"The UK Government has met with MI5 and counter terror police chiefs to discuss the possibility of raising the UK’s threat level to ‘Critical’, meaning an attack is imminent.
"Threats from the Islamic State to attack the West during the holy month of Ramadan and to mark the first year of the Caliphate are thought to have prompted the re-think on national security.
"The last time Britain was placed at ‘Critical’ was on June 30 2007 following the failed attempt to bomb Glasgow Airport.
"Currently the threat level facing the country is ‘Severe’ which means an attack is 'highly likely.'"
http://www.express.co.uk/news/sunday/58 … -in-decade
The 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack was carried out by Bilal Abdullah, a British-born, Muslim doctor of Iraqi descent and Kafeel Ahmed, an Indian Muslim raised in Saudi Arabia. Both terrorists said they acted in the name of Islam and they shouted "Allah, Allah" while being arrested. That attack was the first in Scotland since the Lockerbie bombing, carried out by Libyan Islamic terrorists, in 1988.
@Writer Fox, I appreciate these news updates, as depressing as they may be.
Just wanted to mention that I checked out that FBI Most Wanted list and it turns out they actually have 28 terrorists in that list: https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists
As far as I can tell, the only two in that list who aren't Muslim or affiliated with a Muslim terrorist group are the two you noticed, the eco-terrorist and the BLA member.
26/28 = 93%
Not a good record for a religion of peace.
I didn't click that little 'show all' button! I never knew they put more than ten on the top ten list!!!!
That's truly depressing...........all of those terrorists, all acting in the name of Islam, from many different organizations and from many different countries. All they have in common is Islam.
Islam surely looks like a religion of terrorism to me.
I notice one is wanted for conspiracy to murder persons in a foreign country!
How does that fit with the praise heaped on the American soldier who actually did murder a person in a foreign country?
Navy SEAL Robert O'Neill, in a complex military operation, took out Osama bin Laden ─ a man directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people. O'Neill's actions prevented bin Laden from slaughtering thousands more and fractured his al-Qaeda network of terrorists.
Bin Laden was the man responsible for the 9/11 bombings in America which killed almost 3,000 innocent civilians and he was also responsible for hundreds of Islamic terrorist attacks all over the world including the 7/7 attack in London.
O'Neill was involved in over 400 missions during his Navy career. He rose up the chain of command to Senior Chief Special Warfare Operator. His 52 decorations include two Silver Stars, four Bronze Stars with Valor, a Joint Service Commendation Medal with Valor, three Presidential Unit citations, and two Navy/Marine Corps Commendations with Valor.
O'Neill has remarkable intelligence and unspeakable courage.
Sorry, Bub, but you won't find many people who sympathize with your view on this American website (or anywhere in the free world) in mourning the loss of bin Laden and criticizing the guy who got the job done.
What a hero!
If he's referring to O'Neill then this wasn't even murder. The killing of enemy combatants in a war isn't unlawful.
"Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals"
Of course the USA government has fiddled with that to make any action that they please to take lawful!
As far as I can tell there are a few possibilities:
1) Pakistan was aiding bin Laden
2) Pakistan was aiding international forces in finding bin Laden
If 1, it makes no sense notifying Pakistan. They'd be effectively allied with bin Laden, who attacked the US in the first place.
If 2, they'd be requested permission to fly into their airspace, at the very least.
There's evidence for both 1 and 2, but I don't think a declaration of war against Pakistan would be necessary in either scenario. I'm completely ignorant on this topic, however, so maybe you can clarify things for me.
I don't mourn the loss of Bin Laden. I mourn the loss of tolerance and diplomacy. I mourn the loss of common-sense and the ability to empathise.
Tell me, if a foreign country had sent one of its soldiers into the USA to murder a prominent citizen would you shrug your shoulders and carry on as if nothing had happened or would you demand that your government retaliated?
You just don't get it, do you?
Well, never mind. We read you, loud and clear!
No, you and most of your fellow countrymen just do not get it do you?
Ask yourself why so many Muslims see you as the devil!
Think about all the Pakistani kids whose first experience of the USA is being bombed in their beds by allied forces.
Think of how many Muslim youths were radicalised by the American hero who killed one of theirs.
The western (Christian) world has been waging war on Islam for the last millennium.
No, you just don't get it.
You must read very well. Those words are right out of the Pakistani terrorism manual. It's hard to say from which group, though, since there are at least 48 Islamic terrorism groups operating out of Pakistan, and that list doesn't include the government which is the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism.
http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries … p_list.htm
The two guys who planned to blow up London were arrested yesterday in Pakistan.
Pakistan is also where bin Laden was found in his stately complex with all of his wives and children.
Three of the 7/7 bombers were British-born sons of Pakistani immigrants.
I wouldn't care, especially if that "prominent citizen" were a mass murderer who orchestrated terror attacks against thousands of people.
Actually I'd be wondering why we weren't helping this foreign country ourselves.
Bin Laden was so tolerant. His diplomatic skills unsurpassed. His common sense and ability to empathize world renowned. All of his videos attest to that.
What are you on about? I suggest that you take a bit more water with it!
Seriously, I suspect that you are one of these people who think that the only way to counteract evil is with even more evil.
No I don't think evil should be met with evil. But, you are really over the top with that nonsense. One shouldn't be willing to abandon reason when defending something.
The belief that he was a crazed killer (paraphrased)
Yeah, he really does.
Many Muslims like to say that 9/11 was someone else's fault.
I'll reiterate - you consider it a belief that he was responsible for 9/11?
What has that got to do with my comment about Pakistanis perhaps not sharing your belief that he was a mass murderer?
They tried to blame Iraq for 9/11 when there were no Iraqis on those plane. After a half million Iraqi kids killed, and forgiveness on these hub threads. Many Americans still want to trust the FBI or their Governiment. Why not trust tobacco and sugar companies, how about fast food and legal drugs, they can kill far greater.
Wait a minute, they do trust these cartels.
Fear works better than love, sorry can't subscribe to this way of thinking.
"And if you didn't share the belief that bin Laden was a crazed killer?"
Where did you even mention Pakistanis? The way you phrased it made it seem like you were asking if I didn't believe what I currently believe.
As far as I can tell all the evidence points to him being the main figure responsible for the attacks. If there is evidence to point to his innocence I'd like to see it. If there are people who believe that he is innocent, Pakistani or otherwise, and they don't have any evidence, then they're just, to quote a particularly enlightened individual in this forum, "BSing."
Why should I care about the opinions of such people?
"As in you believe your governments claim that Bin laden was a crazed killer, maybe others don't agree with that."
I believe the claim based on evidence (namely, that he flat-out took responsibility for the attack). If there is evidence to the contrary I'd like to hear it.
If they don't agree with it but don't have any evidence to the contrary then they're being unreasonable. If they choose to demand retaliation on such terms that's their prerogative, it just wouldn't be a justifiable position.
One minor point, but phrasing it as "If you didn't share their belief that he was a crazed killer" is slightly confusing. I now assume you meant "If you didn't share Pakistan's belief that he was not a crazed killer."
I admit I am being pedantic, but at the same time it's important to have a solid interpretation and communication of text. After all, a lot of our current discussion is directly tied around honest interpretation and communication of text.
So why are you all running round like headless chickens shouting "the Muslims are coming"?
By the way, many Military family fun days took place over the UK yesterday, all totally without incident!
I never said that. I simply quoted what the authorities in the UK said.
If you think you live in a country run by 'headless chickens', why don't you go live in an Islamic country?
That's wonderful. Maybe it was peaceful because Asmatullah and Abdur Rehman, from Afghanistan, and Muhammad Ibrahim, from Pakistan, were arrested yesterday before they could carry out their Islamic terrorists acts in London. That's what they were planning to do, until they got arrested.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ … -plot.html
Yes, the authorities in the UK are trying to get us all in headless chicken mode and they appear to be winning, but not as fast as the US government is.
And yet the three terrorist you name were arrested yesterday in Pakistan!
The ringleader of the 7/7 attacks which killed 53 also received planning and bomb-making guidance in phone calls from Pakistan in the days before the attacks.
I hadn't notice the "show all" on the FBI's "Most Wanted Terrorists" list.
That confirms even more strongly that Muslims terrorist are on top of their game. Murderers.
Is there any purpose to these posts apart from demonstrating your hatred and contempt for the UK?
This isn't about me. This thread is about whether Islam is peaceful or not.
That picture demonstrates the feelings of Muslims in London and their contempt, from Islam, of the UK and all of Europe.
Your words demonstrate a Muslim's contempt of the U.S. and even attempt to justify attacks on the U.S. by Islamic terrorists.
Look, there are some Muslims who are violent and lawless, just as there are some Christians that are violent and lawless.
That picture demonstrates the feelings of a few Muslims in London, not most and definitely not all.
So you are so sanctified that even the slightest criticism of the USA is "Muslim contempt"!
Explaining why you think something happens is not viewed as "justifying" in the real world.
"For hundreds of years, the Christian population in occupied Europe had their sons taken away and forcibly converted into Muslim warriors (known as Jannisaries) by the Ottoman Turks" - Sadly that makes you right.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages … #tolerance
Why are most of your replies questions?
I have heard about King Richard of England from the middle ages.
I am not a student of British history. Are you?
Yes I am.
You wouldn't know then that Richard took great pleasure in travelling around the world to kill Muslims.
Oh, why are many of my replies questions. It helps if I know how much others know.
Oh, why did Richard kill Muslims? Hmm!
"In the year 1187, the Muslim leader Saladin re-conquered the city of Jerusalem [see "The Crusaders Capture Jerusalem"] as well as most of the Crusader strongholds throughout the Holy Land. In response, the kings of Europe including Frederick Babarossa of Germany (who died on route), Phillip of France and Richard I of England (the Lionheart) mounted a campaign to rescue the city."
One of the true marks of Islamic jihadists is that they believe the Crusades happened yesterday. They truly believe that the lack of Muslim accomplishments in the past 600 - 800 years is because of Christian influence in 'Muslim' lands. All Christians today are still 'the Crusaders' to them. Time has stood still in their mentality, as quite literally time has stood still in much of the primitive parts of the Muslim world.
This is from a protest in London. Notice the two references to the Crusades on the signs:
One of Osama bin Laden's complaints against America was that it was actually in Saudi Arabia helping the Saudi's defend themselves against Saddam Hussein when Iraq took over Kuwait and was on the Saudi border.
Bin Laden couldn't handle the fact that the U.S. was defending Mecca and Medina, instead of Muslims. He wanted his Islamic terrorist fighters to do the job. His Saudi family kicked him out of the country and that is when he set up shop in Afghanistan.
Christain in history kill Muslims seven time greater. Since most wars are predominatly religious, like family fueds forever grow hate forever. You wonder why the Muslims hate Americans when they attack their family and land for American Corperatioism profits.
Ok it's corporatism
It runs the your Governiment, Christiain religion, most of the wars and most Americans lives.
I think Muslim religion would suck for my life as much as Christian-insanity. In this case Muslim are the underdog and unfairly accused . So rather than you guys, being very onsided the BS here really sucks us further into hell on earth.
It is unbelievable to see a little child used in such a way.
I am beginning to understand how Muslims are stuck in the past.
It is no wonder illiteracy is common and encouraged.
Seen anyone dressed like this lately?
My guess is, No.
But, you do still see Muslims dressed like they did 800 years ago:
The world has changed, but many Muslims have not.
News flash: I found some Crusaders in Israel and they've got swords, shields and body armor. They are storming Muslim troops:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/history-bu … er-battle/
And yet it's so serious that you can make fun of the whole thing! Disgusting.
If I could be bothered I would post pictures of peaceful Muslims in the USA but what would be the point, what would it prove?
