Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Eternal Wars Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: the West Vs. Islam
Muslim    8/25/2002 11:40:30 AM
A topic came up in the Israel board that I thought was more suited to be on this board, so I'm moving the discussion about over here. To Homplate Umpire: There is something about Islam that you should probably know, even in it's most perfect form, Islam CANNOT coexist in a western based world; meaning, Islam and the West do not and cannot mix, they can exist seperately, but one can't properly exist within the other. The reson for this is because Islam is a comprehensive idealogy, it is a complete way of life, it has answer for every question, from God to politics, from the privacy of one's home to public laws and regulations. What America wants is for muslims to forget about the political portion, to forget about the public laws, and to forget that Islam is a muslim's way of life. When America wants muslims to "moderate" Islam, it means that america want muslims to "loosen up" and forget some rules and aspects of Islam. Now as much Islam treats everyone equally (which it does), it does not leave any room for any alternatives in the political, economic, or any other field of life, a muslim must lead his life according to Islam and only Islam. I agree that many muslims in the world today aren't providing a good image of Islam, and all muslim leaders are providing an even worse image. I don't agree that America doesn't want to eradicate Islam and Muslims, the only problem is that it can't. The west sees Islam as a threat to their way of life, and they try to portray Islam as this barbaric, backwards, heartless, and Nazi-like religion, but none of that is true. Islam is a threat to the west, but not because of those reasons, Islam is a threat to the west because if the western population say a real sincere and accurate implimentaion of Islam, people will flock to it. This has been seen clearly in history of Islam, for 13 years in Mecca, the prophet only managed to gather around 100 muslims, after only ten years in medinah, the prophet - with his Islamic state - managed to gather an army (not counting the muslims who weren't in that army) of 10,000 muslims. The difference between the first 13 years and the last 10 was that in the last ten years, Islam was being fully implemented, it was no longer just a bunch of words, it was now a reality. And today is no exception, if a true and accurate implementaion of Islam was to exist today, I gurantee you will see the same results, people flocking in masses to either live under the authority of Islam, or become muslims. That is the real reason Islam is a threat to the west, it will take away their power, their glory. Islam was made to be a more than just a religion one practices on Fridays, or one month a year in Ramadan, Islam was made to be a way of life, in essence, Islam is the perfect design to how a civiliation should be, and the best part of it, anyone can join. It is this aspect of Islam that makes the west attack it and not other religions such as christianity, judaism, buddism, or any other religion. I am not asking you to become sypathetic, I am asking you to uderstand the nature of Islam, that it isn't as bad the west and the muslims make it seem. Islam is a blessing to mankind. Islam also has a rock solid foundation, one that is not built on any can of faith, it is built on Iman (best translation: Conclusive acknowledgement). I want it to be clear that I'm not talking about something great that you have to just believe in, I'm talking about something great that can be proven to be great and true. That is why the west (political not social) will always be at war with Islam, the west fears Islam, they know what it can become and will do anything in their power to stop it from happening. I can prove this to you, but I will need some time, until then I leave you all to think about all this and leave this topic open for discussions.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT
AK to Phoenix Rising    RE:the West Vs. Islam - AK's sun and moon   8/31/2002 4:46:03 PM
