CAIRO, March 8 (Xinhua) -- Clashes between Egyptian Muslims and Coptic Christians escalated on Tuesday after Coptic protestors blocked a main road in Cairo for more than two hours.
Hundreds of salafists, or conservative Muslims, claimed for regaining two women who they believed were held in a church after they proclaimed their Islam belief, state MENA news agency reported.
The salafists stressed the importance of not changing the second article of the constitution as the Copts called on in the nationwide demonstration, which affirms that Islam is the only source for jurisdiction.
The clashes between salafists and Copts in the Autostrad road in southeast Cairo left at least one Copt dead and five people wounded, according to local media.
Meanwhile, thousands of Coptic protestors continued a sit-in for the fourth day Tuesday in front of the Egyptian Radio and TV building protesting over a church that was torched in a village in Helwan Governorate, south of Cairo.
They demanded ending of the sectarian clashes against them and rebuilding the burnt Shahedain church.
They also called for providing protection for Copts and securing their houses along with paying compensations for the losses inflicted on them.
A fight among members of a Muslim family on Friday night over the romantic relationship between a Muslim girl and a Christian merchant left two dead, including the girl's father.
After the funeral, crowds of Muslims from the village directed to the Shahedain church and broke into the church before they torched it.
Egypt's new Prime Minister Esssam Sharaf promised the Coptic protestors to reclaim the land of the burnt church and rebuild it.
Brigadier General Tareq el-Mahdi, the Radio and Television Union's supervisor, confirmed with MENA on Tuesday that the church is being rebuilt.
Christians represented about ten percent of the 80-million Egyptian population. Any marriage relationship between Muslim and Christian is forbidden according to Islamic jurisdictions.
posted
CopticNews Coptic News Massive march planned THIS FRIDAY from Maspiro to the village of Atfeeh: #Copts and Muslims united #Egypt #NewEgypt #Coptic 52 minutes ago
CAIRO — At least six Coptic Christians were shot dead and 45 wounded by gunfire in religious clashes with Muslims in the Egyptian capital, a Coptic priest told AFP on Wednesday, updating an earlier toll.
"We have at the clinic the bodies of six Copts, all of them shot," local priest Samann Ibrahim told AFP, referring to a medical centre attached to his church.
The clashes between Christians and Muslims erupted in the poor working class district of Moqattam mid-afternoon Tuesday when at least 1,000 Christians gathered there to protest the burning of a church last week.
A hospital official had late Tuesday initially reported one person dead.
"We also have 45 people who were injured, all of them, without exception, hit by gunshots. Others who were injured have been taken to other hospitals," said Ibrahim.
He said some among the crowd of Muslims had opened fire on the demonstrators, adding that they had also petrol-bombed local houses and workplaces.
Several plastic recycling shops and warehouses storing cardboard boxes had been torched.
Fighting broke out when dozens of Muslims showed up in Moqattam, inhabited by Copts who work as garbage collectors and who had blocked a main north-south artery in the capital.
People threw rocks from both sides and witnesses said soldiers at the scene fired shots into the air in a bid to disperse the crowds.
quote:Originally posted by Once upon a time: I read that The Mabahith Amn al-Dawla al-'Ulya, or State Security Investigations Service was behind the fuel of this clash.
Where is this anywhere written in the article???? Great ..... another rumor spreader.
If the situation wasn't so sad I would say your comment is hilarious. Keep living in denial.
Posts: 30135 | From: The owner of this website killed ES....... | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
CAIRO — Ten people were killed and 110 wounded in religious clashes Tuesday in Cairo, the health ministry said, as Egypt's mew military rulers struggle to steer the post-revolution country through a transition.
"The total number of injured received by hospitals after the violence (Tuesday) in the areas of Moqattam, the Citadel and Sayeda Aisha is 110, while 10 people were killed," said Sherif Zamel, head of emergency services at the health ministry, without specifying if they were Christian or Muslim....
quote:Originally posted by Once upon a time: I read that The Mabahith Amn al-Dawla al-'Ulya, or State Security Investigations Service was behind the fuel of this clash.
Where is this anywhere written in the article???? Great ..... another rumor spreader.
If the situation wasn't so sad I would say your comment is hilarious. Keep living in denial.
The copts themselves state this and not muslims It is written in the article I have just posted from aljazeera news. You sound not to speak arabic or able to comprehend.
في الوقت نفسه عرض موقع "الأقباط متحدون" فيديو عن أسماء مجموعة أشخاص اتهمهم بالتورط في أحداث هدم وإحراق كنيسة الشهيدين، وقال الموقع إن بين المتهمين مخبرا بأمن الدولة يدعى فتحي أبو خطاب وهو من حرّض باقي المتهمين على مهاجمة الكنيسة.
Do you know me to say I live in denial or not? I do not know you and You do not know me but from This claim I think you are Islamophobic and you are thrilled by such news.
Islam is quite the opposite. Islam is peaceful religion and all people(including you) know it but you are just arrogant to admit it.
Posts: 218 | From: Giza | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree Ths situation is bad and muslims condemn any attack on peaceful People of any religion.
Posts: 218 | From: Giza | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Once upon a time: Islam is quite the opposite. Islam is peaceful religion and all people(including you) know it but you are just arrogant to admit it.
I mean no disrespect but you should know that " ALL " people do not know that Islam is a peaceful religion.
... and surly you are aware of the horrible things done in the name of Islam. Even if the Islam that you know and love is peaceful, there is another face of Islam that many in the west see, and it is not peaceful... as you surly must know.
Posts: 770 | From: www.cafepress.com/tahrir_square | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Once upon a time: I read that The Mabahith Amn al-Dawla al-'Ulya, or State Security Investigations Service was behind the fuel of this clash.
Where is this anywhere written in the article???? Great ..... another rumor spreader.
