Conspiracies: Denialism or Scepticism?

[Hugo]

don't know about over here but in america you'd certainly get that impression

Give an example? Also does it not strike you as odd that America allows Muslims to build mosques and the religious freedom that implies whereas in say Saudi Arabia there is not a single church and in other places where local Christian want to build a church there are howls of protest from Muslims? Consider:

News Example 1 June
Afghan Christians in exile are urging their fellow-Christians around the world to help stop the Afghan government from arresting and executing Afghan Christians. While international media and politicians are silent, within Afghanistan a dramatic anti-Christian furore has erupted, in which Afghan media and politicians alike are calling for the death of converts from Islam, in line with Islamic sharia law.

News Example 2
President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan take a different view expressed as religious freedom is here and is real on the sense that preachers can preach whatever they like, provided they say nothing that is intolerant of other faiths. Kazakhstan is the only Muslim nation where over the past 15 years 15 new synagogues have been opened to serve the Jewish community

So who is right:
1. The intolerant president of Afghanistan who advocates execution for Christians or President Nazarbayev who advocate and practices total tolerance?
2. Is execution for a Muslim who become a Christian a good thing, something to be desired and indeed a practice to be preserved?

 

[titus]

don't know about over here but in america you'd certainly get that impression

There is the rare exception, but in the US the vast majority of churches would welcome any Muslims visitors and treat them very kindly.

Yes, as a basic tenet of their religion Christians want people to convert in order to help them get to Heaven, but then Islam is no different that way.

 

[Zafran]

I cannot make much sense of this, where is this monolithic West 'making' clones? That is more or less the conspiracy theory held in Muslim minds that I spoke of and it cannot have escaped your notice that Muslims themselves do exactly the same - they become refugees (the top 10 refugee generating nations are Muslim) and are accepted as full citizens of the West and then try to recreate the society and culture that drove them out in the first place and part of that is the evolving conspiracy theory in Muslim minds that its all the fault of the West

first of all I wasnt replying to you but to a specific comment made by a user who used the term "west" -

secodanly are there even 10 nations that are muslim??? last time I checked there were failed states, dictatorships, Monarchy and wannnabe democracies - all supported by the "west". So the "west" isnt so good.

Yes the "west" does have an obbsession in cloning itslef - they did that with Iraq or trying to and they also want regime change in Afgahnistan - they want to replace the old system with there own "democractic system" and not through peaceful means but violent means with there tanks and fighters and bombers - I say they have zero, null moral ethical or any other right to do that - they should stay out of other countries businesses - they wouldnt like saudi arabia or Iran forcing a particular ideal on them so why do it another culture.

Its not a conspiracy theory that the "west" is to blame - its common knowledge and well proven - look at the"wests" tanks and bombers in afgahnistan, Iraq and lets not forget about americas many military bases!

 

[Hugo]

first of all I wasnt replying to you but to a specific comment made by a user who used the term "west" - secodanly are there even 10 nations that are muslim??? last time I checked there were failed states, dictatorships, Monarchy and wannnabe democracies - all supported by the "west". So the "west" isnt so good. Yes the "west" does have an obbsession in cloning itslef - they did that with Iraq or trying to and they also want regime change in Afgahnistan - they want to replace the old system with there own "democractic system" and not through peaceful means but violent means with there tanks and fighters and bombers - I say they have zero, null moral ethical or any other right to do that - they should stay out of other countries businesses - they wouldnt like saudi arabia or Iran forcing a particular ideal on them so why do it another culture.

Its not a conspiracy theory that the "west" is to blame - its common knowledge and well proven - look at the"wests" tanks and bombers in afgahnistan, Iraq and lets not forget about americas many military bases!

There are at least 10 Muslim states - Saudi Arabia. Iraq, Yemen, UAE. Iran, Sudan, Northern Nigeria, Oman, Kuwait, Algeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan - do I really have to go on? You are just in denial, using the flawed logic that if there is any hint of it being criticised it suddenly becomes not Islamic, not Muslim and supported by the West. Why don't you try looking for example just at Arab history and find a time, any time where there were not failed states with absolute rulers - in fact you will be very hard pressed to find one good ruler amongst the lot of them or a period of peace for more than a handful of years. But then its so much easier to blame the evil West. Find me a Sunni scholar who stood up an criticised Saddam Hussain when he was in power, no the lot of them simply said 'god wills it'

Where is the cabal of people bent on setting up these clones? If the West is so bad why do so many Muslims go there and why is the West's technology so valued and sort after? How many Indian Muslims for example have gained full citizenship in say the UAE - there are several thousand Indian Muslims there and have been there for a large part of their lives - what is stopping the UAE opening its arms to its Muslim brothers?