>>Forget laws, matter, and so on. My "logic" for the existence of God is far less grounded in classical, syllogistic logic, and I think is much more satisfying anyway. It is to me, at least. It doesn't preclude all other explanations ... but no decision-maker in world history has had perfect information. The call is ours to make.<< The defining issue between theist and atheist is the concept of actual existence, particularly the actual existence of an entity that matches the criteria given in the definition of the term "God." You seem to be taking "God" out of the realm of weights and measures and space-time coordinates (where every thing that *actually* exists is)to posit "God" as a sentiment, not an entity. A reified (and deified) greeting card missive. Unfortunately, warm fuzzy feelings do not a God make, especially a God as defined by traditional monotheistic religionists as an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent creator of the universe and author of its destiny. >>First, let's clear up one mistake recorded a long time ago and regurgitated by aspiring philosophers ever since. Man is NOT a rational animal. I prefer to call him a rationalizing animal. Orson Welles said it well: "Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when called upon to act according to the dictates of reason." Man may use logic in small matters of day-to-day existence, in which our emotions are not unduly tied up, but I've always found that men think with something a few sizes smaller than their brains and situated a little lower on their bodies when faced with more critical judgement calls.<< Hobbes and Rousseau come to mind. Both were rationalizing animals. :) We can only look at what they were trying to rationalize - whether or not man is inherently good or inherently evil. It's easy, perhaps necessary, to suggest the existence of a Utopian extraterrestrial heaven or a fall from a mythical garden paradise to explain the sense of "hell" one feels in the world, if you approach the observation from a degrading "top-down" view. But I've found it's the grieving, victimized people at the "bottom" looking up at all the political and religious contrivances mankind has inflicted upon himself and neighbor in the name of X philosophy or Y theology that understand what's "wrong" with this world is that there are too many people trying to fix the things that aren't broken. >>Second, let's clear up another mistake expounded endlessly by moralists, idealists, and others of that school. Men are not intrinsically "born good," nor even born peaceful. Look at the position of our eyes on our faces. We were NOT descended from benign herbivores. We were predators for hundreds of thousands of years before we became citizens and empire-builders. For some reason, that predator seems to be all the more ferocious in the kind of men who rise to positions of leadership in human societies (including ours). All of our political and economic systems are successful not because we have transcended this predatory instinct, not by a long shot; they're successful because we've provided an outlet for it. There is no such system at the international level, however; there is no governing body of the world.<< Man is first and foremost a tool-maker and a problem-solver. Governments are an extension of that, as a problem-solving tool. Democratic governments are best, because they fill the leadership roles with human beings, not hammers and swords, but can interchange as necessary, much like an adjustable screwdriver (pun intended.) >>Third, let's admit an uncomfortable truth. The capability to destroy human civilization has been around for generations now, in the hands of irrational predators, organized into societies of which many have hated each other for eons.<< Man makes tools, yes. But holding a torch and conspiring to commit arson are two different things. I do not share your dismal view of human nature. >>If you disagree with any of those, obviously, you're free to, but that's the paradigm from which I operate. I haven't found any unflawed refutations of those premises. Now, after all of this, how do you explain the fact that we're STILL HERE? Deterrence? Game theory, logic of images, balances of power and threat? Eleventh-hour diplomacy by people under incredible stress? I've done a good deal of graduate coursework in deterrence now. There's nothing like a study of political science to cure atheism. Looking at the kind of logic men were using to save the world from meltdown over the last 60 years ... and the kind of men using the logic ... the fact that the 21st century dawned with the ball instead of the bomb dropping strikes me as nothing short of a miracle. One wrong step at one wrong moment at any number of critical (but now forgotten) junctions in history over the last 60 years could have started Armageddon early. Somehow, fumbling blind, with our imperfect logic, imperfect leaders, incomplete information--in short, sho
 