The Myths of Islam
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages … -islam.htm
"Forget racism and Islamophobia. Forget the fact that this month is not only the anniversary of 7/7, but also of the attack carried out by proud Islamophobe and self-styled “Knight Templar” Anders Breivik in Norway, which killed 77; and of the worst mass killing in Europe since the second world war – the massacre of 8,000 Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica, at the hands of far-right Orthodox Christians."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre … n-bombings
I don't think that executing Bin Laden was the primary objective. I'm sure our government would have much more liked to bring him in alive. Although, to be honest, I'm not so certain he's dead. Which bothers me immensely. Because if he isn't he has rights; no matter how heinous his actions. This story of a burial at sea is rather fishy.
Nothing good was accomplished because where one terrorist disappears others pop up. Bent on the same carnage that the last one was and hoping to make a name for themselves for creating more terror on a greater scale. However, I see nothing bad accomplished either.
I think what we would both like to see is an answer. A solution which fits the needs of all. The problem is I am losing faith in the fact that these terrorists are seeking anything which either of us would find fair or reasonable. You saw the pictures of those young girls with their guns to the heads of those prisoners. What we are witnessing is a group who is in a position to raise an entire generation to take up their insane and bloodthirsty ways. People who wantonly murder other human beings must first be brought to an understanding of the sanctity of human life before effective dialogue can begin.
Sorry, Bin Laden falls into the category of bloodthirsty people willing to wantonly murder innocent human beings. I don't mourn his loss nor do I have a problem understanding why it ended the way it did. He left no option.
Isn't it a shame that the USA didn't think of that before they decided to fund him?
You know. I would love to get a grant from the government. My business could use the infusion of cash. However, if they did and I decided to commit mass murder of innocent civilians I would hope you wouldn't blame the US government.
I wouldn't blame the UK for any of your words or actions.
Not even if they trained me and then funded me?
It's a strange, strange world out there. On both sides of the Atlantic.
I know that the U.K. was identified as a country which supports terrorism. Now, I would never support putting them on a list as such. But, the U.K. has done some heinous things in the pursuit of national interests. Just as have other nations. The wonderful thing about living in free societies is that we can recognize those things and criticize them without fear of retribution or censorship and, hopefully, be forces for change.
I seriously doubt that either your country or mine; in the open or behind closed doors would willingly use taxpayer money to train people to commit terrorist acts on our own soil. But, both countries have supported forces which ended up acting in a manner that wasn't in our best interests in the end.
Prominent politicians in the USA were know to use their position to raise funds for the IRA.
I know of no similar incidents in the UK.
Do some research. It isn't hard to find. If you are interested in finding it. I would think you would be interested if for no other reason than not to give the impression of having a hypocritical and unhealthy interest in bashing other countries for world problems which are created by more than our simple existence over here.
Well the first clim I found was that ISIS is being funded by the British government but as that claim was made by Russia Today and was confirmed by nobody else I think we can safely ignore that.
I can find no other reference to UK politicians sponsoring terrorism.
There is a claim that the UK government is sponsoring ISIS, but then the claim includes the USA.
Can't find anything else but my search wasn't exhaustive, if you want to add to it I would welcome that.
Well, the UK is a little different from the US. Since, the UK were the terrorists for years and years. Ask the Irish, the Indians and the South Africans. And, since Britain and France were the primary countries reaping the profits of war in the Middle East after WWI, partitioning the region off between the two without taking into account historical borders and indigenous populations; I think we can all agree that they played major roles in creating the little tinder box we are all now attempting to deal with.
Since the law in Great Britain does not consider it a crime for individuals and groups based in Britain to plan, incite, or conduct terrorist operations outside Her Majesty's domains it is very difficult for countries who identify terrorists who are actively inciting violence within their regions to hold the individuals who are harbored by the UK accountable.
It isn't always about supplying money. Sometimes, it's just watching the play runs its course when you have personally set the stage.
So you are denying that the USA has ever tried to overthrow a foreign government! Never planned for a war with Great Britain, War Plan Red.
And don't forget Iraq.
Pot calling kettle black I think. You lot are the worlds biggest terrorists.
The Taliban was started and funded by the government of Pakistan.
The Afghans had several hundred million dollars a year in funding from non-American, Muslim sources, and had no need for American funds.
This thread is about the religion of Islam and you seem to have great difficulty remembering that.
After establishing a base in Afghanistan in 1996, Osama bin Laden declared a war against the United States, initiating a series of bombings and related attacks.
Bin Laden was on the American Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) lists of Ten Most Wanted Fugitives and Most Wanted Terrorists for his involvement in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and in Kenya, which killed 224 innocent people and wounded over 4,000.
He was indicted on terrorism charges by law enforcement agencies in Madrid, New York City, and Tripoli.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has stated that classified evidence linking al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the September 11 attacks is clear and irrefutable. In three video tapes released to Al Jazeera, bin Laden claimed responsibility for masterminding and leading the 9/11 attacks and he was filmed with two of the 9/11 hijackers as they prepared for the attacks. There is no question that he had blood on his hands.
The reason he was killed instead of captured is that bin Laden didn't surrender, but instead reached for a weapon. That is when sharp shooter and Navy SEAL Robert O'Neill put three bullets in his head. That was the correct decision and a police officer acting in the line of duty would have had the same response.
No civilians were harmed, including bin Laden's wife and two-year-old son who were in the room with him at his compound near Islamabad, Pakistan. Bin Laden actually tried to pull his wife in front of him when the Navy Seals stormed his room. Disgusting till the end!
Egypt just announced that 63 more Islamic terrorists were killed in the Sinai Peninsula, bringing the tally to at least 205 terrorists dead and about 100 Egyptian military forces dead since Wednesday, according to the Cairo Post
The Islamic extremists are attempting a land-grab to set up a stronghold on Egyptian territory and implement Islamic Sharia law in a caliphate and to move into the independent Palestinian Gaza Strip and into Israel from there.
"Securing territory in North Sinai over the long-haul implies gaining a pivotal foothold into the occupied territories by Hamas in Palestine [the Gaza Strip], thereby strong-arming Hamas and eventually accessing the Promised Holy Land of Jerusalem, a cradle for all faiths. In North Sinai, ISIS also attacked positions around the road to Al-Jura, where a Multi-National Force Observer airfield is used. The airbase was previously attacked earlier in the month
"The common thread weaving together all such terror is the theocratic fascism of 'Islamic State', which has claimed responsibility for [attacks in] Egypt, Tunisia, Kuwait and Yemen. ISIS maybe medieval in their beliefs, but are über-modern in their execution. All these attacks exhibit evidence of sophisticated logistics, an effective global network, aligned co-ordination and social media savvy, and advanced weaponry."
http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2015/07/0 … -to-sinai/
Another (the third) missile was fired against Israel by the Islamic terrorists now doing battle in the Sinai:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/third-rock … sts-found/
British Islamic terrorist Abu Rahin Aziz from Luton has just been killed.
Aziz, who fled to Syria to escape his conviction and prison term after he stabbed a football fan in the eye with a pen, told his followers on Twitter at the time that he had "stabbed a kafir [non-believer]" with a pen for "insulting the Prophet Mohammed."
In another message, Aziz wrote: "A call upon Muslims in Europe to carry out attacks whether by explosive devices, bullets, car, rocks or even stones."
For several months after his escape from Britain, Aziz appeared to revel in his newfound status as a member of ISIS, posting pictures of himself on the Internet holding various types of guns.
He also posed for a picture, arm in arm with Mirza Tariq Ali, 38, a former NHS surgeon who fled the UK in 2013, also to escape bail.
Aziz also used social media to incite jihadists still living in the West to violence.
"Muslims within their own countries," Aziz wrote in January. "Wonder who will strike first? Could it be UK first to be attacked? They've attacked us with jets killing scores, plus they have many Muslims in prison as war on Islam."
The Briton, who was a former associate of radical preacher Anjem Choudary, also used Twitter to call on Muslims to “track down and “kill Theresa May, the Home Secretary, declaring her the “lap dog” of David Cameron, the Prime Minister.
The British jihadist was killed in a US drone strike on Saturday, close to ISIS’s stronghold city of Raqqa in Syria.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … Syria.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … ihadi.html
Islamic terrorists burned down 32 churches in Nigeria and exploded a bomb in another church, killing five people.
Two bombs exploded in the city of Joz, killing 44 and wounding 67. Those bombs were set by the Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram. One was detonated at a Muslim restaurant and another inside a mosque.
"The explosion at the Yantaya Mosque came as leading cleric Sani Yahaya of the Jama'atu Izalatul Bidia organization, which preaches peaceful co-existence of all religions, was addressing a crowd during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, according to survivors who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nigeria-isl … ant-in-jos
Notice that 'peaceful Muslims' are especially targeted. Their voices are silenced. Forever.
But according to you there are no peaceful Muslims!
No, I never said that. Why do you troll every forum comment made and then post lies about what was said? Don't you realize people can read for themselves and see right through your comments? I said Islam is not a peaceful religion. I never said individual Muslims couldn't be peaceful.
'Peaceful Muslims' are being slaughtered. They are becoming extinct in many parts of the world.
You could have fooled me. Your posts are a constant litany of how violent Muslims are. There is no mitigation, no qualifying your claims of violence.
Nothing whatsoever to suggest that you think the problem lies with some, but not all, Muslims.
The problem is with Islam. Islam is not a peaceful religion. My posts are about that because that is the topic of this thread.
Yes, the news today is "a constant litany of how violent Muslims are." And, about how they murder innocent people 'in the name of Islam.' You can't sugar-coat that, which is what you attempt to do.
Muslims demonstrating in south London:
"David Cameron believes British Muslims have an extremism problem.
"And he believes it goes beyond a tiny minority.
"The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 came into force on July 1. It places a public duty on public bodies such as schools, local authorities, prisons, police and health bodies to have 'due regard to preventing people from being drawn into terrorism.'
"This seems to have been inspired partly by the Trojan Horse affair in Birmingham, where a Government-commissioned inquiry found there had been a coordinated, deliberate and sustained' campaign to introduce 'an intolerant and aggressive Islamic ethos into a few schools.'
"Secondly, the Queen’s Speech in May included plans for a new Extremism Bill which will introduce 'banning orders', allowing the Home Secretary to ban 'extremist groups.'
"Crucially, this will go beyond banning groups which advocate violence, and include organizations which promote certain beliefs about British society and politics which the Government believes can help to justify violence in the minds of people that hear them."
http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/news/ne … ms-9565948
Hopefully, the UK will be able to prevent the vulgar protest signs advocating Islamic terrorism which are presently held high in the streets of London.
David Cameron is the UKs biggest terrorist. He's killed far more of us than any Muslims have in the last ten years.
How are things in the USA Writer Fox? Still reeling from being the butt of the biggest terrorist attack the world has ever seen?
Cameron is no more a terrorist than Santa Claus. He's collecting names and I hope he can rid the UK of its terrorist population. Like this guy, for instance: Hani al-Sibai, an al-Qaeda cleric and a leader of the terrorist group suspected of being behind the Tunisian beach massacre.
The Egyptian-born al-Sibai, 54, reportedly lives on £50,000 ($77,759) a year in UK benefits, handouts and disability living allowance, with his wife and five children.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … itain.html
The U.S. did a terrific job of averting all terrorist attacks. So glad you noticed that congratulations are in order.
Maybe the UK will be so capable on the 7/7 anniversary, which is tomorrow.
Cameron is responsible for far more deaths than Islamc terrorism is in the UK.
How did you get on with 9/11 then? Was that a terrific job?
Perhaps Cameron will see this and put your name on a watch list.
American authorities did not take Islamic threats seriously enough in the 1990s, even after the first attempt by Muslims to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993. The only reason those terrorists were caught is that they were so stupid that they returned the rental truck they used in the attack to get their deposit refund back!
At the time of the 9/11 attack, the CIA and the FBI didn't even have real-time Arabic translators (let alone Farsi or Urdu) working on staff. They were getting warnings they couldn't even read quickly.
Times have changed. America wised up.
You like to blame the victim for the crime. That's a typical Muslim viewpoint, like blaming women for getting raped. Put the blame for those attacks where it belongs: Islamic terrorists.
The answer that this pile of drivel deserves would earn me a suspension.