If the situation wasn't so sad I would say your comment is hilarious. Keep living in denial.
The copts themselves state this and not muslims It is written in the article I have just posted from aljazeera news. You sound not to speak arabic or able to comprehend.
في الوقت نفسه عرض موقع "الأقباط متحدون" فيديو عن أسماء مجموعة أشخاص اتهمهم بالتورط في أحداث هدم وإحراق كنيسة الشهيدين، وقال الموقع إن بين المتهمين مخبرا بأمن الدولة يدعى فتحي أبو خطاب وهو من حرّض باقي المتهمين على مهاجمة الكنيسة.
Do you know me to say I live in denial or not? I do not know you and You do not know me but from This claim I think you are Islamophobic and you are thrilled by such news.
Islam is quite the opposite. Islam is peaceful religion and all people(including you) know it but you are just arrogant to admit it.
Okay, first of all:
a) Because someone is claiming something you believe it? Or perhaps you want to believe it because it fits your own agenda?
b) I claimed what???? I claimed nothing. I just responded to your statement but it was nothing about Islam.
And my 'no claim' makes makes me "Islamophobic" in your eyes???
Really I have such a hard time understanding you.
c) "Islam is quite the opposite. Islam is peaceful religion and all people(including you) know it but you are just arrogant to admit it."
What's up with that comment of yours? I did not say anything negative about your religion yet you have to justify yourself? Honestly I think you are paranoid as hell.
d) Arrogant? Me?
Yes I am am and MORE. Posts: 30135 | From: The owner of this website killed ES....... | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Definition of ARROGANT 1: exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner <an arrogant official> 2: showing an offensive attitude of superiority : proceeding from or characterized by arrogance <an arrogant reply>
Posts: 3291 | From: I DO believe in Karma! | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Once upon a time: Islam is quite the opposite. Islam is peaceful religion and all people(including you) know it but you are just arrogant to admit it.
I mean no disrespect but you should know that " ALL " people do not know that Islam is a peaceful religion.
.
People who do not know are misled then.
Posts: 218 | From: Giza | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Once upon a time: Islam is quite the opposite. Islam is peaceful religion and all people(including you) know it but you are just arrogant to admit it.
I mean no disrespect but you should know that " ALL " people do not know that Islam is a peaceful religion.
quote:Originally posted by Once upon a time: Islam is quite the opposite. Islam is peaceful religion and all people(including you) know it but you are just arrogant to admit it.
I mean no disrespect but you should know that " ALL " people do not know that Islam is a peaceful religion.
posted
It's like Cheeky always says. Some folks always see the glass half full. Some folks see it half empty. Some folks wallow in the doom and gloom of days past. Some folks look to a brighter tomorrow.
There are wrongs perpetrated against some Christians by some Muslims, and wrongs perpetrated against some Muslims by some Christians. There is a common denominator between both situations - the perpetrators are criminal - simple as that.
I can't for the life of me figure why some people fixate on the differences between faiths - surely it's better to try to find common ground? There's plenty of it if you open your eyes. We are all human after all.
I think prejudice takes many forms, and I think posting on a forum about how all Muslims are savages or non-believers are pigs is as bad as walking up to someone of that demonination in the street and saying it to their face. Actually I think it's worse - it's a cowards way out. Even if you're not saying it in your own words. Even when you just cut and paste. If you cut and paste upteen stories about the wrongdoings of some people who belong to the Muslim faith every day, the message you're sending to the world is difficult to miss.
It reminds me of the guy who stands on Speaker's Corner preaching to us all how the end is nigh. He's been standing there for what, a couple of decades now? When the rest of us have loved, laughed and had a life. Poor him. What a waste.
That link Dzosser posted of the Egyptian flag between the mosque and the church brought a tear to my eye. It was a beautiful moment. I feel sad for anyone who couldn't see that.
Posts: 1678 | From: New Egypt Forum - http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Once upon a time: I read that The Mabahith Amn al-Dawla al-'Ulya, or State Security Investigations Service was behind the fuel of this clash.
Mubarak regime source of sectarian unrest Cam McGrath, The Electronic Intifada, 3 March 2011
Christians are a minority in Egypt and have been subject to a number of violent attacks in recent years. (Matthew Cassel)
CAIRO (IPS) - Ousted Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak portrayed himself as a paradigm of stability in a country he once described as a "powder keg" of sectarian unrest. Yet far from promoting stability, his regime may have actually been the source of much of the religious strife it claimed to suppress.
Analysts say there is growing evidence that Egyptian security forces planned attacks on Christian churches and clergy, or allowed them to happen. The apparent purpose of the attacks was to reinforce the idea to sympathetic Western governments that without Mubarak, radical Islamist groups would gain a foothold in Egypt and wage a holy war on its Christian community.
"Many people believe the sectarian incidents taking place in the country were the making of state security forces," says Moustafa Kamel al-Sayed, a professor of political science at Cairo University. "Some might be surprised if they were not."
Egypt has the largest Christian community in the Middle East. Copts, who make up about 10 percent of the country's 82 million inhabitants, claim they have faced persecution and discrimination in the workforce.
While Muslims and Christians have cohabited Egypt for centuries, sectarian violence often flares up over land disputes between Christians and Muslims, attempts to build or renovate churches, or rumors of forced conversions. Most incidents are quickly diffused by a heavy security presence.
Last year was one of the bloodiest on record. The year began with a drive-by shooting in the southern town of Nag Hammadi that killed six Copts leaving a church service, and ended with an apparent suicide bombing at al-Qiddisine church in the Mediterranean city of Alexandria as worshippers emerged from a New Year's Eve mass. Some 24 people were killed and nearly 100 wounded in the attack.