Have you never read how Muslim armies with zero, null moral ethical or other rights invaded neighbour countries and destroyed their cultures and either forced conversion or killed those who opposed and did it ruthlessly. Find out how the ranks of the Janissaries were filled. Can you face up to the truth - probably not I don't think you can; it would upset your certainties.

If Muslim countries don't want American bases they can say so and have done so and closed them down. If its so well-proven then list some reliable references or studies that show this to be true. The fact is that countries like Saudi Arabia or the UAE for example would collapse without the many many thousands of Westerners who keep the whole infrastructure going.

By the way where are you living?

 

[Zafran]

There are at least 10 Muslim states - Saudi Arabia. Iraq, Yemen, UAE. Iran, Sudan, Northern Nigeria, Oman, Kuwait, Algeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan - do I really have to go on? You are just in denial, using the flawed logic that if there is any hint of it being criticised it suddenly becomes not Islamic, not Muslim and supported by the West. Why don't you try looking for example just at Arab history and find a time, any time where there were not failed states with absolute rulers - in fact you will be very hard pressed to find one good ruler amongst the lot of them or a period of peace for more than a handful of years. But then its so much easier to blame the evil West. Find me a Sunni scholar who stood up an criticised Saddam Hussain when he was in power, no the lot of them simply said 'god wills it'

Where is the cabal of people bent on setting up these clones? If the West is so bad why do so many Muslims go there and why is the West's technology so valued and sort after? How many Indian Muslims for example have gained full citizenship in say the UAE - there are several thousand Indian Muslims there and have been there for a large part of their lives - what is stopping the UAE opening its arms to its Muslim brothers?

Have you never read how Muslim armies with zero, null moral ethical or other rights invaded neighbour countries and destroyed their cultures and either forced conversion or killed those who opposed and did it ruthlessly. Find out how the ranks of the Janissaries were filled. Can you face up to the truth - probably not I don't think you can; it would upset your certainties.

If Muslim countries don't want American bases they can say so and have done so and closed them down. If its so well-proven then list some reliable references or studies that show this to be true. The fact is that countries like Saudi Arabia or the UAE for example would collapse without the many many thousands of Westerners who keep the whole infrastructure going.

By the way where are you living?

your examaple about saddam hussien is the worst I've heard in years - why did the west arm saddam Hussien during the Iran Iraq war? - why did Donald rumsfeld meet Him! You just fell right in this one - you should seriously know that saddam Hussien was a "Friend" of the wests in the 80s not our enemy - he became an enemy later on when we wanted to invade Iraq. whats a scholar going to do in criticising saddam Hussien - would that have any impact on the wests friendly relationship with saddam in the 80s? I'm sure your smart enough to figure this one out yourself.

back to the main point which is today - the "wests" armies are the ones invading other countries - they are the ones that are forcing there values on other cultures, not the other way round. do you see the armies in Yemen in Germany, or the armies of arabia in the UK? I dont and if that did happen what do you think the west would do TODAY - not some historical time period.

why dont you think the military bases are not gone - quite simple and well known - its because the western backed governments in these countries including Egypt (mubarak the dictator) and saudia arabia (the family) keep status quo in the region - lets not forget there own economic interests - if the royal family or mubarak would be overthrown in the region I can guarentee that the "west"would go to war against the people.

Good one about the UAE (It proves my point) - so why is the west supporting the government of UAE if its unjust? Oh I get it econmic and political interest - its best the west helpes UAE in crushing the people that it is oppressing so the west could benefit - thanks for that example.

the wests "help" is only for the elites (the governments) and there infrastructure not for the rest of the people - they are poor and nobody cares for there opinion its against the "wests" interests. The wont them out But the west is stamping there voices down - you dont want the common people to choose who they want there resources to go - the "west" needs them and they are willing to do anything including the use of violence.