Unlike you, I'm not blaming anybody, least of all the victims.
I am not alone in considering Cameron a mass murderer, he's got a lot of watching to do.
Like it or not, the USA has but a fraction of the experience in dealing with terrorism that we do in the UK. That's thanks to the USA who were financing Irish terrorists for over a hundred years.
The problem isn't with your assertion that there are militant Islamic terrorists. It is with your bigoted view that the whole religion is an Islamic terrorist movement. The inability to distinguish is the point.
"It is with your bigoted view that the whole religion is an Islamic terrorist movement"
Can you provide evidence of someone who holds this view?
I can't speak for others, but my position is that the people who engage in terrorism are sharing the same warped beliefs about blasphemy, apostasy, homosexuality etc. with those who don't engage in terrorist behaviour.
It's possible to share these views without needing to join Islamic terrorist movements. Just like these 4000 Norwegians who are "extremist" in your eyes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV710c1 … amNetVideo
You with your posts about "Islamic" terrorists claiming the religion as their own when they act against its tenets.
"I can't speak for others, but my position is that the people who engage in terrorism are sharing the same warped beliefs about blasphemy, apostasy, homosexuality etc. with those who don't engage in terrorist behavior."
Here is my proof right after your statement to the contrary. You switch between belief, blasphemy, apostasy and homosexuality in combining the whole group as one. You make no distinction between those that act out and those that practice the religion peacefully.
What about the Serbian-Croatian war where Christians wished to expel Muslims through ethnic cleansing? Is that a Christian tenet? Should we believe that all Christians are the same because of the actions of a few? Or was it a political act of cultural aggression?
"The feature of the Croatian and Bosnian wars that has caught the world's attention has been the Serbian expulsion of Croats, Muslims and smaller nationalities from their native areas in an effort to make the regions purely Serbian.
 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world … 39305.html
"You with your posts about "Islamic" terrorists claiming the religion as their own when they act against its tenets."
The video I provided you with has no terrorists and yet here you are claiming I am speaking about terrorists. You are incapable of making the distinction between people who are not terrorists and support death penalties for apostasy/blasphemy/homosexuality, and terrorists who also support death penalties for apostasy/blasphemy/homosexuality.
"You make no distinction between those that act out and those that practice the religion peacefully."
I have made that distinction. Those 4000 Muslims who share the same tenets as the "extremists" are peaceful by all accounts. They hold the same disturbing beliefs that the terrorists hold, they just do not act on it.
I have also previously made a further distinction between those that are peaceful yet hold disturbing beliefs, and those that are peaceful and do not hold disturbing beliefs. Those would be poor Muslims because they don't follow its tenets. They need a reform.
I make no claims about the Serbian-Croatian war. If you wish to claim it is due to a Christian tenet, feel free to back up your evidence. So far, the evidence you have provided is indicative of a political backlash with various factors, one of which is the forced conversion of Slavs into Islam during centuries of Turkish rule.
Even your own evidence doesn't paint Islam in a good light.
BTW you are aware that posters in photos are now easily photo shopped?
John Holden, no, no, no, no!
Writer Fox has not said that there are no peaceful Muslims!
Anyone can read this thread and see for themselves.
I can read and have seen! Not one positive word has been posted by Writer Fox.
Writer Fox is reporting the news, and there isn't really anything to report that is positive about Islam in the news.
Do you have something positive to report on Islam is a peaceful religion?
Let's hear it.
I could actually report more positive stories than you negative but as you'll spin out of them I'll restrict myself to one
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-w … 62460.html
Perhaps another,, a local (to me) Mosque is inviting everybody to come and join them for Itfar.
That truly is a very positive article and should be an inspiration to us all that we can all work together to help one another. Thank you for sharing that.
I believe it is a good thing to invite strangers to dinner.
But sadly we and the media would rather we focused on the negative!
There is very little that Thatcher said that I agreed with, About the only thing that I did think sound was when she said that "terrorists should be denied the oxygen of publicity".
The media in their special way got around this by having actors voice over terrorists speaking.
"Boko Haram took over a large swath of northeastern Nigeria last year and stepped up cross-border raids. A multinational army from Nigeria and its neighbors forced the militants out of towns, but bombings and village attacks increased in recent weeks, apparently in response to an Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) order for more mayhem during Ramadan. Boko Haram became ISIS' West Africa franchise earlier this year."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nigeria-isl … nt-in-jos/
"ISIS' West Africa franchise"? This is so unbelievably sick.
In Jerusalem this week, Muslim arsonists set fire to the forests.
Fire Cief Reuven Yitzchak said: "In the past week, around 300 acres of natural forest have gone up in smoke. In many cases, the fires were intentionally set with firebombs or various other various means."
The fires came dangerously close to the Biblical Zoo:
The wanton destruction of the environment is typical of their behavior.
Elsewhere in Jerusalem, thousands of leaflets are being distributed by Muslims calling for Christians to leave the city by the end of the Ramadan religious holiday. The leaflets also tell Muslims to turn in the addresses of Christian families to an Islamic terrorist organization.
"We tell the heretic Christians, you must clear out immediately or we'll massacre you on Eid al-Fitr, marking the end of Ramadan, and one month is time enough to evacuate," said the leaflet.
Almost all of the Christians in Jerusalem are Arabs or Armenians (descendants of those who fled from the Armenian Genocide at the hands of Muslims in Turkey in 1915, which killed 1.5 million Armenian Christians).
Something is twisted about a religious group that says they believe in Jesus and worship Him, but then they go and kill people who believe in Jesus and worship Him.
It really does seem that way on a much smaller scale, John. I do not believe for a minute that people who are members of the KKK are Born Again Christians because of their hatred and despicable actions toward another race of humans.
Blasphemy in the name of Jesus.
You'll have noticed as well that when the news reported on another atrocity by the KKK they didn't preface it with "Christian terror group" as happens almost without fail when Boko Haram or ISIS are reported on!
You are deflecting from the obvious, again.
If you want to talk about Christian terrorism, start a different thread.
Why is trying to introduce balance deflecting?
OK I get that, you don't want your hatred watering down!
HubPages Forum Conduct
"Stick to the topic. Please stay on the thread’s topic when replying to an existing thread. If you don’t see an open thread about something you’d like to discuss, please open a new thread."
We should all be up to date on the forums rules on conduct. http://hubpages.com/help/forum_rules
Oh I couldn't agree more. The topic of this thread is "Islam is a peaceful Religion"
All those posts from Writer Fox trying to prove that it isn't are off topic
Read the title of this thread, John.
"DEBATE: Islam is a Peaceful Religion."
What is a debate?
Yes, debate Islam is a peaceful religion, not debate is Islam a peaceful religion.
You started this silliness.
That is extremely funny, John.
You do know how to cause convulsive laughter.
Thank you, "laughter is good for the soul".
It is "DEBATE: Islam is a Peaceful Religion."
Not even close.
More than 270 million people have been killed by Islamic jihad.
Over 60 million of those were Christians.
That's a real picture from the Biblical Zoo in Jerusalem.
Here is another one:
On election day in Israel, the elephants are allowed to vote:
OMG, it would have such a great lose if these beautiful creatures were lost due to Islam terrorists. The Biblical Zoo is a wonderful place where people can bring their children to visit wild animals that they might never see otherwise. It is an educational place for young and old.
I am happy to know that the zoo was saved from those attacks. I am a lover of animals and nature so that is positive news amidst destructive deeds.
Those are beautiful photos, Writer Fox. Thank you for sharing them.
"Something is twisted about a religious group that says they believe in Jesus and worship Him, but then they go and kill people who believe in Jesus and worship Him."
That is absolutely true. What is more twisted is claiming the whole of Islam believes this.
What is happening in France?
"The French foreign ministry has set up a hotline which families can call to report a child having become a radicalized islamist.
"More than 2,200 youths have been reported thus far."
According to Pierre N'Gahane, the Secretary General of the Inter-ministerial Committee for the Prevention of Delinquency (CIPD). "And If we add the data given by the prefectures (administrative centers), we get to 4500," according to figures from April, 2014 up to late May, 2015.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 … 72,00.html
Clint Eastwood is reaming President Obama.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTucyyB … ture=share
I am so happy that there is the Inter-ministerial Committee for the Prevention of Delinquency. This is very positive news Writer Fox. May they save many more children. The children are our future, may they be of sound minds.
Islam is a religion of peace.I think its not fair to judge it by isis and al qaeda because then you would have to judge christians by the natzis and the crusaders.
Now wait for the protests that for some reason or other that comparison is not valid!
No problem with people finding flaws when they are there.
Too often though it is just an objection at drawing a comparison is too often a protest that it's wrong because that was three weeks ago or other such desperate claims..
I wish that would end this thread.
I've got to stop looking at car accidents
People do judge Christians of the past by looking at the Crusades and witch hunts and the like. Except they're not stupid enough to judge modern day Christians for crimes committed centuries ago.
People don't judge Christians by the Nazis because Nazism had little to do with Christianity. Hitler wanted to eradicate Christianity after winning the war.
ISIS and Al Qaeda, on the other hand, are using scripture to substantiate their actions.
"Nazism and occultism describes a range of theories, speculation and research into origins of Nazism and its possible relation to various occult traditions. Such ideas have been a part of popular culture since at least the early 1940s, and gained renewed popularity starting in the 1960s. There are documentaries and books on the topic, among the most significant of which are The Morning of the Magicians (1960) and The Spear of Destiny (1972). Nazism and occultism has also been featured in numerous films, novels, comic books and other fictional media. Perhaps the most prominent example is the film Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Historian Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke analyzed the topic in The Occult Roots of Nazism in which he argued there were in fact links between some ideals of Ariosophy and Nazi ideology. He also analyzed the problems of the numerous popular "occult historiography" books written on the topic. He sought to separate empiricism and sociology from the "Modern Mythology of Nazi Occultism" that exist in many books which "have represented the Nazi phenomenon as the product of arcane and demonic influence"."
Two peaceful Muslims who voiced opinions against ISIS' imposition of Islamic Shariah law have been killed in Raqqa, Syria.
The whole thing was captured on a new video just released, which shows the two in orange jumpsuits, handcuffed, tied to a tree, interrogated, and then shot in the head.
The murders are then shown again in slow motion.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … Syria.html
You sure that's not an American prisoner in Gitmo being shot by an American soldier?
Oh no, it's in the Daily Wail, it must be true!
Those two brave young men's names are Bashar Abdul Atheem and Faisal Hasan Al Habib, who were local residents in Raqqa.
The 21-year-old media activists who were working against ISIS were put to death by the Islamic state for handing out leaflets? Leaflets.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/07/islam … a-leaflets
This is very sad. What is the criminal offense?
ISIS flag is displayed by a man in London outside the Parliament building.
Former Scotland Yard terror chief Peter Clarke said: "At the moment we are arresting one person for terror-related crimes every day. That's the highest rate at any point in 15 years, apart from the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and 7/7.
"There are 120 people awaiting trial as we speak.
"But he added: 'Every year since 7/7, massive plots to commit terrorist acts have been thwarted.'"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … g-Ben.html
Ah yes, the Daily Wail, the newspaper that is so patriotic that it is registered in an off shore tax heaven to avoid paying UK taxes!
The thoroughness of your research astounds me.
Also from that report: The man with the ISIS flag was not arrested, even though "Former Scotland Yard terror chief Peter Clarke has warned that ISIS poses 'a huge and deadly threat.'
"A Home Office spokesman said: 'ISIS is a prescribed group. Showing signs you are a supporter of that group is an offence. It was an operational decision and we cannot comment on individual cases.'"
It sounds like officials in the UK are struggling to decide how the new laws are supposed to be interpreted.
They are probably embarrassed by identifying a flag at a recent Gay Pride march as an ISIS flag.
It wasn't an ISIS flag, it was a flag decorated with black and white images of condoms and sex toys!
That sounds like a terrorist threat to me. I agree with the good people of Britain because that would make me feel unsafe also. Using a toddler on his shoulders to shield himself I suppose while wearing a Jihadist black flag.