The government accused a Gaza-based Islamist group with links to al-Qaeda of carrying out the deadly bombing. However, leaked British intelligence documents purportedly suggest the attack was orchestrated by a senior official of the Mubarak regime.
The diplomatic papers, first cited by al-Arabiya Arabic news channel, allege that former interior minister Habib al-Adly established a black-ops unit in 2004 supervised by 22 security officers with drug dealers, Islamic militants and security personnel on its payroll. The unit's role: carry out false flag acts of provocation and sabotage around the country aimed at diverting people's attention away from the regime's corruption and unpopular political maneuvers.
"Al-Adly militias," as they were described, were also instructed to "wreak havoc in the country if the regime was threatened."
According to British diplomats cited in the documents, the clandestine security apparatus was behind a number of sectarian incidents in Egypt, including the Alexandria church bombing. The unit organized the deadly attack then pinned the blame on a foreign Islamist group in order to bolster western support for Mubarak's authoritarian regime, they said.
If true, the revelations in these documents would be "explosive," says Adel Ramadan, a lawyer who has represented victims in many sectarian cases.
The intelligence report is said to reveal how al-Adly's security officers used their informant network to contact Jundallah, an Islamic extremist group, offering to provide weapons for an operation aimed at "disciplining the Copts." Members of Jundallah were recruited to park a car wired with explosives in front of al-Qiddisine church, then detonate it by remote control. But the operation's ministry handler detonated the parked vehicle before the recruit could get out, making the deadly bombing appear as a suicide attack.
Al-Adly's operatives then snared Mohamed Abdel-Hadi, the leader of Jundallah, and transferred him to an interior ministry facility in Cairo. He was able to escape along with hundreds of other prisoners during Egypt's recent popular uprising, and sought asylum at the British embassy. It was there that he explained his involvement and the double cross to diplomats, according to the documents.
Egypt's public prosecutor has launched an investigation into reports of the former interior minister's involvement in the Alexandria church bombing. If proven, it would corroborate eyewitness reports that police officers normally stationed in front of al-Qiddisine church abandoned their posts less than an hour before the attack.
"The allegation that police forces withdrew ahead of the attack was also heard in other incidents, including the Nag Hammadi shooting," says Sherif Azer of the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights (EOHR). If prosecutors can demonstrate government complicity, "we will consider [petitions to] reopen investigations into other church attacks."
Egypt's 25 January Revolution exposed the willingness of Mubarak's authoritarian regime to sabotage public order in order to protect itself, say analysts. For several days, the nation's entire police force disappeared from the streets, allowing looters and escaped convicts to terrorize citizens.
"It was a diabolical plan that by sowing disorder throughout the country people would have no choice but to stop protesting and ask for President Mubarak to come back to restore order," al-Sayed told IPS.
That there were no church attacks during this security vacuum reinforced people's suspicions that the sectarian incidents taking place in their country were largely the making of security forces.
"During the January 25 Revolution all the police abandoned their posts, yet not one single church in the country was attacked," al-Sayed points out. "Even the Jewish synagogues were left untouched after police vacated them."
quote:Originally posted by Once upon a time: I read that The Mabahith Amn al-Dawla al-'Ulya, or State Security Investigations Service was behind the fuel of this clash.
quote:Originally posted by Once upon a time: Islam is quite the opposite. Islam is peaceful religion and all people(including you) know it but you are just arrogant to admit it.
I mean no disrespect but you should know that " ALL " people do not know that Islam is a peaceful religion.
.
People who do not know are misled then.
By whom?
Ignorance
Ignorance is only partly true.
The other side are examples from Muslims: The Teddy Bear incident The Cartoon incident Suicide Bombers Honor Killings ME governments Human rights violations ...
once upon a time's statememt was: "Islam is quite the opposite. Islam is peaceful religion and all people(including you) know it but you are just arrogant to admit it."
...You know as well as I do that there are many who never get past these things to see the peaceful side. I am simply pointing out that all people do not know Islam to be peaceful and there very clearly is a side that is not peaceful.
....The whole villiage (not just a few) wanted to kill a teacher for the name of a teddy bear, for heavens sake. Tell me what is peaceful about this?
Posts: 770 | From: www.cafepress.com/tahrir_square | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Once upon a time: Islam is quite the opposite. Islam is peaceful religion and all people(including you) know it but you are just arrogant to admit it.
I mean no disrespect but you should know that " ALL " people do not know that Islam is a peaceful religion.
.
People who do not know are misled then.
By whom?
Ignorance
Ignorance is only partly true.
The other side are examples from Muslims: The Teddy Bear incident The Cartoon incident Suicide Bombers Honor Killings ME governments Human rights violations ...
once upon a time's statememt was: "Islam is quite the opposite. Islam is peaceful religion and all people(including you) know it but you are just arrogant to admit it."
...You know as well as I do that there are many who never get past these things to see the peaceful side. I am simply pointing out that all people do not know Islam to be peaceful and there very clearly is a side that is not peaceful.
....The whole villiage (not just a few) wanted to kill a teacher for the name of a teddy bear, for heavens sake. Tell me what is peaceful about this?
No Doro there is not a side to Islam that is not peaceful and this is what I mean about ignorance. Those you listed ARE among the ignorant.
Take the teddy bear example, it's fine to name millions of babies 'Mohammed' even though those Mohammeds grow up to be wife abusers, murderers etc etc, but a teddy bear? THAT is ignorance.
Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My ex and I were out together tonight doing an errand and some clothes shopping for him.
He stated until the end of Sadat's term parliment candidate's religious designation were not made public.
Egyptians voted for candidates without ever knowing their faith until the mid 1970s. Voters known the candidate's political history, vote history and had read or watched their debates with other candidates but never a mention of their faith.
How often do debates betweeen parliment candidates take place anymore? And how often are a politicians faith designation noted in TV or newspaper coverage?
