You've been implying the former left, right, and center throughout this thread.

You've also been implying it is because their religion Islam condones and encourages these acts, that all Muslims are Terrorists.

Obviously you have never read the Qu'ran, instead choosing to regurgitate "facts" about their holy scripture which fit your argument. You even state that those denying these "facts" are doing so because of some conspiracy.

Honestly, I'm comforted by the fact that not many people are in positions of power in the government of your ilk. I agree with MPF totally, this is some of the clearest bigotry I've seen on the internet.

---

I find myself shaking my head incredulously at some of the crap being spouted in this thread. Why don't we drag out the old standby that you don't offer a Muslim your left hand because that's the (bare) hand he wipes his ass with?

I have a lot to say, but I have to go mow the lawn, so I'll have to postpone it for now.

I'll leave you with this question: What does the word (jihad) actually mean? Not what does the American mass media say it means -- what does it mean to Muslims? That is to say, what does the Qur'an say jihad means?

I own a Qur'an and have read it, so don't try to bullshit your way through this.

---

The word can actually mean many different types of struggles, one which happens to be holy war, and used by most to justify a certain position. Considering not all Muslim faiths even agree what the word should mean and how it should be part of the faith. Personally, I wish more people looked upon the word and lived by it like Ahmadiyya Islam.

---

From what I have read of my father's work related to that issue, it means self-struggle. My father seemed to be of the opinion, from what I got out of his work, that it often symbolizes internal self-struggle.

---

actually, the problem appears to be young men.

:)

Or, perhaps, just perhaps, adolescence. (since the end of adolescence gets later and later these days)

---

Agreed. Should I think that all Catholics are child molesters since a few perverts have done so?

Christians have NEVER done anything that bad . . . have they? (sarcasm).

Simply put, they have the RIGHT to build the mosque/outreach campus on the property they own. But, it is in very poor taste to do so....especially when the financiers are murky, and the main Imam is rather controversial, and an adherent of Sharia law. And, let us not overlook the fact that throughout history, Muslims HAVE built on/near the sites of their greatest victories. Whether you wish to admit it or not, there is vast symbolism for the Muslim people...particularly the terrorists amongst them....in the placement of this building.

My biggest gripe about the whole good Muslim/bad Muslim arguement...as simple as the analogy sounds....is the fact that they offer no significant input, or cooperation, in ridding the evil amongst themselves. To that end, I think they own some of the responsibility for problems that the darker elements of their faith practice.

---

Well said. +1

---

Actually, one could make a solid argument -- both from observation and from historical events -- that it is in fact women in the Western world who have historically been treated poorly, while women in the Islamic world have been and continue to be treated like queens. The fact that women in the Islamic world are not treated as we happen to treat women does not mean they are mistreated; it merely means they are treated differently.

A feminist scholar once said -- and I agree with her -- that she would believe in the ancient oppression of women when she found evidence of a female revolution. None exists. If women were truly treated as poorly as we, in our arrogant contempt of our ancestors, chauvinistically like to tell ourselves, they would have revolted, just as women in the West did indeed eventually revolt. The fact is, they never did. In fact, the mere idea was so ludicrous to thinkers of the time that it was a subject of comedy. The play Lysistrata ("Army-Disbander") by Aristophanes, for example, centers around the efforts of Lysistrata to lead a sex strike. Basically, the women tell their men that they will refuse to sleep with them until they stop fighting their foolish wars. Of course, the punchline of the play is that the movement fails spectacularly, because the women find their men so sexy that they can't resist them -- and to a woman, they all rush back into their husbands' arms.

Likewise, there has never been a women's revolt in any Islamic country, not even the ones we point to as being the most oppressive (Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.). The fact is that a lot of the practices we regard as "oppressive" are in fact promoted and enforced by the women themselves: veils, female circumcision (which the king of Saudi Arabia outlawed over the vociferous protests of his wives), etc. Indeed, in many Islamic countries, women are quite powerful: a recent vice-president of Iran was a woman, many women serve on the parliaments of both Iraq and Iran, and the list goes on. As one Saudi woman said to me, anyone who thinks Saudi women are oppressed has no clue how they live on a day-to-day basis. They get up when they want to, they go to the spa almost everyday, they get manicures and pedicures, they drive nice cars, they have maidservants, they don't have to work unless they want to, they have almost endless leisure.

In the early days of the Iraq war, it was not at all uncommon to see a woman walking unaccompanied down the streets of Baghdad in blue jeans. As the situation has deteriorated, however, they have been forced, for their own safety, to walk around in full niqab, accompanied at all times by men.

So I ask you, who has done the real oppression of women in that country?

---

I like that nonstopdrivel dude as he has a fresh point of view on everything and constantly educates me on international affairs.

---