Security forces in Jordan just arrested an Iranian backed Islamic terrorist. The man was carrying 45 kilograms (99 pounds) of explosives.
Iran threatens the Kingdom of Jordan from terrorist bases established along Jordan's borders with Syria and Iraq.
"This is the most serious case in a decade in terms of the quantity of explosives discovered and their quality," said the source, adding that a major terror operation had been averted.
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/mi … plot-.html
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wir … s-32247735
More positive news. The Iranian-backed group's major terrorist operation was stopped. Many lives were saved no doubt as I am sure those explosive were not meant to blow up a dirt hill. Not with all that is happening in the news but I could be wrong.
If Islam were such a peaceful religion, it would not spawn thousands of terrorist acts in all parts of the world.
There would be no reason for the UK to be afraid of those Muslims within its midst, who have freedom of religion and expression and are not in any way oppressed by anyone.
Yet, people in the UK are afraid and they have good reason to be, because the authorities – who have access to classified information – are afraid too.
Robert Quick, former Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner, said "an extremist Islamist pathology and British values were irreconcilable. The terrorism threat has changed in the past decade from al-Qaida-style large scale plots to cause mass casualties, to smaller plots, possibly from people acting alone."
"His comments came as the UK prepares to mark the 10th anniversary of the worst terrorist attack on Britain on 7 July 2005, in which 52 people were murdered and 750 injured when suicide bombers exploded bombs on three tube trains and a bus in London.
"About 700 Britons have fled to join the 'caliphate' declared by Isis, enforced by high levels of violence in Iraq and Syria.
"Ten years ago, we were dealing with relatively small numbers, who travelled mainly to Pakistan. They were engaged in conspiracies that were quite elaborate, involving plotting and communications that could be intercepted.
“Now we are dealing with large numbers, who have travelled to Syria – we don’t know how many will come back with horrible intent – and the homegrown extremists who are here. We are in a less safe position than we were then, because the world outside our borders is less safe than 10 years ago. There are more people who are motivated, inspired or encouraged to mount these attacks.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 … ia-jihadis
And all because the USA thought it would be a good idea if Iraq adopted western democracy!
I'm pretty sure their are far more Muslims in the UK that are afraid that there are British people.
It is sad that the British leaders and the good citizens are afraid of the Islamic terrorist in their homeland. This terror happening in too many countries all over the world.
I say come Lord as I pray for the peace of Jerusalem.
Me and my mates must e bad citizens then because we aren't afraid.
For all my adult life I have been exposed to terrorist threats. The IRA were far more active than any Islamic group.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GFpvfz8Ls4Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
"Radical Islam is running wild in the Mid-East. I have never been more worried about an attack on our homeland than I am right now." – spoken today by South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, a GOP presidential candidate.
Graham speaks from a position of experience and credibility.
Graham was a commissioned officer and Judge Advocate in the United States Air Force (1982 – 1989). He then served in the Air Force Reserves, and was called into active duty during the Gulf War (in 1990 – 1991).
He also served in Iraq as a reservist on active duty for short periods during Senate recess in 2007 and 2009.
Graham has been a U.S. senator since 2003. Prior to that he was a member of the U.S. House of representatives from 1995 – 2003.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/radic … ham-141192
"The Islamic State, in the fourth edition of its magazine Dabiq, aggressively promoted sex slavery as an Islamic practice, arguing that the practice conforms to the teaching and example of Muhammad and his companions.
"The reality is that many Muslim scholars have upheld the practice of enslaving captives of war.
"It is a problem that the Qur’an itself endorses having sex with captive women (Sura 4:24). According to a secure tradition (hadith) attributed to one of Muhammad’s companions, Abu Sa’id al-Khudri, this verse of the Qur’an was revealed to Muhammad at a time when Muslims had been ‘refraining’ from having sex with their married female captives. Verse 4:24 relieved them of this restraint by giving them permission to have sex with captive women even if the women were already married.
"Two Australian citizens, Mohamed Elomar and Khaled Sharrouf, are involved in Islamic State sex slavery. In 2014 Elomar purchased sex slaves, of whom four, all Yazidis, later escaped to a refugee camp where the ABC caught up with them and interviewed them. Elomar had also boasted on Twitter that he had '1 of 7 Yehzidi slave girls for sale' at $2500 each.
"It is not a sign of tolerance when free people deliberately silence themselves about the ideological drivers of sex trafficking. The same can also be said of acts of terrorism, such as the world has witnessed over the past week in France, Tunisia and Kuwait.
"Until societies are able and willing to have a frank and free discussion of the ideological drivers which motivate acts of terror and abuse (i.e., Islam), they should not expect to be able to develop effective strategies to contain or wind back such atrocities.
"A state of denial is a state of defeat."
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.as … amp;page=0
"According to a latest report, Islamic terrorists are sending the ‘prettiest virgins’ they capture to slave markets in the Syrian city of Raqqa, where they are sold as sexual objects to the highest bidder."
http://www.khaama.com/isis-sending-pret … rkets-9440
This is a picture of chained Yazidi women being escorted to the slave market:
And this has what to do with the millions of Muslims who are not terrorists and live a peaceful life with others?
Your magic and slight of hand is incredibly crude.
This has to do with the fact that Islam is not a peaceful religion and that Muhammad sanctioned the trafficking and forceful rape of women. Muslims who carry out these atrocities today are acting in accordance with the Quran and the teachings of Islam.
Many armies at war claim their opponents women and rape them, even Christian soldiers.
Oh why should I waste my time giving you basic history lessons!
Why don't you look at American soldiers raping Vietnamese women for starters?
You keep wanting to take this thread off topic John.
Follow the HubPages forum rules, please.
Any American soldier who did that would have been court-marshaled.
When have you ever heard of an American soldier raping and trafficking women in the name of a religion, or justifying crimes like that because his religion advocates those crimes? NEVER.
You are the one who doesn't seem to know much about history, or the facts which prove that Islam is not a peaceful religion.
Of course it doesn't!
But neither does it make it exclusive to Islam.
This thread is about the Islam religion.
Start another thread if you would like to discusses another topic, please.
And yet, it is being done in Islam as we type. Do we shrug our shoulders?
I doubt that any decent nation would support their citizens conducting themselves in such a manner and I doubt the perpetrators would get by with the current defense of 'hey, some guy fifteen hundred years ago said it was ok so we had at it" if caught doing it.
I'm beginning to see a pattern here. If no one is perfect Islam should be given a free pass to murder and enslave because....nobody's perfect.
No, wrong, but he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.
Don't pretend that Islam is evil and everybody else is perfect.
I'm afraid that ISIS and similar organizations do kind of fit the definition of evil. Having children executing prisoners? Selling women into slavery? Not to mention the fact that even if they aren't sold into slavery many more are treated as such.
Atrocities are committed during war. These are people who continue the atrocities once they conquer a territory. So, they aren't really atrocities of war. It's standard practice for atrocious people.
I'm attempting to give you an out here. Because, you are floundering dangerously. You continue to attempt to defend the indefensible. It is seriously jeopardizing your credibility.
No, I'm trying to educate you and save some lives.
The more you hate all Muslims and only focus on the bad actions of a few, the more peaceful Muslims you radicalise and turn against us.
Ummmm. You put those words in my mouth. I never said, or thought them. But, it doesn't appear that what I think, or don't think, will affect Islam. It's allowing its own name to be drug through the mud without my help.
The word 'Islam' is in the name: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). ISIS is all about Islam and everything it does is in the name of its god Allah. The organization bases its beliefs firmly in Islam and carries out mass murders because of those Islamic beliefs.
There was another political force inn the 20th century with the word "socialist" in their name. They were not socialist in any way shape or form.
All through history people had hidden behind misleading and inappropriate names.
“The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic.
"The religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.
"The beheadings, immolations, and the rest are very much religiously inspired.
"A professor at Princeton, Bernard Haykel, said that 'the ranks of the Islamic State are deeply infused with religious vigor.
“'Koranic quotations are ubiquitous. Even the foot soldiers spout this stuff constantly,’ Haykel said. ‘They mug for their cameras and repeat their basic doctrines in formulaic fashion, and they do it all the time.’
"He regards the claim that the Islamic State has distorted the texts of Islam as preposterous, sustainable only through willful ignorance. ‘People want to absolve Islam,’ he said. ‘It’s this Islam is a religion of peace mantra.’"
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/arc … nts/384980
What an interest article to read. Thank you for posting the link Writer Fox.
To: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/arc … nts/384980
It's even worse than that. If your ancestors have ever committed a crime decades or centuries ago, then we shouldn't judge Islam for committing crimes right now.
The interesting thing is that we all know Christians were committing atrocities, while Islam was. Christianity grew. Islam stagnated. Christian nations know this behavior is wrong. Middle Eastern Islam appears to not only believe it is right; but think we are heathens for finding it wrong.
My argument is "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"
Is there a statute of limitation on atrocities?
It's kind of funny. That particular statement sounds incredibly foolish when saying that just because an atrocity was committed by someone, somewhere, sometime before we shouldn't speak out against current atrocities.
So, now an admitted atheist is going to quote scripture to try to control the debate on Islam being a peaceful religion? This doesn't wash, John. No one is casting stones, we are having a civil discussion. You are free to leave the thread anytime you wish just like mk-globetrotter did, who started the thread.
I don't think globetrotter's leaving was his choice. I think he's on the bench.
I think you've summed up his position very well.
He doesn't seem to realize that, in the eyes of Islam, he is an 'infidel' (kafir) and should be forced to convert to Islam or be killed:
"And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers." ─ Quran 2:191
"The term infidel, kafir in Islam, is broad. One group is the so-called murtadd, who are variously translated as apostate or renegades. For renegades, Islamic law prescribes death, with the opportunity first of obeying the demand to return to Islam. The other group, the so-called kafirun asliyun or unbelievers proper, have only to expect death or slavery." (E. J. Brill's First Encyclopedia of Islam, 1913-1936, Volume 4, p. 619)
Frank and Steve were lost in the desert. They had run out of food and water days ago and could not go on much further.
At the eleventh hour they spotted a Mosque in the distance.
Frank was cautious and was reluctant to approach because he knew that Muslims killed all infidels. He decided on a bit of deception to preserve his life and told Steve that henceforth he was to be addressed as Mohamed.
Steve said that he wasn't bothered if they killed him and he would die Steve.
With trepidation they approached the Mosque and were welcomed by the Imam.
They introduced themselves as Mohamed and Steve.
The Imam called out for his brothers to bring food and water for the Infidel Steve and turning to "Mohamed" wished him Ramadan Mubarak.
Cute story, though you'd think if "Mohamed" was close to death they'd let him eat.
"Steve is immediately executed. Then the hardline Wahhabi jihadist proceeds to ask "Mohamed" about the number of kneelings a Muslim is supposed to perform at dawn, noon, and evening prayers. After failing to answer correctly, "Mohamed" is taken and shot execution-style by the jihadists who, as usual, scream “Allahu Akbar!” with jubilation."
The alternative ending may or may not be based on real events.
Well all I can say is that no Muslim has even offered me harm certainly never tried to kill me.
Do you mix with them every day? Do you serve them in your shop. Do you eat in their restaurants or travel in their taxis?
I suspect that the closest that you've ever been to a bear has been on the other side of strong bars.
Precisely my point. The fact that you haven't been harmed in your encounters with Muslims doesn't mean they don't hold dangerous beliefs, just like the fact that bears haven't harmed me doesn't mean they don't hold dangerous claws.
John Holden posted
"I don't believe in any religion.
That doesn't mean I can't be fair to those who do believe.
It's just not my thing."
I'm confused because it sure does sound to me through out this thread that you believe in Islam.
My point was direct to Writer Fox's post here in case you missed it.