Times have changed during Mubarak.
Posts: 2280 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged |
"Islamic fundamentalists no more resemble the rules of Quran than the inquisition resembled the Christianity of Christ. "
-------------------- If you don't learn from your mistakes, there's no sense making them. Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Once upon a time: Islam is quite the opposite. Islam is peaceful religion and all people(including you) know it but you are just arrogant to admit it.
I mean no disrespect but you should know that " ALL " people do not know that Islam is a peaceful religion.
.
People who do not know are misled then.
The peace of Islam is the peace of a slave under a sword.
Islam translates to "submission", not "peace"
It achieves peace through getting everyone to submit. That is the stated goal. If you don't submit, you are killed you, the Quran says so.
Muhammad sent letters to the great empires of the Middle East demanding their submission to his authority. This dispels any notion that the Prophet intended Islam's expansion to stop with Arabia. Indeed, it is only logical that the one true religion, revealed by the final and fullest prophet, should have universal sway. Thus, as Muhammad had fought and subdued the peoples of the Arabian peninsula, his successors Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali (known as "the four rightly-guided Caliphs") and other Caliphs fought and subdued the people of the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Europein the nameof Allah.
Posts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
A statement or a website name --"Islam Is Peace" as in www.islamispeace.org, means nothing. It tells us nothing about a brand-new Muslim movement to deny the literal meaning of hundreds of passages in what is taken to be the literal Word of God.
A website named www.islamispeace.org does nothing to change the wording in the hadiths to be found in Bukhari and Muslim, each more dangerous for Infidels than the last.
A website with the namewww.islamispeace.org implies nothing about whether or not Muslims will continue to regard Muhammad as the Model of Conduct, uswa hasana, the Perfect Man, al-insan al-kamil, and in modelling themselves on him, will recall his life as a military leader who took part in 78 campaigns, 77 of them offensive, and who will remember his approving of the decapitation of the bound and helpless prisoners of the Banu Qurayza, his attack on the inoffensive Jewish farmers, in his raid, undertaken for loot and for women, on the Khaybar Oasis, the pleasure he took in hearing of how his followers assassinated Asma bint Marwan, a woman who had mocked him, and Abu Akaf, a poet whose verses offended him. And will Muslims publicly denounce the use of the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya as the basis for all Muslim treaties with non-Muslims? Will they denounce, publicly, and apologize for, in the manner of Western countries apologizing for this and for that, for the 60-70 million Hindus who were murdered? For driving the Jews into exile, where so many of them suffered, and for 1300 years did not have a political entity of their own to guarantee some minimum physical protection? To the Buddhists, for helping to drive Buddhism out of India, and destroying so many Buddhist statues and stupas, over more than a millennium, throughout Asia? To the Christians, for taking over huge territories, in the Middle East and North Africa, once Christian, and managing over time to slowly squeeze out, by killing, by persecution, by the dhimmi system itself, so many of those Christians, or managing to force so many to convert to Islam in order to escape, in the only way they then could, the status of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity that the dhimmi condition entailed?
Only when this kind of thing is done, and not the ad campaign worthy of a cigarette company, and not even a cigarette company today, but the kind that back in the 1930s could advertise a smoke as being "smooth" and "good for the throat," will Infidels begin to let up on their examination and critical scrutiny of Islam, which so far has gotten off nearly scot-free, but --and only because of the behavior of Muslims themselves, and despite the effort of Western elites to defend and protect Islam at every turn --will do so no longer. Indeed, the transparency and clumsiness of this ad campaign, and the obvious suspicion that its costs are being met by rich Arabs, merely will heighten suspicions and also be subject to silent, or perhaps open, ridicule. It's a good sign, however, that organized Muslims feel they must engage in this. It's a sign that they feel under pressure, that they somehow have to turn off the tap of information and intelligent attention by Infidels. But those Infidels will start reading, with greater and greater understanding, the Qur'an and the Hadith. And they wil begin to make sense of what they read. They will realize that Islma inculcates a permanent state of war that must exist between Believers and Infidels, between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. They will begin to realize that Jihad to spread Islam, by any means available, is a living doctrine, and one that fell into desuetude not because of any change in either doctrine or Muslim understanding of that doctrine, but because of perceived Muslim weakness until the OPEC trillions came along to make those Muslims rich, able to buy weapons,and Western hirelings, and also to support a vast propaganda effort on behalf of Islam to supplement campaigns of Da'wa all over the advanced West, which, as it happens, was also successfully penetrated by millions of Muslim immigrants --including those who now live in Great Britain, and ride those busses, and smile as they look at those advertisements, and think to themselves, if only we can keep the Infidels unwary for just another decade, or two, ifonly, ifonly...
Posts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Once upon a time: Islam is quite the opposite. Islam is peaceful religion and all people(including you) know it but you are just arrogant to admit it.
I mean no disrespect but you should know that " ALL " people do not know that Islam is a peaceful religion.
.
People who do not know are misled then.
The peace of Islam is the peace of a slave under a sword.
Islam translates to "submission", not "peace"
Salam = Peace, does it not? Submission to GOD, not to man or anyone else, GOD the creator. Hard to understand?
Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: No Doro there is not a side to Islam that is not peaceful and this is what I mean about ignorance. Those you listed ARE among the ignorant.
Take the teddy bear example, it's fine to name millions of babies 'Mohammed' even though those Mohammeds grow up to be wife abusers, murderers etc etc, but a teddy bear? THAT is ignorance.
Very well then.... the ignorant side of Islam... is that better?
None the less there are MANY who call themselves Muslim who are not peaceful. And most of the Islamic governments are oppressive to their citizens. How can you deny this? Egypt itself just went through a revolution. Is Hosni Mubaric Muslim?