Quote    Reply

AK to Phoenix Rising    RE:the West Vs. Islam - AK's sun and moon (pt. 2)   8/31/2002 6:07:43 PM
>>To me, that sounds as idealistic as the tenets of communism or fundamentalism: human nature can be overcome, transcended even; mankind can become a race based on cooperation, not competition (the Beast can be tamed); peace, love, and good cheer can flow bounteously from all corners of the world, the sun will rise, and we'll all live happily ever after. Have fun with that.<< I do. I can't help it. One of the benefits of being an optimistic people person. I don't believe human nature needs to be overcome, human nature being the willingness to maximize life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the wisdom to secure that for posterity and for our inheritors to expound upon. Absolutely none of that requires imagining a Deus ex Machina will swoop in to save us before we mess it up. This is real life, not a Greek tragedy.
 
Quote    Reply

AK to Muslim    RE:the West Vs. Islam - AK's sun and moon   8/31/2002 6:31:02 PM
>>1)"Disagree. Nothing is created or destroyed, merely changed. (First Law of Thermodynamics)" Okay, things are changed. But can something change ITSELF into something bigger, without outside influence? For example, can humans change themselves into super-humans without outside influence?<< Not without outside influence. So I agree, with the caveat that you understand the First Law of Thermodynamics deals strictly with the conservation of energy in a closed system. (Which, BTW, negates unidentified outside energy sources, such as "God.") 2)"Agreed, with the caveat that undiscovered causes do no imply the existence of God (or elves, or middle-class tax cuts, etc.)" >>I didn't say it did, please try not to get ahead of the argument. But as long as you agree, we have one out of the way.<< I have a feeling I'm going to be pointing out my caveat again. 3)"Disagree. Matter exists quite independently of scientific descriptions of its properties (Law)." >>Let me just add one thing to the meaning of law, it also includes force. Force is a law of this universe.<< You're adding a civil definition of "law" to a scientific definition of "law." Bad grammar won't prove the existence of Gold either. Just ask Anselm. So now, how can an element exist with out a force keeping the electrons and protons conta8ined, to keep them from flowing away into whatever? Take a bigger example, would the earth exist if there was no gravity? Matter cannot possibly exist without laws to keep it from going into chaos. My point, Matter and law go together like (oh I don't know, love and marriage? :-)But seriously, you can't have matter without law, and you can't have law without matter. We got number 2 out of the way, so now, do you agree with 1 and 3? Again, please be patient, but I can't move to the next point wihtout us agreeing on these three. And don't just agree for the sake of the argument, Only agree if you truly agree
 
Quote    Reply

American Kafir to Muslim    RE:the West Vs. Islam - AK's sun and moon (corrected)   8/31/2002 6:48:56 PM
>>1)"Disagree. Nothing is created or destroyed, merely changed. (First Law of Thermodynamics)" Okay, things are changed. But can something change ITSELF into something bigger, without outside influence? For example, can humans change themselves into super-humans without outside influence?<< Not without outside influence. So I agree, with the caveat that you understand the First Law of Thermodynamics deals strictly with the conservation of energy in a closed system. (Which, BTW, negates unidentified outside energy sources, such as "God.") 2)"Agreed, with the caveat that undiscovered causes do no imply the existence of God (or elves, or middle-class tax cuts, etc.)" >>I didn't say it did, please try not to get ahead of the argument. But as long as you agree, we have one out of the way.<< I have a feeling I'm going to be pointing out my caveat again. 3)"Disagree. Matter exists quite independently of scientific descriptions of its properties (Law)." >>Let me just add one thing to the meaning of law, it also includes force. Force is a law of this universe.<< You're adding a civil definition of "law" to a scientific definition of "law." Bad grammar won't prove the existence of God either. Just ask Anselm. >>So now, how can an element exist with out a force keeping the electrons and protons contained, to keep them from flowing away into whatever?<< No element does. I hope you're not going to tell me you pray five times a day to quarks and other sub-atomic particles. >>Take a bigger example, would the earth exist if there was no gravity?<< Being that gravity is a function of planetary mass, your question makes no sense. Does the hole exist without the doughnut? >>Matter cannot possibly exist without laws to keep it from going into chaos. My point, Matter and law go together like (oh I don't know, love and marriage? :-)But seriously, you can't have matter without law, and you can't have law without matter.<< You're confusing the term "law" as scientists use it. >>We got number 2 out of the way, so now, do you agree with 1 and 3?<< I accept 1 and 2 if you understand and address my caveats, and 3 is just dead wrong. >>Again, please be patient, but I can't move to the next point wihtout us agreeing on these three. And don't just agree for the sake of the argument, Only agree if you truly agree<< Not there yet.
 
Quote    Reply

Muslim to AK    RE:the West Vs. Islam - AK's sun and moon (corrected)   9/1/2002 7:40:16 AM
Right now, there is no need to discuss your caveats, but I will explain how all this connects once we agree on these three. Before anything, I am dumbing my adding force to the category of law. I realize it really doesn't fit. "No element does. I hope you're not going to tell me you pray five times a day to quarks and other sub-atomic particles." "Being that gravity is a function of planetary mass, your question makes no sense. Does the hole exist without the doughnut?" Exactly my point. It is not possible for matter without laws to hold it together. Even scientist know that laws are really what keep matter together, laws keep solids solid, they keep liquids liquid, they keep gases gas, and they keep elements from going into chaos. It is also agreed that matter is what makes laws, there would be no gravity without matter. From what you said, it looks like you agree to this. Also, there is one other statement I forgot to mention that we need to agree upon. 4)Everything that has a beginning has an end. agree or disagree? Let me know if you agree to 3 and 4 then we can move on to your caveats.
 