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/131256? … ost2749023
"He doesn't seem to realize that, in the eyes of Islam, he is an 'infidel' (kafir) and should be forced to convert to Islam or be killed:
"And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers." ─ Quran 2:191
"The term infidel, kafir in Islam, is broad. One group is the so-called murtadd, who are variously translated as apostate or renegades. For renegades, Islamic law prescribes death, with the opportunity first of obeying the demand to return to Islam. The other group, the so-called kafirun asliyun or unbelievers proper, have only to expect death or slavery." (E. J. Brill's First Encyclopedia of Islam, 1913-1936, Volume 4, p. 619)"
That is a page totally devoid of any contribution by Writer Fox!
And what of the Jews?
Alien slaves serve in perpetuity:
"Ye may make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession, of them ye may take your bondmen forever" (Lev. 25:46). The same rule would appear to apply to prisoners of war.
What of the Christians?
Ephesians 6:5-8King James Version (KJV)
5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
6 Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;
7 With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:
8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.
Is it okay for the Jews and the Christians? Do they practice this today? Do any or all of them? What do you use as a comparison?
You're not allowed to do that rh. They don't like comparisons with their perfect religion.
You're more than allowed to do that.
Go ahead, give a list of Jewish and Christian organizations that are using scripture as a rationale for this practice. I'm curious to see how many you'll find.
A travel warning has been issued for tourists visiting Turkey after Muslims attacked tourists in angry protests in Istanbul, shouting "Allahu Akbar."
The Muslims were protesting China's ban on Ramadan celebrations in China and attacked Korean tourists, mistaking them for Chinese.
In China, "Muslims have killed at least 18 people with knives and bombs in Xinjiang, China, amid heightening tensions over the area's increasingly hard-line stance against Islam."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/589 … r-Istanbul
Countries are becoming more suspicious of foreign Muslims in their midst.
In a crackdown against Islamic terrorists, the government of Chad banned foreign imams from preaching in mosques in the north bordering Mali.
"The construction of new mosques was also suspended in the area around Ouangolodougou, a city in northern Ivory Coast that’s close to the Malian border.
"In late June the Chad government banned women from wearing the Islamic veil days after bloody suicide bombings hit the capital, N’Djamena.
“'Wearing the burqa must stop immediately from today,' Prime Minister Kalzeube Pahimi Deubet told religious leaders, after the twin bombings left 33 people dead and more than 100 others injured.
"The authorities blamed Nigerian jihadist group Boko Haram, which has carried out many suicide bombings inside Nigeria in the past six years, sometimes by women who hid explosives under modest outer garments.
"Chad became the second country in Africa to ban the burqa and niqab, after Congo-Brazzaville in May. The Congolese authorities argued that the garments could be used as a disguise to commit terrorist acts; the country has seen an influx of Muslims as people affected by the war in the neighboring Central African Republic (CAR) seek refuge in Congo."
http://mgafrica.com/article/2015-07-06- … ew-mosques
You have a problem.
It means that Muslims are not allowed to speak out against atrocities carried out in the name of Islam.
Have you not noticed! The media is Islamaphobic.
Sure. That would certainly keep a Muslim from expressing outrage.
But, seriously. If you can't support a statement it's best not to make it.
No it wouldn't but it would stop you from hearing it.
I am enjoying hearing what you have to say. Although, I will admit that much of it appears to be unsupportable fluff which may be said only in hopes that some Muslims who might be reading this thread don't feel that they are hated. Which, although admirable, would be so much more admirable if you were making any sense.
What we need is more sensible Muslim voices. Not atheist, Christian or otherwise attempting to defend actions by some Muslims which are indefensible; by making bizarre statements about throwing stones.
And, there's the problem. Anytime I have conversed with a Muslim they simply tell me Islam has so much to offer and women aren't really subjugated. I'd love the religion if I would adopt it. When they start insisting Islam would be so good for America they not only completely lose my interest but, to be honest, they scare me. Not one of them will speak out against the atrocities and I wonder why.
Only unsupportable fluff if you chose not to look any further.
I'm in agreement with your statement that the bible is bizarre.
I suppose you must have some understanding of how Muslims must feel when they are told that Christianity would be so good for them!
Again, you've put words in my mouth. At what point did I say the Bible was bizarre? Stay on topic here John. We are discussing Islam.
"What we need is more sensible Muslim voices. Not atheist, Christian or otherwise attempting to defend actions by some Muslims which are indefensible; by making bizarre statements about throwing stones"
I have nothing against the saying about those without sin should cast the first stone. But, as with any saying; used in the wrong place it comes off as if the speaker doesn't understand what it means.
Well let me explain to you. Christians used to stone sinners to death.
There were admonished not to judge others until they were in a position where they were not guilty of the same offence as the guilty person.
Homosexuality brought the Death Penalty in the Old Testament (under the law)
“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death…” Leviticus 20:13
In the New Testament Jesus' teachings do not command Christians to stone sinners. He did away with the law of the Old Testament.
Things may be different there in the UK, but I can guarantee you a strong Muslim voice expressing outrage and disgust at the actions of those perpetrating terror would get copy here in the states. We are a salad bowl, and know it. We enjoy the variety of ideas here and we very much enjoy hearing immigrants speak out in defense of our ideals.
I've seen the American news on television. I've read American newspapers.
I can not agree with your contention.
Well.....we've got a lot of papers and a lot of news stations. I suppose there is only one of each in the UK?
Well you'd be wrong!
Any way, I was talking about when I was in America.
Oh.. Well that just explains it all. When you were in America.
Well, when I was in the UK I didn't see anything in the papers about it either. Does that mean that they never, ever, address it; or does it mean that I didn't see it in the particular periodical I was perusing at the time?
Here's an example of what Muslims are up against with the media.
You do realize that the average American sees Fox news as a joke? If that's your news source you should probably branch out a bit.
But, good for you for using Snopes. I turn to that quite often.
Other channels besides Fox were implicated in it.
We get a lot of Americans here on Hub Pages that swear by Fox News.
I think we can all agree that there are a lot of people on the internet who are outside of the range of 'normal'. Many people go onto the internet so that they can express views not acceptable in polite society. I wouldn't put much stock in views expressed here that you consider outlandish.
If I did that I'd think half of Australia was crazy Christians, all of the UK were atheist and most Canadians lacked any couth. Oh. I'd also believe you all hated us. I would also believe all Muslims couldn't carry on a civil conversation. But, I would be making that determination from speaking with a very, very minute segment of each society. A couple of people, at best. Is that a good way to pass judgement?
CNN and others didn't even want to post the Danish cartoons for fear of retaliation.
Fear of something that is threatening to kill you is perfectly reasonable. Calling it something akin to homophobia is just not honest.
The truth of the matter is that a Muslim who felt outrage would be afraid to speak out because it would make him a target too.
Speakers against Islam like Sam Harris routinely get emails and letters grateful to him speaking out, because they are unable to. Often they're afraid of their own family and friends.
But I'm not talking about Muslims speaking out against Islam!
I'm talking about Muslims speaking out against atrocities carried out in the name of Islam.
So mrpopo, you don't understand the difference between speaking critically of your religion and defending your religion!
That wordplay just further confuses things. How about an example?
Salmaan Taseer was assassinated by a member of his security detail because he spoke critically against the blasphemy law in Islam. He stated that it was a "black law," that this wasn't really Islam.
Is he speaking critically of Islam, or is he defending it from a warped version of Islam?
"That wordplay just further confuses things. How about an example?"
The assassin Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri is from Punjab, and was part of the security detail provided to Taseer by the Elite Police. After the shooting, Qadri threw his weapon down and put his hands up when one of his colleagues aimed at him. He reportedly pleaded to be arrested. Qadri reportedly said he killed Taseer due to the latter's vocal opposition to the blasphemy law in Pakistan.
Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri was associated with Dawat-e-Islami, a religious organisation associated with the Barelvi movement. The movement is much influenced by Sufism and the traditional Islamic practices of South Asia. Sufis strive for ihsan (perfection of worship) as detailed in a hadith: Ihsan is to worship Allah as if you see Him; if you can't see Him, surely He sees you.
On 1 October 2011, Qadri was sentenced to death by a Pakistani Anti Terrorist court at Islamabad for murdering Taseer.
Once again you find a splinter group who's followers cling to a Hadith and not the text of the Qur'an to prove your point? The law in Pakistan which is also in effect as killing blasphemers found the assassin at odds with the law and sentenced him to death. If even by the Pakistani law it was determined illegal what he did, how can you point your finger at the peaceful followers of the religion as part of it?
What you accuse others of you practice to a tee. You are a sly one Mr. Popo.
"But we were talking about media reaction!"
I thought you stated they aren't afraid to speak out. How are they going to get media reaction if they can't speak out for fear of assassination?
"Once again you find a splinter group who's followers cling to a Hadith and not the text of the Qur'an to prove your point?"
rhamson, can you do me a favour and summarize my point? Just so I can be sure we're on the same page and you aren't reading things that aren't there, as you usually do.
It's always the same point with you. Islam is a peaceful religion yet you wish to bring criminals and wackos into the picture as your proof that it is a religion based on terrorism and a false prophet. Your latest is this convicted murderer as your proof. I can shoot down your assertions all day long as you continue to point at these miscreants as what Islam stands for.
I can see you completely missed my point, as usual. I was not using this murderer as evidence that the religion is based on terrorism. I was using the victim as evidence that speaking critically of Islam and defending it from a warped version of Islam have little difference.
I think you were speaking to me on this post and not John Holden.
Never the less referring to your reply you still don't get it that the wacko is who makes the difference. The Muslim victim could have been anybody but the wacko is operating outside the norm by taking it upon himself to commit murder against the laws of even the country where the laws are written. The interpretation was on the wacko not Islam.
I see the issue rhamson! My apologies!
I agree completely! I was stupidly blinded in this regard. I replied to John in lieu of you because threaded view limits the reply length. I had no idea how you were bypassing that.
With your comment I have now finally realized that there is a chronological view option.
Anyway, sorry about the confusion.
"I think you were speaking to me on this post and not John Holden."
rhamson I'm sure you know who I am speaking to better than I do. Even though I directly replied to John Holden and directly referenced his claim by questioning "is he speaking critically of Islam, or is he defending it from a warped version of Islam?" I suppose, in your world, taking John's wording verbatim means I am speaking to you.
"Never the less referring to your reply you still don't get it that the wacko is who makes the difference. The Muslim victim could have been anybody but the wacko is operating outside the norm by taking it upon himself to commit murder against the laws of even the country where the laws are written. The interpretation was on the wacko not Islam."
Except I spoke nothing of the wacko's interpretation or whether or not this act was justified according to Islamic law. I spoke of the tendency for secularist Muslims, such as the victim, to be afraid of speaking out against the religion for fear of retaliation. John said they aren't afraid to speak out, and I am disagreeing because they receive retaliation when they speak out.
I said nothing of whether the retaliation was coming from wackos or normal Muslims.
You're so stupidly blinded that you're unable to see that I'm actually defending peaceful Muslims like Taseer who are criticizing the country's attitude on blasphemy laws.
As I prefaced the reply I was not sure if you were talking to me as I replied to another post you sent to John while addressing me. I think the one with the precedent is a little more stupidly blinded than the one trying to follow your disjointed posts.
Go to page 54 to view my example.
That's because there isn't a difference.
Islam was founded by forced conversions, looting, stealing the land of Mecca, smashing the idols of all other gods except for Allah, and killing those who wouldn't accept Islam and follow Muhammad.
The instructions to "kill the infidels" are prescribed in the Quran. Some Muslims carry those instructions out today and some don't. But, it's definitely part of Islam and no religious scholar disagrees with that.
OK explain to me why that is any different from forced conversion to Christianity?
http://jdstone.org/cr/files/converttoch … ordie.html
I'm sure you've heard all the demands for Muslims to apologise for atrocities? They do even when they have no need to, but those apologies are not heard because they don't suit the media's agenda of Islamaphobia.
Think about what you said, if the media was really scared of Islam would they constantly publish derogatory stories?
Are you referring to my comparison to homophobia? Explain.
"I'm sure you've heard all the demands for Muslims to apologise for atrocities?"