Posts: 770 | From: www.cafepress.com/tahrir_square | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Submission means that you become a dhimmi, a subordinate to Muslims. You work and pay the Jizyyah, an extortion fee, to the Muslims who would treat you as second class citizen. They become the master race and you, their virtual slave and the source of their livelihood.
Narrated Juwairiya bin Qudama At-Tamimi: We said to 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, oh Chief of the believers! Advise us." He said, "I advise you to fulfill Allah's Convention (made with the Dhimmis) as it is the convention of your Prophet and the source of the livelihood of your dependents (i.e. the taxes from the Dhimmis.) " Bukhari 4, 53, 388:
The good news is that you can change your status by converting to Islam. So in a a very sarcastic sense, there is no compulsion in Islam. You convert "voluntarily". But you are free not to convert by accepting subjugation, humiliation, discrimination and constant harassment. What can be more democratic? This meaning of "peace" is understood by all the Muslims. However they know that the non-Muslims have a different understanding of this word. So, they deceitfully promote their religion as a religion of peace taking advantage of the fact that the root of both words Islam and Salam is slm. One means submission and the other means peace. Even though the peace in Islam is understood as submission.
Posts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: No Doro there is not a side to Islam that is not peaceful and this is what I mean about ignorance. Those you listed ARE among the ignorant.
Take the teddy bear example, it's fine to name millions of babies 'Mohammed' even though those Mohammeds grow up to be wife abusers, murderers etc etc, but a teddy bear? THAT is ignorance.
Very well then.... the ignorant side of Islam... is that better?
No not really as it's not a 'side of Islam' at all, it's a side to some of the followers that claim to be Muslim. It's not the religion of Islam that makes them as they are just as it wasn't a side of Christianity that conducted the inquisition, burnt woman and 'pagans' etc. or the many so called Christian sects in your own country more recently than that who have commited atrocities in the name of 'religion'.
quote:None the less there are MANY who call themselves Muslim who are not peaceful. And most of the Islamic governments are oppressive to their citizens. How can you deny this? Egypt itself just went through a revolution. Is Hosni Mubaric Muslim?
Yes I believe babaMu is Muslim but that's not the reason for the oppression towards the citizens, greed is. The Islamic religion encourages to fight against oppression, not force oppression. Just the same as those atrocities I mentioned previously regarding earlier Christians. The difference is that you will deny those are Christians as they are not following Christ's teachings whereas I can't say these Muslims are not muslims as that's not my place to decide, it's God's. I can say they are not following Islam in my view, but only God knows what's in their hearts in the end. What I mean is I don't find it that easy to say 'he or she is not Muslim', but it's not Islam that makes them as they are.
Early Christianity and it's followers had the very same problems, it's called 'changing the religion' which man has always felt the need to do assuming they know better than God or need to correct Him.
Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't deny that they are Christians. I don't think one person can tell another who or what they are.
The real difference is that I can most certainly, without a doubt say that they are not following the teachings or examples of Jesus which you cannot say about the prophet.
quote: No not really as it's not a 'side of Islam' at all, it's a side to some of the followers that claim to be Muslim
What is there about Islam that makes us keep trying to figure out what is the real Islam?
In the same way, is the religious Koran of Mecca the real one? Or is it the political Koran of Medina? Said in another way, is the real Mohammed the preacher or the jihadist?
Duality is one of the two Islamic fundamental principles. Submission is the other. Duality means that Islam holds two contradictory views on all subjects. Thus, asking the question about which view is the real one is like asking which end of the magnet is the real magnet. Is it the north end or is it the south end? At least we can agree that both poles are just different ends of the same magnet. Just like the magnet, the “complete, perfect and detailed” Koran is both religious and political and the real Mohammed is the jihadist and the preacher. Islam uses each one when it is needed.
'Ayisha' and 'once upon a time', need the “good” Mohammed. But the Taliban and the Muslim Brotherhood are using the jihadist Mohammed. North pole. South pole. Same magnet. Preacher Mohammed. Jihadist Mohammed. Same Mohammed. It is based on a false premise that Mohammed must be one or the other, when he is both sides of the contradiction. It is this dualism that lets Islam deceive the kafir. When talking to kafirs and dhimmis, Islam presents a saintly man. The apologist dhimmis say, “Well, if Mohammed was such a nice guy, the other Mohammed must be false.” The shape-shifting dualism fools the dhimmis. Which brings us to the Koran.
Certain Muslim reformers think that if we didn’t have to deal with the “false” jihadist Mohammed, Islam would be acceptable. However, the Koran says over 30 times that Allah wants every human to be just like Mohammed. Then it says over 40 times, that if we aren’t like Mohammed, we burn in Hell. Islam has to have Mohammed. Without him, a Muslim does not know how to fulfill any of the Five Pillars. To be generous, the Koran is an incomplete document. Without Mohammed’s life there is no Islam. Also the actions of Mohammed show up constantly in the Koran.
Mohammed the jihadist shows up at the battles of Badr and Uhud. Mohammed the politician shows up in the Victory sura. Islam has to have Mohammed even if there were no Sira or Hadith. All of the mentions of Mohammed in the Koran are seamless with the Hadith and Sira. That is one of the reasons that the Sira and Hadith cannot be dismissed. The Koran, Sira and Hadith are a unified intellectual work.
But let’s go along with the argument that without the Mohammed of the Sira and the Hadith, a good Islam would be a Koran-only Islam. Muslims are so immersed in dualism of believer/kafir that they cannot see what a dreadful document the Koran is for the kafir. They love it when the Koran says that they are the “best of people”, but they cannot see how horrible it is that I and all other kafirs are called the worst things in Allah’s creation.
