper of me.

Not fair either. You are perhaps right about the causticity but it wasn't calculated to cause offence and was certainly not more so than the shot acorss my bow.

Well, it does cause offence. I apologise if I treated you unfairly if it was not your intention to cause offence, but there it is. There are way too many caustic remarks in this section (some of which I have just made come to think of it), and it just worsens things.

Why is it than any non-Muslim who makes a vigorous argument against the claim of systematic maltreatment of Muslims by the media or the US Government or <insert name of Western entity here> is a racist or Islamophobe?

In your case, can you really blame me? Take a look at many of your posts - all you seem to do is crack wise about Muslims, Islam, or Iran with little to no regard for the sensitivity of the areas you are probing with your ironic machete.

Also, that logic goes both ways: I've seen certain Americans cry 'Anti-American' every time someone makes a valid criticism of the government's policies. Surely, if I was posting on a forum about America (and it is clear that particular forum is pro-America) you'd come to the conclusion that I was anti-American if the majority of my messages were making caustic remarks about the American way of life or its government.

And I don't play the 'Islamaphobe' card 'any time' non-Muslims refute notions of media mistreatment. I argue against the systematic maltreatment of Muslims by the media, (and the US Government for that matter) because the notion is patently absurd. There's no worldwide master plan to make Muslims suffer, but there are bad things happening to Muslims and non-Muslims worldwide.

If I have treated you or other members unfairly or harshly, I apologise.

 

[Uthman]

Snakelegs,

i agree with muezzin. "terrorist" in my mind is someone who attacks innocents in the name of a cause - an ideology, a religion whatever. and "christian terrorist" in this case is even moreI far-fetched. i do not think he did it in the name of religion. he was simply a nut case.
you have a valid point about the portrayal of muslims in the media, but i don't think this case was a good example to make your case at all.

I think you misunderstood me. I do not claim that he was a 'Christian terrorist', but he was simply a 'terrorist'. Why? He caused terror. I seriously think we are going into too much depth trying to define terrorism when all we really need is an understanding of the English language. I think sister Jazzy summed it up perfectly:

Terrorism isnt confined to one definition, let alone even 2. Its chosn to be the main definition because thats the context its always used in.

So I'm with Jazzy with this one. Or rather Jazzy is with me. Hmmm...

Regards

 

[Muezzin]

The word 'terrorism' has political connotations nowadays though, and it's not just causing terror that invokes the label, it's intending to cause terror. If a guy falls asleep at the wheel, he might cause terror to other motorists, but he's not a terrorist (just an irresponsible idiot). In Virginia Tech, he had no political motives, and no intent to cause fear so much as to just release all the aggression he had built up for some unknown reason. Don't get me wrong, his actions are morally repugnant, and a massacre, and criminal, and if he hadn't killed himself he should have been punished. But I've seen no evidence to say they were terrorist as the word is generally understood.

Terrorism is a very hard word to define, however, since it's such an inflammatory label.

 

[Cognescenti]

Snakelegs,



I think you misunderstood me. I do not claim that he was a 'Christian terrorist', but he was simply a 'terrorist'. Why? He caused terror. I seriously think we are going into too much depth trying to define terrorism when all we really need is an understanding of the English language. I think sister Jazzy summed it up perfectly:



So I'm with Jazzy with this one. Or rather Jazzy is with me. Hmmm...

Regards

If the definition of terrorism is the infliction of terror on the victim during an act of murder then almost every act of murder would be an act of terrorism as the victim almost always has some warning or foreboding about the events to come. We already have a word for that...such an individual is called a "murderer". New words come into the language because there is a need to elaborate or distinguish between concepts. Pretending, later, that that divergent words mean the same thing doesn't make the original motivation for the new word go away.

There is also the point that the "ism" suffix is perceived by most to represent the doctrine or philosophy or motivation behind an act or practice

 

[Uthman]

brother Muezzin,

The word 'terrorism' has political connotations nowadays though

Agreed

it's not just causing terror that invokes the label, it's intending to cause terror. If a guy falls asleep at the wheel, he might cause terror to other motorists, but he's not a terrorist (just an irresponsible idiot).

That is true. I hadn't thought of this.

In Virginia Tech, he had no political motives, and no intent to cause fear so much as to just release all the aggression he had built up for some unknown reason. Don't get me wrong, his actions are morally repugnant, and a massacre, and criminal, and if he hadn't killed himself he should have been punished. But I've seen no evidence to say they were terrorist as the word is generally understood.

(emphasis mine)

That's the thing. Understanding of certain terms change as times change. In this day and age, terrorism is, as you say, 'generally understood' in a political context. But because a word is understood in a certain way, doesn't mean to say that it can no longer be defined in any other context.

Terrorism is a very hard word to define, however, since it's such an inflammatory label.

With respect, I don't think that's necessarily true. The word does get thrown around a lot, but not unjustifiably from what I've seen.

 

[Uthman]

Cognescenti,

New words come into the language because there is a need to elaborate or distinguish between concepts. Pretending, later, that that divergent words mean the same thing doesn't make the original motivation for the new word go away.

I'm not contradicting or disagreeing necessarily with you here, but is there historical evidence to say that the word terrorism was created to distinguish between murder and another concept?

Also, is it then possible that the word was created to, as you mentioned, elaborate on the concept of murder in some way?

There is also the point that the "ism" suffix is perceived by most to represent the doctrine or philosophy or motivation behind an act or practice

I apologise but the mind boggles. :-[ Is it possible to explain this in simpler terms so that I can understand properly.

From what I understood, this would imply that a word like terrorism would be the doctrine, philosphy or motivation behind a practice like, for example, murder. Something like that?

Regards