No actually, I've only heard demands for Muslims to condemn the atrocities committed in Islam's name. After Charlie Hebdo the twitter hastag #respectformuslims started to trend. It's odd, but calls demanding #respectformuslims tend to be in conjunction with the slaughter of innocents, as opposed to condemnations of these attacks. Some young British Muslims did have a #notinmyname trending for a while, so I'll give credit where it's due.
However, the only apologies I've seen are sarcastic and passive aggressive: http://www.dw.com/en/muslims-express-fr … a-17954376
Note that one of those "apologizing" even says that the peaceful Muslims doesn't take the Qu'ran seriously... and he has the audacity to say that those are the real Muslims. By those terms many of us here are peaceful Muslims ourselves.
"They do even when they have no need to, but those apologies are not heard because they don't suit the media's agenda of Islamaphobia."
What are some examples of media Islamaphobia?
"if the media was really scared of Islam would they constantly publish derogatory stories?"
If the media wasn't scared of retaliation why did they not publish those cartoons?
What are these derogatory stories you speak of?
Today is the tenth anniversary of the 7/7 suicide bomb attacks by Islamic terrorists in London, which killed 52 innocent people and wounded more than 700.
"UK terror attacks are inevitable and there's nothing we can do to stop them, warn spy chiefs.
"The dire warning comes as a survey taken last weekend reveals up to 1.5 million Britons could be supporters of Islamic State."
The survey results suggest "around half of Britain’s three million Muslims could be IS sympathizers."
"And MI5 spy boss Andrew Parker said terrorists will strike again – but his officers may not be able to stop them."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk … es-6016015
Pictures from the 2005 attacks are all over the UK media today and memorial ceremonies are planned.
"Islamic State terrorists have abducted 111 school children from various districts of the northern Iraqi city of Mosul to use them in terrorist moves, a media report said on Tuesday.
"The abducted children, mostly aged between 10-15 years, have been transferred to the Islamic State terrorist group's educational and military centres for brainwashing, Iraq's Arabic news channel Al Sumaria quoted Iraqi Kurdista's Democrat Party, spokesperson Saeed Mamuzini as saying.
"He added that the Islamic State terrorists also arrested 78 men who protested against the abduction of their children.
"The Kurdish official noted that the militants have kidnapped 1,420 Iraqi children since the capture of the country's second city over a year ago and forced them to receive military training, so that IS could use them in terrorist and intelligence operations."
http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/isl … 25840.html
Can you imagine being arrested and having your children stolen "in the name of Islam?" !!!!
You do get rather boring. There is more to Islam than ISIS.
It's very telling that you consider the kidnapping of children in the name of Islam to be a boring subject.
ISIS released a video in February of what happens to the kidnapped boys in the hands of the terrorists.
They are put through military training and taught to memorize verses of the Quran.
The children are called 'Cubs of the Islamic State', like they have just joined a Cub Scouts group.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-t … eo-n310646
You can see the video here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/v … diers.html
Kidnapping children and training them to do their dirty work as soldiers.
I could not help but cry as I watched that video of their training.
The brainwashing is there to be seen, they are made to comply with Islam.
That is very sad, my heart is broken for those children.
Those poor little babies. It must feel like a nightmare to the parents that they cannot wake up from.
Let me correct that for you. Jews used to stone sinners to death. Jesus made the statement you are quoting from. To the Jews. Christians didn't exist at the time.
However, no one is throwing stones. There are those who are pointing out atrocities committed in the name of Islam. Since I don't think any of the speakers here are beheading people, coercing pre-teens to shoot them in the back of the head or selling women into slavery; you are off base using that quote in this conversation.
Here is another positive story-
http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/m … Zy2GDX1YGl
Islam is a peaceful religion and there is no doubt and if anyone has please read Quran then you will come to know what Islam is.ISIS is doing wrong things that doesn't mean Islam is a wrong religion.They are so called Muslims who are not following islam, killing people in Islam is wrong but what they are doing is just opposite.In Islam we have have to live peacefully not fight, control our anger and be friendly to other people then how can you say they are following Islam as they are not doing so?.Please non Muslim brother and sisters don't see Islam through their acts but read Quran before judging Islam.
This is for Writer Fox who believes that we are cowed by the terrorists, that we've "handed them the keys".
It is a speech made by Ken Livingstone ten years ago in response to the London bombing. It is just as relevant and true today
"This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and powerful, it was not aimed at presidents or prime ministers. It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jews, young and old; an indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any consideration for age, for castes, for religions, whatever.
That isn't an ideology, that isn't even a perverted faith. It is just an indiscriminate attempt at mass murder. We know what the objective is. They seek to divide Londoners. They seek to turn Londoners against each other.
I said yesterday to the International Olympic Committee, this city of London is the greatest in the world because everybody lives side by side in harmony. And Londoners will not be divided by this cowardly attack.
They will stand together in solidarity around those who have been injured and those who have been bereaved. That is why I am proud to be the mayor of that city.
Finally, I wish to speak through you, directly, to those who came to London today to take lives. I do know that you do not fear to give your own lives. That is why you are so dangerous. But I do know that you fear you may fail in your long-term objective to destroy our free society.
I can show you why you'll fail. In the days that follow, look at our airports, look at our seaports, and look at our railway stations. And even after your cowardly attacks, people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world will arrive in London to become Londoners and to fulfil their dreams and achieve their potential.
They choose to come to London, as so many have come before, because they come to be free, they come to live the life they choose, they come to be able to be themselves.
They flee you, because you tell them how they should live. They don't want that. And however many of us you kill, you will not stop their flight to our cities where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another.
Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail."
I totally agree that islam is a peaceful religion. The word islam means surrendering to God. Islam calls people to surrender to God and spread peace to each other and all the world. These are the main principles of Islam but unfortunately there are very few people who misunderstood the main teachings and purposes of Islam which caused it of bad reputation. I hope everyone read about islam from authentic resources
Don't connect Islam with terrorist.They are doing bad things but they will be definitely punished by here after when, they die.Its not about only London or any other county, they are retarded people who are not leaving anyone.They are killing Muslims also not just non Muslims for your kind information.They are so called Muslims who are not following Islam.We are following Islam as me and i have brain to think what is wrong and right for me as Islam teaches us but these terrorist don't, i doubt they even read Quran or read with understanding.A true Muslim will die but never kill innocent people.One thing more every religion people are good and bad.Tell me in which religion people are only good and had never done anything wrong.Humans are like that if they listen to Allah they will be good and if they are listening to shaitan (devil) they will be bad ofcouse.Its up to someones own thinking they choose to be good or bad but because of this we can't say they their religion is wrong or right.Suppose I talk to a Christian sister and she talks to me rudely that doesn't mean i will think her religion is bad that's why she is bad.Just think brother.
U are totally right Mariasha but I can't get it why these people have left following Islam and had became terrorist. Non Muslims are seeing these and assumes that this is islam.As a Muslim i know that this is not Islam of course.If they wanted to do something they would have let non Muslims known that what is Islam.
I think those people who became terrorists are already ignorant of the real teachings of Islam plus most of the time they idealise the wrong examples of people. They follow them with blind eyes. The bad muslim examples brain wash their minds and direct them to do shameful horrible things. I think most of the terrorists suffer from disorder mentalities. .
"But we were talking about media reaction!"
I thought you stated they aren't afraid to speak out. How are they going to get media reaction if they can't speak out for fear of assassination?
It is your contention that the don't speak out for fear of assassination against my original statement that they do speak but the media don't report it.
I think in those circumstances it is up to you to prove that they don't speak out for fear of reprisals.
I've given you an example of speakers receiving letters from Muslims who are grateful that they speak on issues concerning their religion, because they are unable to, often fearing their own family and friends.
You then said there is a difference between speaking out against Islam and speaking out against atrocities carried out in the name of Islam. I don't see much of a difference and you haven't demonstrated one. In both cases speakers would be afraid of speaking out for fear of being accused of blasphemy.
How would one be able to speak out against blasphemy laws without being labeled a blasphemer himself?
According to wiki, "Taseer's assassination may dissuade other Pakistani politicians from speaking out against the blasphemy law, according to a former U.S. State Department intelligence analyst with the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC."
Now where is your evidence that the media doesn't report their speaking out?
So you've copped out of proving your point! Why am I not surprised?
This from a quck google search, the first result that came up-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/postevery … extremism/
I have no idea what you're talking about. How have I copped out of proving my point? There are speakers receiving letters from Muslims who are afraid of speaking out. Is this not what my point was?
The top comment from that article:
"This article is ridiculous...first of all, the "Australian National Imams Council" is most decidedly NOT among the world's leaders when it comes to Islam. And the attack on the school in Peshawar targeted muslims.
In the first example, the organization that came out against the attack was not significant. In the second, the revulsion was by the exact same population that was targeted in the attack. Where are the condemnations of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism from, say, Bahrain, Qatar, or Saudi Arabia? How about Iran? And this is all above and beyond the simple fact that these nations not only remain silent when attacks by fundamentalist groups occur, but also fund them, prodigiously."
The article also refers to a letter written by 120 Muslim scholars to ISIS. Here is the letter:
While I am glad they are addressing some of the concerns (reform, anyone?) I notice they don't mention anything in regards to apostates and blasphemers in its summary. That is concerning to me.
"Not at all, feel free to include those. I am curious how far back yesterday you're going to look."
You know full well that other religions have used their scriptures to justify atrocitie
"Yes, but I don't know how far back you're going to look."
Well as Christianity is about five hundred years older than Islam, how about 500 years which will take us back to when Christianity was about as established as Islam is now?
Are you suggesting we need to wait another 500 years before we're allowed to criticize Islam on crimes against humanity?
I think anyone can criticise islam but there is a difference between criticism and mockery which shows disrespect and belittling of people
Could you point out where the mockery which shows disrespect and belittling of people has happened? I've been following this thread and I haven't seen it. It would be helpful to know where you feel it has happened.
I am talking in general not only in this thread useful criticism is always accepted and useful
I agree that mockery and belittling is counterproductive. I do wish there was a way for the peaceful side of Islam to divest itself completely from the dangerous ideologies out there. Unfortunately, I don't see it happening and that bothers me because it does make me wonder if they don't, simply because a part of them feels there is merit in what these terrorists are attempting to accomplish.
Of course, you look at organizations like the Westboro Baptist Church. Christians aren't up in arms attempting to divest them of their ability to use the name. That bothers me also. Because I also believe, in that situation, there are Christians who believe that the Westboro Baptist is standing up for biblical ideals.
Their heinous actions only heinous because it isn't socially acceptable.
Can you provide some examples of mockery so they may be avoided in the future?
John Holden cristanity is not 500 hundred older than Islam.The first man on earth Which Christians call Adam and Eve were Muslims and their real name is Adam & Hawa.Islam and cristaninity are similar Bible were Islamic book but people changed it so we don't follow it which is called Injil.Only Quran is unchanged book.So we follow its saying.Critianity follows our nabi saying which Christians believe that he is son of god but only this difference makes a lot of difference that is called islam.In Quran its written that God has no relative, god is one.Brothers don't go about what media says or what you hear from others who doesn't like Islam and please don't misunderstand Quran sayings.Quran is book to live our life in a good way.
I honestly think that this thread should be stopped because the debate has got offending to many people including me
Islam is a peaceful religion either you believe it or not its upto you all.Who is doing what in the name of religion is not actually doing anything that is according to religion, killing people is not in islam.Our Prophet Mohammad SalAllah-o-Alehe Wasallam was perfect Muslim he hate swords and fight but he only used sward to defend and protect people and never to convert any non Muslims and do any harm to them.He is very kind human being with beautiful heart.He came here to let people know what islam is.He has abolished people to pray status. He also abolished people from killing girl infants.He told people to live peacefully and follow islam but today's world many people are not following islam or not properly following it.Terrorism is the outcome of it.
Tahreem, can you explain to me how it is a peaceful religion when it encourages the death penalty for apostasy and blasphemy?
Once again you only see those that believe and act against others as the followers of Islam. Here are some explanations from the Qu'ran.