The Medinan Koran has brought political misery to the kafirs for 1400 years. There is not one good statement in the Koran and Islam for us. It says that we can be tortured, beheaded, crucified, robbed, raped, enslaved, mocked, and humiliated. These are political actions and they define the Islamic worldview. Why does any Muslim think that I get a warm feeling and a smile when I am told that Allah plots against me and hates me?
A reformed Islam based upon the Koran without Mohammed is still an Islam where the kafirs are political second class citizens to be abused. The only reform that is good for kafirs is the removal of the negative language. The application of the Golden Rule to the Koran will do this, but over half of the Koran would vanish. Only a Koran with a Golden Rule and without kafirs is a reformed Koran.
I can give a criteria for a reformed Islam. Can I hear a good Mohammed joke after reform? I am very serious. There are jokes about Jesus, Noah, Adam and Moses (all supposed Islamic prophets of Allah). Why not Mohammed?
I cannot help but notice that no Muslim can discuss Islam without criticizing Christianity. The reason for this is found in the “complete, perfect and detailed” Koran. The Koran is vicious about all other religions. Due to its dualism, it has a good word in the beginning about the Jews and Christians, but in the end, the dualism prevails and the Koran’s second view is brutal. It demands that it, and it alone, determines the truth of all other religions. But the Koran does not stop with religious criticism, but it always includes political persecution of other religions.
The “complete, perfect and detailed” Koran also dictates that all other religions must politically submit in this world. Islam is not just about religion, but politics. The Koran is a political text that contains only negative, pejorative, hurtful, insulting words for the kafir. The “complete, perfect and detailed” Koran of Medina contains more Jew hatred than Hitler’s Mein Kamph.
A detailed statistical analysis of Mein Kamph shows that 6.8% of the paragraphs are Jew hatred. The same analysis of the Koran written in Medina shows that 10.6% of the material is about Jew hatred.
When Mohammed attacked the Jews of Khaybar (an event referred to in the Medinan Koran) he first called them to Islam. When they rejected this call they were attacked, crushed and made dhimmis. It was in this vein that bin Laden called America to Islam before he attacked on September 11, 2001 . So the call to Islam can be from care and concern or it can be a prelude to death by jihad. Such is the dualistic nature of political Islam and the Koran. This makes me very sad. I wish that I could believe that Islam can be reformed and that Muslims could be convinced to stop imitating the jihadist Mohammed, obeying the Medinan Koran and killing kafirs. Look at the results. Mao was responsible for the deaths of 77,000,000 people, Stalin killed about 62,000,000 and Hitler was responsible for the deaths of 21,000,000. And for the last 1400 years those who imitate Mohammed and follow the Koran of Medina, have killed over 270,000,000 kafirs.
Posts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
once again the western media turning egypt into lebanon..
we saw in somalia when americans supported the abyssinian ethiopians to invade somalia and then what come out was AL-SHABAAB burning chrches in mogadishu.
thais fear is created by americans simple as that. egyptians are very hospitable and they love each other no matter christain or muslim,
FEAR = AMERICAN INTERFERENCE
Posts: 24 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by D_Oro: I don't deny that they are Christians. I don't think one person can tell another who or what they are.
The real difference is that I can most certainly, without a doubt say that they are not following the teachings or examples of Jesus which you cannot say about the prophet.
Yes I can. The teachings and examples of Muhammed are in Quran, whether some have come along 300 years later and wrote otherwise is no different to the pagan Constantine deciding what Christianity is and throwing out the books according to who was with Christ at the time in favour of books written by those that barely knew him.
Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by D_Oro: What do you mean? Didn't Ayisha write about the prophet? Didn't his followers document his activities?
Well there are supposed writings collected by a man born 200 years after his death where less than 1% of those collected are considered 'authentic' but the point is we are supposed to follow the prophetS, (Muhammed was told to follow Abraham who was true in faith) we are to make no distinction among ANY, and what we are to follow is IN Quran, which also states NOT to follow ANY HADITH after Quran. So even if any of those are 'authentic', which I doubt, we shouldn't follow them anyway. The following is in following Quran, God's Word, not mans.
The prophet in Quran is not the same prophet that these writings are about, changes and falseties started even before he died.
Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by D_Oro: What do you mean? Didn't Ayisha write about the prophet? Didn't his followers document his activities?
Well there are supposed writings collected by a man born 200 years after his death where less than 1% of those collected are considered 'authentic' but the point is we are supposed to follow the prophetS, (Muhammed was told to follow Abraham who was true in faith) we are to make no distinction among ANY, and what we are to follow is IN Quran, which also states NOT to follow ANY HADITH after Quran. So even if any of those are 'authentic', which I doubt, we shouldn't follow them anyway. The following is in following Quran, God's Word, not mans.
The prophet in Quran is not the same prophet that these writings are about, changes and falseties started even before he died.
Ayisha, I am talking about what is, not what you wish it would be. The truth is that not all Muslims follow a peaceful Islam. You can dance around this all you want but it is simply a fact. Whether or not it is a true Islam or an ignorant Islam is another matter.
Why is it so difficult to acknowledge this? A problem does not disappear by not looking at it.
Posts: 770 | From: www.cafepress.com/tahrir_square | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by D_Oro: What do you mean? Didn't Ayisha write about the prophet? Didn't his followers document his activities?
Well there are supposed writings collected by a man born 200 years after his death where less than 1% of those collected are considered 'authentic' but the point is we are supposed to follow the prophetS, (Muhammed was told to follow Abraham who was true in faith) we are to make no distinction among ANY, and what we are to follow is IN Quran, which also states NOT to follow ANY HADITH after Quran. So even if any of those are 'authentic', which I doubt, we shouldn't follow them anyway. The following is in following Quran, God's Word, not mans.
The prophet in Quran is not the same prophet that these writings are about, changes and falseties started even before he died.