More clones there better for the west.

You also say my logic is flawed - I'm not the one living in history - I'm not the one going off a tangent about some historical event - I'm talking right now - you need to step out of history and enter the Now.

Lastly I'm a "westerner" so when I see the "west" doing wrong I have every right to tell my fellow "westerners" that they need to get there acts togater - I'm not a citizen of the UAE, China, arabia or any other country so my word against them means zero - we cant change others (especially if you send bombers, fighters and soldiers at them) but we certainly can change ourselves.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Hugo, are you a Christian yourself? Because I think you may have to be a non-christian to see Christianity's imposing itslef on non-christians (and it most certainly does), just as you may have to be a non-muslim to see the muslims doing it. Lately you even have atheists who have bought into the whole "christian tolerance" thing. Its a whole new concept, and not a very honest one if you read the bible. What you may see as "sharing the good word" isn't seen that way by most non-christians. Christianity has a long history of intolerance of other religions and has an explicit goal to turn everybody into a Christian. Its only in recent, secular times that this has begun to change, and still today you have Christians especially in the US demanding this "be a christian nation" etc. Islam is the same in its goal, its just that Islamic countries have not (yet) been subjected to secularism the way western ones have (probably something muslims are happy for). In time, as technology progresses and society advances, I think t his will change in muslim lands as it did in christian lands. The world is simply getting to small to keep tribal isolation going long term.

As for "Christianity being a choice", it is, sort of. Many young children are brainwashed into it from the cradle and really don't have much of chance to see through it. It is amazing the hate that many of these people face if they do question and go apostate. That isn't exclusive to Islam either.

 

[titus]

As for "Christianity being a choice", it is, sort of. Many young children are brainwashed into it from the cradle and really don't have much of chance to see through it.

True, but that goes for any religion.

By far the most important factor in what religion a person follows is what religion their parents followed. No other factor even comes close.

 

[Hugo]

your examaple about saddam hussien is the worst I've heard in years - why did the west arm saddam Hussien during the Iran Iraq war? - why did Donald rumsfeld meet Him! You just fell right in this one - you should seriously know that saddam Hussien was a "Friend" of the wests in the 80s not our enemy - he became an enemy later on when we wanted to invade Iraq. whats a scholar going to do in criticising saddam Hussien - would that have any impact on the wests friendly relationship with saddam in the 80s? I'm sure your smart enough to figure this one out yourself.

I think you are missing the point. I referred to Muslim history to show that from the time of the prophet and his slaughter by beheading of 600 Jews in Median that absolutism and violence have been the hallmarks of Islamic states and any reading of just say Arab history will confirm that, indeed the vast majority of Muslim deaths in 1400 years of its history was caused by other Muslims - unless you want to blame the West for all 1400 years of Muslim history as well? Let me ask you, was the Medina Massacre justified and indeed Muslims should rejoice over it and look to it as an example of how to deal with the infidel - frankly if you go to Muslim schools that is how it is treated though to me it is absolutely shocking that one sees children listening to such stories with glee. Herev I agree with you that we must enter the 'now'

Secondly, there is no doubt that the West amongst others have meddled in all sorts of ways from offering humanitarian aid to invasion and I deplore in general the notion of force of any kind. But it is not peculiar to the West and Muslims nations did exactly the same when they had the necessary power and would do again if they could. Let me ask you - are you arguing that ALL Western involvement has been bad?

Thirdly, I am at a loss to know what kind of government institution you would put in place of what you regard as discredited ones though as I have said absolutism has been the norm in Islamic countries for 1400 years - would it be a democracy where equal right is the norm, would it be some sort of Caliphate, would it be a council of guardians as in Iran, would it be a Wahhabi style orthodoxy - what?