"The blasphemy and apostasy laws are found in the Hadeeth, sayings attributed to Prophet Mohammad, which were compiled two-three centuries after his death. Muslims know that no Hadeeth should contradict the Qu'ran if they are to be accepted, given their subjective nature and reliance on the Qu'ran for authenticity." 
"But early scholars intentionally overlooked this to protect the interests of clergymen and political leaders. These oppressive laws allow them to exercise complete control over people, punishing anyone who threatens their position by declaring them apostates — enemies of Islam. To so many clergymen, religion is nothing but a means to gain power and control people. To keep out competition and force their monopoly, they invent laws in the name of God so “consumers” have no choice but to keep buying their “product.” Or face persecution." 
Religious leaders like Tahir-ul-Qadri, a staunch proponent of blasphemy laws, rule people by fear. Add to that the fact that the average Muslim is unaware of the Quran’s teachings, which makes them likely to believe whatever the clergy tells them about Islam. Of these leaders, the Qur’an asks us to be weary: “O You who have believed! A great many religious leaders: rabbis, priests, monks, Mullahs, yogis, and mystics devour the wealth of people in falsehood, and bar them from the path of God” (Quran 9:34).
"Regarding apostasy, in Quran 2:256 God says, “There is no compulsion in matters of faith. The right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces false authorities and becomes at peace with God has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. God is Hearer, Knower.” 
"In a similar vein, verse 109:6 instructs adherents to end a debate by saying: “To you, your belief system. And to me, mine.” 
"When it comes to blasphemy, I often hear some version of, “Hold on. If someone mocks my religion, it prompts me to act violently. You see, it makes me very emotional.”
But this statement only shows an ignorance of the Quran, which says in verse 6:68, “When you see them engaged in vain discourse about Our verses, turn away from them unless they engage in a different subject. If Satan ever makes you forget (i.e. your mind gets engrossed in their discourse,) then as soon as you recollect, no longer sit in the company of the people who confound the truth with falsehood.” 
"And, again, Quran 28:55 instructs, “Whenever they (believers) hear vain talk of ridicule, they withdraw from it decently and say, ‘“To us our deeds and to you yours; Peace be upon you, we do not seek to join the ignorant.” 
Your assumptions of violent retribution for apostasy and blasphemous conduct with in and without the religion are not upheld by the peaceful and true followers of the religion.
Can you explain these verses for me?
Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment.
— Quran 33:57
Truly, if the Hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and those who stir up sedition in the City, desist not, We shall certainly stir thee up against them: Then will they not be able to stay in it as thy neighbours for any length of time: They shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy).
— Quran 33:61
In any case, let's assume that the true followers of Islam are peaceful. I have no issue with those followers. The problem is there are still thousands if not millions of "false" followers of Islam that are not peaceful.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the- … ut-sharia/
Look at the opinion polls for penalties of theft, adultery and leaving Islam. There are quite a few "false" Muslims out there. And these polls weren't even conducted in places like Saudi Arabia and Syria due to security concerns; you'd likely see higher numbers if they were included.
If the average Muslim is unaware of the Qu'ran’s teachings this only compounds the problem. That would mean the average Muslim is susceptible to "false" teachings of Islam. The average Muslim could be more akin to a "false" Muslim, or at the very least a "non-true" Muslim. If the average Muslim is not a real Muslim at all it shouldn't be surprising that I am targeting my critique at "Muslims" instead of "false Muslims" given that on average they lack the appropriate knowledge to be a "true" Muslim.
As far as I can tell, this is only wordplay. Your "true Muslim" is my "peaceful Muslim," and my "Muslim" is your "false Muslim." I'm targeting the people who are conducting violence, the people you supposedly don't agree with. You should be joining me in condemning these people instead of constantly claiming it isn't "true" Islam. If the average Muslim doesn't know what true Islam then it is redundant harping "that isn't true Islam" whenever these average Muslims do things that are not in accordance with true Islam. As I have previously suggested, a reform to distance yourselves from those co-opting it for violence may be in order.
Even if your religion is objectively peaceful (I have sincere doubts that any Abrahamic religion is peaceful), there are still millions interpreting it in a plausible way that calls for violence. Either address these internal inconsistencies or distance yourself from them.
"Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment.— Quran 33:57"
We all have our Saints and Prophets that curse our behavior:
Paul warned of activities unacceptable to entering Heaven> Where do you think these people were condemned to?
(1) Fornicators shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
(2) Idolaters shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
(3) Adulterers shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
(4) The effeminate shall not enter the kingdom of God.
(5) Homosexuals shall not enter the kingdom of God.
(6) Thieves shall not enter the kingdom of God.
(7). The covetous will not enter the kingdom of God.
(8) Drunkards shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
(9) Revilers shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
(10) Swindlers shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Qu'ran [033:060] The hypocrites and those with a disease (of doubt) in their hearts must quit spreading false rumors in the town (Medina). Otherwise, We will most certainly rouse you into action against them. Then they will not remain your neighbors in this town much longer.
Qu'ran[033:061] Cursed are they! Wherever found, they will be captured and killed in a carnage.
This is an American translation of the verse before your once again out of context wordplay. If you know the history and of the battle in Medina with the Jews then you would better understand the passage.
Your other verse shows no violence against anyone I can see and is equally out of context. Your game is one step ahead of picking out any word you don't like or you see quickly and provocatively points the ill informed the direction you want them to go. What is it you have against the religion? Since you say you can distinguish between the terrorists and the Muslims what is your purpose to keep making the water dirty with misdirection and misunderstanding?
I am not Muslim by the way nor Christian, Hindu, Bahai as I don't prescribe to mainstream organized politically aligned renditions of believing in God.
"We all have our Saints and Prophets that curse our behavior:"
If even Saints and Prophets curse those behaviours it's not surprising that humans would mimic these Saints and Prophets in cursing those behaviours in their own fashion. I also don't see how you find it peaceful for a religion to discriminate against "homosexuals", "the effeminate" or "fornicators."
I question your logic that "Saints curse behaviour therefore it's a peaceful religion." But as I stated previously, I am, for the sake of argument, assuming Islam to be peaceful.
"Your other verse shows no violence against anyone I can see and is equally out of context. Your game is one step ahead of picking out any word you don't like or you see quickly and provocatively points the ill informed the direction you want them to go."
Rhamson, all I did was ask for a genuine explanation of those two verses for my own edification. Yes they are out of context, which is why I welcome your contextual explanation.
I don't see why you take such offense or hostility at me selecting specific text for additional clarity. When you quoted scripture out of context, WriterFox (I think - forgive me for any inaccuracies) explained the actual context simply and effectively, without accusing you of any ill will or that you were playing games. It's actually something that should be quite easy to do for anyone well educated on any given topic.
By your own admission the average Muslim is unaware of the Qu'ran's teachings. How likely do you think they'd be taking these passages out of context? If there is an alternative explanation for the passages most commonly cited for justification of death penalties for apostasy/blasphemy, you should be making it crystal clear to everyone what the true explanation is. For some reason not only are you taking offense at this request for clarification, but you're also content in vilifying me as someone who is making a game of all of this.
Well, I'm not. If you'll notice, I said "in any case, let's assume that the true followers of Islam are peaceful. I have no issue with those followers."
"Since you say you can distinguish between the terrorists and the Muslims"
I think you are oversimplifying the situation. Let's make some further distinctions based on what you have stated:
1) there are enlightened Muslims; these are aware of the Qu'ran's teachings
a) there are true Muslims; these are interpreting and following the Qu'ran properly
b) there are false Muslims; these are interpreting the Qu'ran properly but following the Qu'ran improperly
2) there are ignorant Muslims; these are unaware of the Qu'rans teachings
a) there are false Muslims; these are interpreting and following the Qu'ran improperly
b) there are false Muslims; these are interpreting the Qu'ran improperly but following the Qu'ran properly
1 represents the category of Muslims who are well educated in the Qu'ran's teachings.
1a would be the peaceful Muslims, according to you. As I have stated, I have no issue with these Muslims. Most people would not have issue with these Muslims.
1b would be the sinful Muslims. These may include terrorists or clerks wanting power. Everyone should have issue with the worst of these Muslims (assuming Islam is 100% peaceful).
2 represents the category of Muslims who are ignorant of the Qu'ran's teachings. As you have stated, the average Muslim sits in this category. It should be giving you red flags that the average Muslim is ignorant of Islam.
2a would be the ignorant Muslims who follow their ignorance. These may include ignorant terrorists or ignorant clerks who honestly believe they are doing their god's will. These are most likely decent people who have been brainwashed into believing terrible things. Everyone should take issue with the fact that these decent people are being made to do terrible things.
2b would be the ignorant Muslims who somehow don't follow their ignorance. They may be subscribing to a moral system that trumps what they believe to be the Qu'ran, perhaps a father hiding his gay son to protect him from harm despite believing that the Qu'ran condemns homosexuals to death. Or they may be ignorant but despite ignorance they are, by fluke, following the Qu'ran's teachings. The only issue I have with these Muslims is that they may suffer in going against their beliefs. Very few people in general have the strength of character to go against their dogmatic beliefs in favour of an ulterior moral system, so I assume these Muslims are a tiny minority.
(You're welcome to break these down further if I missed any distinctions)
What would be the % breakdown of these Muslims? Well, according to you the average Muslim is ignorant, so most Muslims would belong to category 2. Assuming the average ignorant person follows their ignorance, and that the average person is unwilling to override religious beliefs in favour of ulterior morals, most Muslims would belong to category 2a. In other words, most Muslims would be bad Muslims out of ignorance.
The poll results from http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the- … ut-sharia/ support these assertions. In Egypt, for example, 64% of Muslims believe in the death penalty for apostasy. These are not numbers that you can simply ignore. There are large groups of either sinful or ignorant Muslims in many Muslim majority countries in the world. This is a problem.
"what is your purpose to keep making the water dirty with misdirection and misunderstanding?"
The above should more than clear up the waters.
"What is it you have against the religion?"
I have no idea how you think advising "true" Muslims of addressing internal inconsistencies or distancing yourself from those who co-opt the religion is anything indicative of someone who has "something" against the religion.
Anyway, I explicitly stated for the sake of argument I'm assuming it's peaceful. The problem then becomes that in this peaceful religion there are significant groups of followers who, either through ignorance or malice, are misunderstanding the religion in as flawed a manner as possible, creating strife and suffering in the world. In that case, I have nothing against the religion, but rather the significant number of self-proclaimed practitioners who have beliefs that are incompatible with modernity.
In other words, either your religion is not peaceful, or the average Muslim is not peaceful*. Take your pick.
*Not peaceful, in my eyes, includes having violent beliefs e.g. supporting penalties such as whippings or cutting off the hands of thieves and robbers. Refer to the Pew Poll link for more examples.
I have no hostile feeling towards you so I am sorry if you gleaned that from our conversation. What I am dismayed with is your claiming that a religion is either false or breeds terrorism due to some individuals who act out of their own accordance with its' teachings. Most religions have a few or many who act on their own interpretation of their religion. Just as with many ignorant Christians and or Jews with regards to knowledge of their faiths there are Muslims who are and act in the same way.
I referenced Paul's word in Corinthians to give you an example of the writers condemnation in light of your singling out Islams condemnation of similar things. I surely do not single out nor judge those who practice these things. Who am I to judge anyway?
But as you say you have no issue with those who peacefully practice Islam you seem to judge their religion by those that neither understand or follow the peaceful tenets of the religion.
(assuming Islam is 100% peaceful). Do you not make a distinction between the teachings of the religion and the actions of its' followers? No religious following has 100% of it's followers in accordance with all the teachings and righteousness of it's Prophet. That is the crux of atonement within each and every one of them. If forgiveness was not a component, none would follow.
Do I believe Islam is "the" religion for all to follow? Certainly not as its' cultural and political influences are not for all to understand or be held accountable. But I don't condemn what millions of people who peacefully practice their faith in it.