Ayisha, I am talking about what is, not what you wish it would be. The truth is that not all Muslims follow a peaceful Islam. You can dance around this all you want but it is simply a fact. Whether or not it is a true Islam or an ignorant Islam is another matter.
Ok, so the Waco bunch, the KKK and all other 'sects' calling themselves Christians are in fact christians at work and it matters not that it is true christianity and each time you say they are not following the teachings of Christ to disassociate yourself from them means nothing? Not all Christians follow the peaceful teachings of Christ either do they.
quote:Why is it so difficult to acknowledge this? A problem does not disappear by not looking at it.
same about those unpeaceful and intolerant Christians practicing their form of Christianity.
Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can't tell another person what they are. You just can't. It's the same for those who tell you that you are not Muslim because you don't follow the hadith. Are you Muslim or no? I have seen some on ES say that you are not.
Yes bad things have been done in the name of Christianty. Have you ever heard me deny this? No, I wont, I will condemn the behavior and I can back my condemnation up with Christ teachings.
Are you really telling me that ALL people know Islam to be peaceful? This simply is not the truth. You can say that you know Islam to be peaceful but you cannot say that all people know Islam to be peaceful and you cannot say that all Muslims are peaceful. Same as I cannot say that all Christians are peaceful or that everyone knows all Christians are peaceful.
Look, I can say that they are not following the teachings of Jesus. If someone calls themselves a Christian and does things contrary from his example does not mean that they are not Christian, what it does mean is that they are not following the teachings of Jesus. His teachings do not vary, there is no controversy about his behavior.
I would like to see examples of the prophet being peaceful because honestly I have not see one example.
quote:Originally posted by D_Oro: You can't tell another person what they are. You just can't. It's the same for those who tell you that you are not Muslim because you don't follow the hadith. Are you Muslim or no? I have seen some on ES say that you are not.
Yes bad things have been done in the name of Christianty. Have you ever heard me deny this? No, I wont, I will condemn the behavior and I can back my condemnation up with Christ teachings.
Are you really telling me that ALL people know Islam to be peaceful? This simply is not the truth. You can say that you know Islam to be peaceful but you cannot say that all people know Islam to be peaceful and you cannot say that all Muslims are peaceful. Same as I cannot say that all Christians are peaceful or that everyone knows all Christians are peaceful.
Look, I can say that they are not following the teachings of Jesus. If someone calls themselves a Christian and does things contrary from his example does not mean that they are not Christian, what it does mean is that they are not following the teachings of Jesus. His teachings do not vary, there is no controversy about his behavior.
I would like to see examples of the prophet being peaceful because honestly I have not see one example.
I think that most times you appear intelligent and at the same time there are those occasions where you just don't make any sense. This is one of them. Go back and read your last four or five posts and hopefully you will see that you were contradicting yourself all along and running around in circles to prove something you do not believe.
Posts: 1044 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by D_Oro: You can't tell another person what they are. You just can't. It's the same for those who tell you that you are not Muslim because you don't follow the hadith. Are you Muslim or no? I have seen some on ES say that you are not.
Yes bad things have been done in the name of Christianty. Have you ever heard me deny this? No, I wont, I will condemn the behavior and I can back my condemnation up with Christ teachings.
Are you really telling me that ALL people know Islam to be peaceful? This simply is not the truth. You can say that you know Islam to be peaceful but you cannot say that all people know Islam to be peaceful and you cannot say that all Muslims are peaceful. Same as I cannot say that all Christians are peaceful or that everyone knows all Christians are peaceful.
Look, I can say that they are not following the teachings of Jesus. If someone calls themselves a Christian and does things contrary from his example does not mean that they are not Christian, what it does mean is that they are not following the teachings of Jesus. His teachings do not vary, there is no controversy about his behavior.
I would like to see examples of the prophet being peaceful because honestly I have not see one example.
Then change the Quran you have read or do more reading of it. If you want to know about Jesus where do you look? You look in the Bible, so if you want, or need for whatever reason, to know about Muhammed, then look in Quran.
as with a lot of people you don't have a grasp on ISLAM for what it is, what it really is, and any 'Muslims' actions you apply to 'Islam' whereas at the same time you can say the same Christian doing an action 'is not following Christ' but you can't see the same for a Muslim doing an action. It's the same as if a guy in US, UK or anywhere goes and shoots a load of schoolkids, which DOES happen a fair bit in USA I might add, his religion is NOT MENTIONED at all, it's not an issue, UNLESS he happened to be a MUSLIM, then Islam is blamed. It's brainwashing!
A Muslim does not worship Muhammed, his duty was to deliver the message and that was IT. So all the 'following Muhammed' that should be done is IN Quran, not in anywhere else that 'says' he did this or that, because as I said before, the one written 'about' is not the same as the one that 'delivered' the message he DID follow.
So no there is not an 'unpeaceful' side to ISLAM, the same as there is not an 'unpeaceful' side to Christianity, there are 'unpeaceful' followers of both and every other 'religion'.
Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So bottom line is that you believe ALL people know Islam is peaceful.
I know for a fact that all people do not know that Islam is peaceful.
I am not contradicting myself. I said that ALL people do not know Islam to be peaceful... I stand by that. Maybe you are calling the small group around you ALL people where as I see another group and I can guarantee you that they all do not see Islam as peaceful.
quote: as with a lot of people you don't have a grasp on ISLAM for what it is, what it really is, and any 'Muslims' actions you apply to 'Islam' whereas at the same time you can say the same Christian doing an action 'is not following Christ' but you can't see the same for a Muslim doing an action.
I don't need to have a grasp of Islam to know that ALL people do not consider it the religion of peace. I look at what people consider to see what they consider, not at Islam itself. Regardless if it is or is not peaceful.
I am able to point to Jesus and say that they are not following his teaching. No one can go and start a war for example and say this is the teaching of Jesus. Yet, Muslim who do start a war do point to Muhammad (pbuh) to show the example for their action. Did he or did he not go to war? Did he or did he not kill people?
Posts: 770 | From: www.cafepress.com/tahrir_square | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by D_Oro: So bottom line is that you believe ALL people know Islam is peaceful.
No and I never said they do, you were arguing this point with once upon a time, not me.
quote:I know for a fact that all people do not know that Islam is peaceful.
Then we are back to where I joined this thread with 'Ignorance'
quote:I am not contradicting myself. I said that ALL people do not know Islam to be peaceful... I stand by that. Maybe you are calling the small group around you ALL people where as I see another group and I can guarantee you that they all do not see Islam as peaceful.
Again, I never said they do and I said why, ignorance.
quote:
quote: as with a lot of people you don't have a grasp on ISLAM for what it is, what it really is, and any 'Muslims' actions you apply to 'Islam' whereas at the same time you can say the same Christian doing an action 'is not following Christ' but you can't see the same for a Muslim doing an action.
I don't need to have a grasp of Islam to know that ALL people do not consider it the religion of peace. I look at what people consider to see what they consider, not at Islam itself. Regardless if it is or is not peaceful.
So you pay no attention the the actual religion of Islam, just to what a few people do 'in the name of' and what some tell you, as I said, Ignorance. You are talking about watching what people do, I am talking about Islam, which no you do not have a grasp of and YES if you are to slam IT then you should. By all means slam away at those PEOPLE you think are showing you Islam, but really it would be a good idea to see for yourself don't you think? If I had only looked at Muslims to see Islam I would not be Muslim now. Alhamdulillah I went to the source to see for myself.
quote:I am able to point to Jesus and say that they are not following his teaching. No one can go and start a war for example and say this is the teaching of Jesus. Yet, Muslim who do start a war do point to Muhammad (pbuh) to show the example for their action. Did he or did he not go to war? Did he or did he not kill people?
THAT is where your, and THEIR problems lie. Muslims who start a war point to Muhammed? Defend ourselves, fight against oppression, etc, it does not say to START a war, so no they cannot point to QURAN and say this and that is what I'm saying. There is a MASSIVE difference between 'Muslim' and 'Islam'. Those that 'start a war' CANNOT point to Muhammed as an example but killing in self defense and in war is also sanctioned in the NT and it was Jesus who said he had not come to bring peace but a sword, so are christians with swords justified, as they can point to Jesus for that?
If you consider Jesus to be God in the flesh, then you cannot extinguish all the OT and the slaughter in there, that too belongs to Jesus as God in the flesh because God's word does not change. Jesus came to UPHOLD the law and the Torah, he was a Jewish rabbi.
Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now just to see if Im getting this?....loads of christians and muslims have got it wrong because they both arent really following what their examples of God or godliness taught and ultimately it ends with killing each other.
Both sides can say that the way religious leaders over the years have explained it to their flocks is wrong.So people are acting out of ignorance on both sides.
I just find myself wondering how a returning Messiah would judge all the madness? Do both sides believe in a returning Messiah?
Posts: 314 | From: australia | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
lol @ Glassflower. I believe that we are both saying that those doing the killing are not following the example.
Ayisha, So basically you are saying that Muslims who believe in the Hadith are not following the actual religion of Islam.... Isn't that most Muslims?
fyi, Jesus did not come to UPHOLD the law he came to fulfill the law. I believe this has been explained to you before.
Also, Jesus spoke in parables. It would go against his very nature to use a literal sword. The sword that he was talking about is the word of God. This has also been discussed before.
quote:Originally posted by D_Oro: Ayisha, So basically you are saying that Muslims who believe in the Hadith are not following the actual religion of Islam.... Isn't that most Muslims?
Quran is quite clear, 'what other HADITH will you follow after this' and also 'the the majority follow nothing but conjecture.' What the majority follow is not necessarily right.
quote:fyi, Jesus did not come to UPHOLD the law he came to fulfill the law. I believe this has been explained to you before.
Yes it has now explain where he said he had not come to bring peace BUT a sword.
quote:Also, Jesus spoke in parables. It would go against his very nature to use a literal sword. The sword that he was talking about is the word of God. This has also been discussed before.
but he WAS the word of God, so now Jesus IS a sword that HAD NOT COME TO BRING PEACE?
Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jesus did not come to bring world peace, but to bring inner peace to those who choose to follow Him. The Matthew passage is talking in terms of world peace, and Jesus was warning His followers that, though there would be eternal benefits for those who followed Him, their beliefs would cause many to hate them and persecuteo them. The two passages in John are saying that Jesus will bring peace to those who follow Him, but you'll see that the John 16 passage is also saying that they will have tribulation in the world.
Luke 2:14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. (KJV)
John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. (KJV)
John 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world. (KJV)
Furthermore, Jesus denounces violence to accomplish the will of God. He did not come to crush the Roman Empire. Instead, he willingly lays down his life and dies for the sins of the whole world. History demonstrates that Jesus never wielded a sword against anyone, and in Matt. 10:34 he does not order his followers to swing one either, in order to kill their family opponents or for any reason. But a true disciple who is worthy of following Christ and who comes from a possibly hostile family has to use a sword of the will (never a physical sword) to sever away all opposition, even as far as taking up his cross—another metaphorical implement for the disciples.
52 "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.
He never tells his followers to wage war on everyone else, and certainly not on one’s family. Jesus never endorses the sword to spread his message. He never calls for military holy war, and only he sets the genetic code for his movement. There is not a single verse in the New Testament that calls the Church to commit violence to spread the gospel. Rather, the New Testament hands the sword over to the State (Rom. 13:1-6). In any case, Jesus says a spiritual sword, not a physical one, may sever family ties, so his disciples must be ready for that.
Posts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic