  |
|
|
|
10 and ½ COMMON MYTHS ABOUT MUSLIMS (in no particular order)Read the article this discussion is about
This archived discussion is "read only". » Pinky102 - Militancy In response to Re: Re: fitting in posted by _Boanerges_:As we all can so plainly see, you--the militant fundamentalist--are busily about your efforts to purify the faith of all who are not in agreement with your "fundamental" beliefs. A true drill instructor. Hup, two, three, four! -- posted by Pinky102 » Binte - 'Fundamentalist' misused The term Fundamentalist has been extensively misused by the media to refer to terrorists who happen to be Muslim, or who are anti-American Muslims. This is not accurateThis is what I mean. From the point of view of Muslims, I would be considered a fundamentalist because I follow the fundamentals of my faith (praying, fasting, giving alms etc.), but for others it may be the ticket to labelling me a fanatic or extremist. Hopefully, this will change, someday... -- posted by Binte » _Boanerges_ - Re: 'Fundamentalist' misused In response to 'Fundamentalist' misused posted by Binte:This is what I mean. From the point of view of Muslims, I would be considered a fundamentalist because I follow the fundamentals of my faith (praying, fasting, giving alms etc.), but for others it may be the ticket to labelling me a fanatic or extremist. Hopefully, this will change, someday... Hi Binte.... In fact, the truth is this: Those who use force to cause change are 'extremists'.. and they exist in all things... Those who adhere to the basic fundamentals of their respective religions (you and me for example) are mislabeld (intentionally) as 'fundamentalists' - to which many equate to being 'militant'. for Christians, this was supposedly based on a movement that was started back some time ago (fundamentalism) - but in reality, has no relevence to the facts. People get confused and that is understandable... However, when they are shown otherwise, and yet they continue, demonstrates [propagation] and [intentional] labeling - for the sole purpose to create rhetoric, with the goal to demonize... Fact: Those who blew up the Trade Towers (I don't believe the official story) are not 'fundamentalist' Muslims but are in fact, extremists..... So, fear not... they will label and brand for the sole purpose to bring forward their own religious doctrines, using fear and intimidation to demonize those who do not 'fall in line' with their thinking. In fact, those who do such (as demonstrated in this conversation already) are the true militant extremists.... Some are violent, while others are not. Their goal is however the same; to create change according to their will by using fear and intimidation. The first attack is always to label and brand those who cannot accept their form of religion (they are the intolerant ones). The next step is to demonize those who do not agree with them. The third step is the most evident and obvious; intentioned persecution... So from my perspective, I do not see you as an extremist -- posted by _Boanerges_ » EvilChihuahua - Re: 'Fundamentalist' misused In response to 'Fundamentalist' misused posted by Binte:I would be considered a fundamentalist because I follow the fundamentals of my faith (praying, fasting, giving alms etc.) A Fundamental Christians, for example, is one who believes every word of the Bible, and believes it is the True Word of God, at least to my understanding. These Christians follow the Fundamentals of Christianity, thus they are called Fundamentalist. The same would be applied to Muslims, but replace the word Christians with Muslims and Bible with Koran. I once heared that it is written in the Holy Koran that taking the life of one person is like taking the lives of all the world. If this is true than the terrorists cannot be Fundamentalist since they are not following the Fundamentals of what the Holy Koran says. Also I think some people should keep in mind that not all terrorists are Muslim. Through out history there have been Buddhists, Hindus, Catholics, Protestants, Witches/Wiccans, Satanists and Atheists who have been terrorists, it's not just excluded to one religion/faith. -- posted by EvilChihuahua » BrotherJones - Re: 'Fundamentalist' misused In response to 'Fundamentalist' misused posted by Binte:I would be considered a fundamentalist because I follow the fundamentals of my faith (praying, fasting, giving alms etc.), You are probably so ingrained in the logic of your understanding of your faith, that it does not occur to you that 'fundamentalism,' is about believing that Islam is true. I bet it would be difficult to find enough Muslims to fit a phone booth who discount the historical record of your prophet. In American we must contend with the Liberal, who at first goes silent on Jesus while still claiming some type of Christianity, then lobbies against holy text, then begins claims that the Saviour has no saving ability. Since you have no such Liberal counterpart in Islam, it would be pretty hard for you to empathize with us, fundamentalists. -- posted by BrotherJones » Pinky102 - Your References, Please In response to Re: 'Fundamentalist' misused posted by BrotherJones:My education, what little I have of it, has impressed on me the necessity of giving references whenever I make a claim as you have made here. You are making some claims about the use of the word, fundamentalism, in connection with religion. I, also, have made some claims on the use of the word. I have given a highly respected reference on the subject, Karen Armstrong. What reference do you offer to back up your claim? By the way, I can give other references and often have in other threads at other sites. -- posted by Pinky102 » BrotherJones - Re: Your References, Please In response to Your References, Please posted by Pinky102:I have given a highly respected reference on the subject, Karen Armstrong. What reference do you offer to back up your claim? lol. You can't just claim 'highly respected,' without some logic or other testimony. Who has said Ms. Armstrong is 'highly respected?' What reference do you offer to back up your claim? I reference myself and my own opinions and claims that extend back years at this site. You silly goose, I am going to recommend that you follow or study some sort of classic debate so that you follow some pattern in your style. lol. -- posted by BrotherJones » Pinky102 - Re: Re: Your References, Please In response to Re: Your References, Please posted by BrotherJones:You reference yourself and you laugh out loud at Armstrong's credentials? In other words, anyone's word is as good as yours. Or are you endowed with some special credentials you have been hiding from the rest of us? Here's just one reference on Karen Armstrong--you might learn something if you read it. I can also reference these persons who attest to her expertise in the field of religion:
-- posted by Pinky102 » BrotherJones - Re: Re: Re: Your References, Please In response to Re: Re: Your References, Please posted by Pinky102:You reference yourself and you laugh out loud at Armstrong's credentials? I did not laugh out loud at her credentials. I question whether any outward credentials would allow a person to be a 'highly respected' judge of the inner working of the Spirit in a persons' life. I see little or no value in her enterprise to label Christians. And your idea of listing sources who are supposed to attest to her expertise at labeling believers is contrived logic. It matters not how important it is to you to label those who disagree with you as fundamentalists. All of those, like you, who interpret scripture as non-historical can attend your own parties and let fly your own unbiblical opinions and you are certainly free to esteem each other. We are not dealing in an area of exacting precise learning similar to mathmatics or science, but of faith and loyalty to the story of Jesus Christ. However, you are getting very close to helping define the very small amount of difference that separates fundamentalism from historic Christianity. When I have entered into this bantering to describe and place a value on Liberals, (which to this point has not risen to the level of a book) I haven't resorted any other 'scholarly mudslinger.' My opinions have been my own. -- posted by BrotherJones Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion. |
|
|
|
- but a person who adheres to the fundamentals of your faith - the same as I do. Even though we do not agree with each other concerning religion, we desire peace with each other and the freedom that this brings. We both are tolerant of each other even though we may be intolerant of the other person's viewpoint. This is our God given right to voice our position un-opposed by those extremists who wish to silence this right and forcefully impose their intolerance. Unfortunately, we stand in the same position - and this is one thing we have in common....