Yesterday, dozens of people were crucified on electricity poles for breaking the Ramadan fast of Islam. This was done in the name of Shariah (Islamic law.)
A bystander videotaped eight of these victims and posted it on YouTube.
“The roads are filled with crucified men who violated the group’s strict regulations during Ramadan. There are dozens of victims who remain hanged on electricity poles across the province.”
http://aranews.net/2015/07/isis-crucifi … adan-fast/
A peaceful religion doesn't force people to accept it.
"A peaceful religion doesn't force people to accept it."
You are absolutely correct. What part of ISIS is peaceful? Disinformation is a mainstay of your countries propaganda. Your agenda is clearly to destroy all that is Arab. Your guile is more than obvious.
It's not only the Islamic State which is slaughtering people in the name of Islam. Consider the murders in Pakistan, Nigeria, Kenya, etc.
3,260 people have been killed in Yemen since March, and 1,500 of these are civilians, according to the United Nations. This carnage is brought to us by the Houthi (the name means 'Supporters of Allah'). According to the UN: "millions of people in the impoverished country are at risk of famine because of the unrest." http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/08/middl … index.html
Their agenda is to destroy all that is non-Islam or against a particular version of Islam. Either way, it's all about Islam.
You post a story about ISIS and then jump to other countries with more accusations against Islam. The answer to your fantastic falsehood is that Islam is against the murdering of innocent people. What don't you get about that? Just because the terrorists claim to be Muslim does not mean they are. And just as any other religion that has terrorists who bomb abortion clinics or federal buildings they are not practicing their religion either.
Yes the terrorists are trying to convert all to their idea of what Islam is. But Islam is against forced conversion. So what is it they are practicing? Your posts condemn the whole religion through people who do not practice its' tenets.
Your incendiary posts are what the propaganda machines turn out to sway people to falsehoods that are not true. Reminds me of where a lot of people were accused of horrible things and their country tried to annihilate their entire race. The difference is that the rest of the world is seeing it for what it is.
Why is the Islamic religious holiday of Ramadan chosen for terrorist attacks?
These are just some of yesterday's atrocities carried out yesterday in the name of Islam and posted on http://www.thereligionofpeace.com
2015.07.07 (Shirqat, Iraq) - An elderly teacher is executed by an ISIS child of about 10.
2015.07.07 (Zaria, Nigeria) - Twenty-five people are torn limb from limb by a Fedayeen suicide bomber.
2015.07.07 (Soko Mbuzi, Kenya) - Islamists attack a sleeping village, throwing grenades into homes and setting tents with laborers on fire.
2015.07.06 (Jos, Nigeria) - Islamic extremists set off one bomb at a restaurant and another at a rival mosque which leave over forty dead.
2015.07.06 (Quetta, Pakistan) - Sunnis fire on a group of Hazara minorities, killing two.
2015.07.05 (Borno, Nigeria) - Islamists return to the scene of an earlier massacre and shoot nine survivors in addition to burning thirty-churches and three-hundred homes.
Maher Al-Houli, a professor of Islamic law, said: "In Islam, Ramadan is the month of jihad [holy war], resistance and victories. During this month, people stand ready to sacrifice, and when Muslims are zealous for their homeland, their strength and energies awaken."
Dr. Dardah Al-Sha'er, a social science professor at Gaza's Islamic University, said: "Ramadan influences a person's will both psychologically and emotionally, and drives him to stand fast, because he is in a state of confronting the transient temptations of life. This is automatically expressed in resistance. If [people] manage to resist themselves and their desires, they can resist their enemies. The scope of resistance increases substantially during Ramadan. Additionally, Ramadan has [always] been a month of victories for Muslims and continues to be one. During this month people are close to their maker. When they feel this closeness, they become more obedient."
Terrorists are killing people not Islam has told them to kill Non Muslims and they are killing Muslims also not just Non Muslims.They want to kill every who comes in their way either muslim or non muslim.They just want to rule the world.Islam is a peaceful religion islam is not forcing anyone to convert terrorists are, both two different thing.Dpnt combine them.They are saying they are saying they are killing people in the name of God and you you all believe them, then if i say they misguided person and they not following islam and few people in the name of islam misguided them so that they can rule and I can guarantee you they will be punished for this here after then you should believe me also, as you believe what people say and doesn't try to know the truth and islam in a right way.Go and ask any true Muslim follower that killing people is allowed in islam or not and force conversion of religion is allowed in islam he or she will say no
"Terrorists are killing people not Islam has told them to kill Non Muslims and they are killing Muslims also not just Non Muslims"
Are they killing Shia Muslims or Sunni Muslims?
"Go and ask any true Muslim follower that killing people is allowed in islam or not"
So you disagree that the penalty for apostasy is death?
Brother I just said what islam is in real not what terrorist are saying.In islam nobody is allowed to kill anyone either the person is Muslim or not.I don't agree anyone who says that if someone leave islam or don't follow islam should be killed.As god has never said this.People should follow Quran and understand it.In islam there is no shia or sunni.Humans have made this thing in the world.According to islam we are one.Mens offer prayer in a masjid unitedly either they are rich or poor this clear shows in god views every one equal.Islam does not encourages death for such things its people choice to choose whom they want to believe and killing people because of it is not in islam so that's why its peaceful religion
Well, you are not supposed to ignore what one says. Speaking on this same issue the Holy Bible says in Romans 15:4 "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning..." The New Testament was written "to us" A testament is like a contract, a legally binding document. We have a review of a contract to something more superior does not mean that everything in the old was altogether bad.
Whose saying what is his or her opinion, even he is scholar doesn't mean he is saying Quran words.Its his opinion to kill someone not islam.Islam is about knowledge if someone has read Quran with meaning then he has knowledge about islam.It doesn't matter even someone is old or kid.Islam is not built of from Christianity and Judaism because first man and women were muslims.
Bible was also our book at a time when Jesus Christ was there but people distroyed and written their sayings so it has changed now by people.It's was Islamic book but not now.Eesa Alai-Hiss-Salaam who you call Jesus Christ is also our nabi like our Prophet Muhammad Sallaho Alaihe Wasallam is our last nabi who came to guide us the right path like Eesa Alai-Hiss-Salaam and if you are saying that
Prophet Muhammad Sallaho Alaihe Wasallam has written Qur'an because he wants love then why Esa Alai-Hiss-Salaam is given importance in islam and other nabi?.Why Muhammad Sallaho Alaihe Wasallam if wants love and political agenda why don't he called himself god, why he said to submit to Allah and not him?. Don't you think by saying that he is god he must have become powerful more.What proof you had that Muhammad Sallaho Alaihe Wasallam is not Prophet and Allah is not god.If you come with solid proof i guarantee you, i will leave islam.As I know you will never can come with proof, everything's gives proof that Allah is our god and saying wrong things about our creater is not in your favour brother so watch your tongue before saying anything about islam.Making cartoons does it sounds good "cartoon word", it means you are making fun of someone by making cartoon of him its totally wrong to make cartoon of any Profets either its Jesus Christ also.
I have no idea what most of your post means or if it is even addressing me, but there is one thing I'd like to comment on:
"Making cartoons does it sounds good "cartoon word", it means you are making fun of someone by making cartoon of him"
No, not all cartoons are for making fun of people. There is a pretty decent animated Dreamworks film depicting the life of Moses called "The Prince of Egypt." It doesn't make fun of Moses in any way. Despite that, it was banned in Maldives and Malaysia for depicting an Islamic prophet. Do you agree with this decision?
If you are under the opinion that all cartoons are making fun of someone, shouldn't you be against cartoons in general, not just cartoons of prophets?
"What I am dismayed with is your claiming that a religion is either false or breeds terrorism"
I wouldn't put it in those terms. I've simply made an observation about the possibilities that are available, which are as follows:
Religion A has text which advocates for peace. All (or at least an overwhelming majority) of its followers are peaceful. There is no problem with this religion.
Religion B has text which advocates for peace. Its followers (or a significant proportion of which) are violent. There is no problem with this religion, but there is a problem with its followers.
Religion C has text which advocates for violence. Its followers (or a significant proportion of which) are violent. There is a significant problem with both this religion and its followers.
Religion D has text which advocates for violence. Its followers (or a significant proportion of which) are peaceful. There is no significant issue with its followers, though there may be a potential issue with the religion itself.
Islam is either Religion B or Religion C IMO.
"Most religions have a few or many who act on their own interpretation of their religion"
Yes, and for the most part this is fine as long as their interpretation is not used as justification for things like stonings and beheadings.
"Just as with many ignorant Christians and or Jews with regards to knowledge of their faiths there are Muslims who are and act in the same way."
If you're able to give me similar poll numbers for ignorant Christians and Jews that hold violent beliefs based on their religion (as I have done with Muslims) I will be happy to condemn them.
"I referenced Paul's word in Corinthians to give you an example of the writers condemnation in light of your singling out Islams condemnation of similar things."
I am "singling out Islam" in a thread discussing whether or not Islam is peaceful. If this were a thread about whether other religions are peaceful or not I'd single those out too.
"But as you say you have no issue with those who peacefully practice Islam you seem to judge their religion by those that neither understand or follow the peaceful tenets of the religion."
I judge Islam based on the average Muslim, so yes.
"Do you not make a distinction between the teachings of the religion and the actions of its' followers? No religious following has 100% of it's followers in accordance with all the teachings and righteousness of it's Prophet. That is the crux of atonement within each and every one of them. If forgiveness was not a component, none would follow."
I am aware. The issue here is not that Muslims are not following all of their teachings perfectly, but rather that the average Muslim is unaware of their teachings in the first place.
"But I don't condemn what millions of people who peacefully practice their faith in it."
As I have already stated, I don't condemn peaceful Muslims and I don't think anyone in their right mind does. But in language it's quite common and often useful to make generalizations based on a pattern. "Trees are green" is not necessarily a statement claiming that every tree is green, for example.
Islam produces many viable celebrations in the worlds' cultural anthropology that promote benefit, for you, and to mankind. If man continues to recognize where ownership and blame are due then a love of righteousness is promoted.
The vice of individuals is absolutely not a need to blame an entire religion for non-peaceful ritual choices of man. And religion in a fundamental sense, how I reference my comment, gives foundation to peaceful lives and habits.
I believe that religion is for peace. Whether Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, or not, the primary focus of religion is peace. When we say peace, it involves love and understanding. Love involves care, respect of differences, and understand human uniqueness. Religion should help us reflect what life is. However, if religion pushes us to be judgmental, to hate others, and to eliminate others due to their differences and uniqueness, then such religion is not the way it is supposed to be. I do not know if I am understood; however, I strongly make my point.
by paarsurrey 12 years ago
Islam spread in Australia very peacefully, as per the teachings of Quran/Islam/Muhammad, this could be observed from the following account from Wikipedia:Islam in Australia is the fourth largest religious grouping, after Christianity, "No Religion", and Buddhism. According to the 2006...
by sadia101 5 years ago
What is the first thing that comes to your mind when you hear MUSLIMS?Now days it seems like the media loves one group, and talks about it all the time which is the adheres of Islam that are called Muslims. The average person who watches TV gets bombarded with this images, ideas, perspectives...
by thirdmillenium 6 years ago
Does Islam contain some doctrines that make it mandatory for all Muslims to kill/destroy/annihilate followers of other religions/atheists/agnostics? Some say it does. Some others say it was not originally in the text but had been stealthily inserted later by religious fanatics.
by Mark Knowles 10 years ago
http://www.france24.com/en/20121004-art … unir-fatmi
by paarsurrey 7 years ago
Hi friendsIslam spread very peacefully in Europe as can be seen from the following account of the Wikipedia:A major development in the history of Muslim Spain was the dynastic change in 750 in the Arab Caliphate, when an Ummayad Prince escaped the slaughter of his family in Damascus, fled to...
by navneetjha 8 years ago
All muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are muslims. What do you think?I know its bit sesitive issues. However I was thinking why most of the terrorists in the world are muslims? Is it something to do with their faith which is rigid and do not change with time. For example, in my religion...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|