I am glad to hear you are a Westerner and you have the right to speak out even against your own government without any fear of persecution - can you name an Islamic state anywhere or any time where you would get such freedom? One final word that I found striking in what you say about entering the 'now' - does that mean your are in favour of discarding outdated notions in Islam or are you of the opinion that there are no such things - let us see how far your modernity will stretch? Incidentally, you might like to consider what someone once said "if we forget the past we are condemned to repeat it"

 

[Hugo]

Hugo, are you a Christian yourself? Because I think you may have to be a non-christian to see Christianity's imposing itslef on non-christians (and it most certainly does), just as you may have to be a non-muslim to see the muslims doing it. Lately you even have atheists who have bought into the whole "christian tolerance" thing. Its a whole new concept, and not a very honest one if you read the bible. What you may see as "sharing the good word" isn't seen that way by most non-christians. Christianity has a long history of intolerance of other religions and has an explicit goal to turn everybody into a Christian. Its only in recent, secular times that this has begun to change, and still today you have Christians especially in the US demanding this "be a christian nation" etc. Islam is the same in its goal, its just that Islamic countries have not (yet) been subjected to secularism the way western ones have (probably something muslims are happy for). In time, as technology progresses and society advances, I think t his will change in muslim lands as it did in christian lands. The world is simply getting to small to keep tribal isolation going long term.

As for "Christianity being a choice", it is, sort of. Many young children are brainwashed into it from the cradle and really don't have much of chance to see through it. It is amazing the hate that many of these people face if they do question and go apostate. That isn't exclusive to Islam either.

You have a point but I have never been in a place where Christianity has been forced on me and neither have I seen this brainwashing you speak of, indeed in my culture there is always a clear teaching and insistence to Children that THEY have to decide for themselves. I am not arguing that what you say is never true but to me it is very far from the norm or what I have seen and I have seen churches and congregation right across the world.

 

[Hugo]

True, but that goes for any religion. By far the most important factor in what religion a person follows is what religion their parents followed. No other factor even comes close.

This is an interesting idea and one might ask here is there a difference between a choice being available and making a decision. Let us take apostasy from Islam, clearly a choice is available but the consequences of making a choice may come with a high price. More simply, we often hear of Muslim women arguing they have made a choice to wear the hijab but one would think if it was a choice it hardly seems possible that there is almost 100% choice one way. So is free choice a good thing?

 

[syed_z]

Give an example? Also does it not strike you as odd that America allows Muslims to build mosques and the religious freedom that implies whereas in say Saudi Arabia there is not a single church and in other places where local Christian want to build a church there are howls of protest from Muslims? Consider:

News Example 1 June
Afghan Christians in exile are urging their fellow-Christians around the world to help stop the Afghan government from arresting and executing Afghan Christians. While international media and politicians are silent, within Afghanistan a dramatic anti-Christian furore has erupted, in which Afghan media and politicians alike are calling for the death of converts from Islam, in line with Islamic sharia law.

News Example 2
President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan take a different view expressed as religious freedom is here and is real on the sense that preachers can preach whatever they like, provided they say nothing that is intolerant of other faiths. Kazakhstan is the only Muslim nation where over the past 15 years 15 new synagogues have been opened to serve the Jewish community

So who is right:
1. The intolerant president of Afghanistan who advocates execution for Christians or President Nazarbayev who advocate and practices total tolerance?
2. Is execution for a Muslim who become a Christian a good thing, something to be desired and indeed a practice to be preserved?

Welll bro Hugo i do agree to all those Examples you gave of Muslim Intolerance... and that is true because ALL those states you mentioned... are based on Secular Systems and not Pure Islamic System or Pure Islamic Ideology... since they rule With Democracy, that is Majority Vote, the democracy has become a Cover for those Corrupt Muslim Regimes to hide their Faults and still Maintain their Rule over the Majority of Ummah...

BUT still i would like to tell you some points which are worth knowing that, EVEN though the West calls itself the Champions of Religious Tolerance, it still has MUCH way to go regarding how to tolerate and still has MUCH to learn about Tolerance SPECIALLY those established by Islam...


1.Muslim Personal Law is NOT recognized in the Western Judicial System, while Non Muslim Personal Law is ACCEPTED in Muslim Countries

2.Muslims in the West , throughout the West, are NOT allowed to Call their Prayer Call (Adhaan) while CHurch bells ring Freely in most and almost ALL of Muslim Countires including mine... Pakistan.

3.The Wide spread Anti Islamic Point of view prevalent in the Modern Day Media, is because of Intolerance and no other reason.

4.Hate Crimes against Muslims are spreading at an Alarming Rate, while many and most of them are Unreported in the Biased Media.

5. The Champions of Tolerance are busy snatching Head Scarves from young Muslim girls, in the name of tolerance and Free dom.


and i could mention more, but i guess this is enough to understand the Western Approach to "tolerance".

 

[syed_z]

If i was you Hugo... i would compare the Tolerance to the Most and the Best Muslim Leader in the History of Islam and Muslims and NOT the Western backed Puppet Government so called "leaders" of muslims today!


Example...

While on His Deathbed, Sayyidna Umar ibn Khattab (r.a) (the 2nd Rightly Guided Caliph) dictated a long Will consisting of Instructions for the next Khalifa....

"I instruct you on behalf of the people who have been given Protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet. i.e (The Dhimmis or the Non-Muslims minorities within the Islamic State). Our covenant to them Must be fulfiled, we must fight to protect them, and they must not be burdened beyond their capabilities."


At that time Umar (r.a) was laying on his death bed, wounded from a stab, by a Non Muslim, who stabbed him with a dagger soaked in poison while he was about to lead the Fajr Prayer! At that time he was the leader of a Vast Empire (Based on Islamic Ideology NOT Secularism) from Egypt to Persia. Any Modern Day ruler, we could expect a swift reaction to take revenge Instantly. Even if We take the example of a VERY forgiving head of state, we can expect in this modern world to forget and forgive. .... BUT Who would give orders like not only forget, BUT also PROTECT and TAKE CARE ?

Could you please Provide me with ONE example out of all Roman Eastern Or Western Empire Rulership... Just ONE who acted in a Similar way....

You can try.. but you wont find any...

Obviously Omar (r.a) was following the Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (Saw)... that the Minorities in an Islamic State ruled by Islam, need to be protected, their Right be given in full, their Property, Children, Wives, all to be protected and CANNOT be forced in to Islam...

So i suggest, look at those leaders in Muslim History.... who were following Islam, and NOT those leaders, who follow their desires...

 

[Zafran]

I think you are missing the point. I referred to Muslim history to show that from the time of the prophet and his slaughter by beheading of 600 Jews in Median that absolutism and violence have been the hallmarks of Islamic states and any reading of just say Arab history will confirm that, indeed the vast majority of Muslim deaths in 1400 years of its history was caused by other Muslims - unless you want to blame the West for all 1400 years of Muslim history as well? Let me ask you, was the Medina Massacre justified and indeed Muslims should rejoice over it and look to it as an example of how to deal with the infidel - frankly if you go to Muslim schools that is how it is treated though to me it is absolutely shocking that one sees children listening to such stories with glee. Herev I agree with you that we must enter the 'now'

This is not what your original post was about - so from modern nation states to the mid east (which is now) we go to the Ottomans and now the prophet (pbuh) and some random incident that you know very little about. Then you give something about Bani Querza and children being taught about it??? every muslim on earth can tell you what muslim children are taught (basic of 5 pillars and 6 tenets, how to pray and reciting the Quran) thats about it. Thats like me saying it shocking how how Jewsih children are taught about the Torah and how to deal with non Jews or the gentiles oh wait I dont know what Jewish children are taught silly me (saracasm). You should stick to what you know and not on what you think you know.

Secondly, there is no doubt that the West amongst others have meddled in all sorts of ways from offering humanitarian aid to invasion and I deplore in general the notion of force of any kind. But it is not peculiar to the West and Muslims nations did exactly the same when they had the necessary power and would do again if they could. Let me ask you - are you arguing that ALL Western involvement has been bad?

the question what "if" is nonsense - both of us dont know the future so that is little benefit in making theories on it especially when you say that if they had the power they would misuse it which is stupid the west has the power IS miss using it and HAS done in the past - so the wests history isnt that good either - lets keep on the now shall we. Your right not all western internvention has been bad but I gave specific examples of the NOW like Afghan and Iraq war. I could have also gone an historical tangent like yourself - so try to stick with what I say and not some random points.

Thirdly, I am at a loss to know what kind of government institution you would put in place of what you regard as discredited ones though as I have said absolutism has been the norm in Islamic countries for 1400 years - would it be a democracy where equal right is the norm, would it be some sort of Caliphate, would it be a council of guardians as in Iran, would it be a Wahhabi style orthodoxy - what?

Again bringing up some random point about Absolutism that has been in the muslim world 1400 years - Britian has been ran by an absolutism as well for many years - you see your random historcal point realy doesnt show the realistic view of the world NOW. The government system of the mid east should be what the majority of the people want in the mid east - you and I as westerners have zero, null right to decide for them.

I am glad to hear you are a Westerner and you have the right to speak out even against your own government without any fear of persecution - can you name an Islamic state anywhere or any time where you would get such freedom? One final word that I found striking in what you say about entering the 'now' - does that mean your are in favour of discarding outdated notions in Islam or are you of the opinion that there are no such things - let us see how far your modernity will stretch? Incidentally, you might like to consider what someone once said "if we forget the past we are condemned to repeat it"

why would I care about that question anyway - i was born here so I'm here - just like you - the mid east has the right to figure its own problems out without me or you as westerners deciding for them. Your clearly havent taken in a single word I've said - I've Just shown you how the west helps the governments that oppress there own people and then you talk about rights - its a bit hypocritical that we support rights here in the west but like to oppress them in the mid east by supporting the governments that oppress them in the first place!! Think about that next time.

 

[syed_z]

and Hugo i know you have to answer to many people on this Thread... but i do want to say that Muhammad (Saw) beheading was not of Jews, it was only those Men among Jews who were part of The Treason, and the women and children and innocent ones were set free.... they had betrayed their own, and i say own, because the Muslims and them had a Pact, which they Broke and were bent on making sure the Muslim are destroyed....and also it was NOT A Massacre... a Massacre is not such... they were punished to maintain Justice, which did prevail...

 

[Zafran]

and Hugo i know you have to answer to many people on this Thread... but i do want to say that Muhammad (Saw) beheading was not of Jews, it was only those Men among Jews who were part of The Treason, and the women and children and innocent ones were set free.... they had betrayed their own, and i say own, because the Muslims and them had a Pact, which they Broke and were bent on making sure the Muslim are destroyed....and also it was NOT A Massacre... a Massacre is not such... they were punished to maintain Justice, which did prevail...

salaam

The irony about this is that he got it from muslim sources unless its recorded anywhere else in history?

 

[Hugo]

and Hugo i know you have to answer to many people on this Thread... but i do want to say that Muhammad (Saw) beheading was not of Jews, it was only those Men among Jews who were part of The Treason, and the women and children and innocent ones were set free.... they had betrayed their own, and i say own, because the Muslims and them had a Pact, which they Broke and were bent on making sure the Muslim are destroyed....and also it was NOT A Massacre... a Massacre is not such... they were punished to maintain Justice, which did prevail...

Well this perhaps is not the place to argue about this history as such and I raised it as a point of morality and of course it is possible to justify it as you have done but your view is not the only one possible.

 

[Hugo]

The irony about this is that he got it from muslim sources unless its recorded anywhere else in history?

Does this imply that Muslim sources are not to be trusted when they as in this case record plain history?

 

[جوري]

Does this imply that Muslim sources are not to be trusted when they as in this case record plain history?

What it means is that you shouldn't use a Muslim source to create a secondary opinion based that has no basis in reality. Previously I had asked you to prove that Jews existed at all in that part of the world were it not for Islamic sources, you failed to do so, and we all know what implications that would also have as it completely negates the lies in your bible about Issac being the subject of sacrifice.. you are constantly putting yourself in a terrible dilemma.. I almost pity you trying so hard and always coming up so empty!

all the best

 

[Zafran]

Does this imply that Muslim sources are not to be trusted when they as in this case record plain history?

so is it the only source and if it is why dont you take it FULLY or do you have other sources contradiciting the event? whats your criteria of recording plain history - theres many other things in the same source is that also history?

 

[Zafran]

What it means is that you shouldn't use a Muslim source to create a secondary opinion based that has no basis in reality. Previously I had asked you to prove that Jews existed at all in that part of the world were it not for Islamic sources, you failed to do so, and we all know what implications that would also have as it completely negates the lies in your bible about Issac being the subject of sacrifice.. you are constantly putting yourself in a terrible dilemma.. I almost pity you trying so hard and always coming up so empty!

all the best

salaam

thats exactly what I was implying

peace