Quote    Reply

muslim    RE:the West Vs. Islam - AK's sun and moon (corrected)   9/1/2002 4:41:27 PM
I would like to just modify one statement I made: "4)Everything that has a beginning has an end. agree or disagree?" I would like to change this to: 4)Everything has a beginning and an end. This includes everything from small elements, to human beings, from animals to planets. EVERYTHING that has a beginning also has an end. And seeing how the universe is made of elements, the universe also has a beginning and an end. Agree or disagree?
 
Quote    Reply

American Kafir to Muslim    RE:the West Vs. Islam - AK's sun and moon (corrected)   9/2/2002 8:11:15 AM
I agree with #1 as long as the First Law of Thermodynamics is correctly applied. I agree with #2 as long as you don't attempt to replace "unidentified cause" with "God" in your conclusion. I agree, tentatively, with #3, as long as there is no definition shift from the scientific definition of the term "law" in to a legal or civil definition. Careful with your teleology here. I agree with #4 as long as "beginning and ending" refer to gross changes in properties, not existence (a tree may cease to be a tree once its cut down and made into a table, but it is still wood). There you go.
 
Quote    Reply

Muslim    RE:the West Vs. Islam - AK's sun and moon (corrected)   9/2/2002 1:59:53 PM
Alright, now that we agree to all those, It's time to see how they all apply to the origin of this universe. 1)WE said nothing can change into something greater than itself without outside influence. So what did the universe change from? and what outside influence changed it? (since you say nothing is created, well then I'll replace created with changed) 2)Everything has a source. Like we said in number one, that source can't be smaller than the result unless their is an outside influence that changed it to become "better". So what is the source of this universe? what is the the source of the big Bang? Before the big bang, the universe was simply a ball of gas, now it is full of systems, galaxies, life. What source changed the universe to become what it is today. First I will relate number 4, then come back to number three. 4)Everything has a beginning and end, what is the beginning of the universe? and who/what initiated that beginning? Remember, a ball doesn't move unless someone/something pushes it. 3)Law and matter. IF everything in this universe is either law or matter, and one couldn't exists without the other, then what created the universe? Law or matter? I think that is enough questions for the day. Please keep in mind that I didn't even bring up God yet, right now, I'm just disscussing all possibilities of the origin of the universe.
 
Quote    Reply

Ump    Heavy Man!   9/2/2002 6:12:02 PM
>>...what is the beginning of the universe? and who/what initiated that beginning?...<< Sounds something like, 'what came first the chicken or the egg'. >>Alright, now that we agree to all those, It's time to see how they all apply to the origin of this universe. muslim HUH!!! You haven't addressed his "caveats" yet, don't see how you can move on, until you speak to those exceptions and assumptions! Ignore them now, and they most certainly will pop-up later, and confuse most of US grunts watching this match! Hey I thought this room was about WAR? Let's dance said the elephant to the chicken! >>...a ball doesn't move unless someone/something pushes it.<< Ump!! Evidently you never saw a "scroogie"!
 
Quote    Reply

Muslim to ump    RE:Heavy Man!   9/3/2002 1:33:26 AM
Ump..... Just have patience, all your questions will be answered as the discussion carries on. If you have something new to bring to the table that neither me nor Ak brought up, go ahead and bring it. I'm not asking you to stay out, but this discussion needs to have a direction, I don't want it to keep jumping points without ever going anywhere. So far I haven't made a single claim..... so stop arguing with things that don't exist. Everything I have said so far is agreed upon, the last post is simply a bunch of questions that I want AK to answer. So wait until I bring my argument. Muslim~~~~~ I still don't wear masks~~~~
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy