• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nearly 1 in 5 Americans Thinks Obama Is Muslim, Survey Shows

Status
Not open for further replies.
9/11 wasn't even done in the name of Islam. Osama said it was retaliation for American involvement in Lebanon in the 80s so why are we holding Muslims accountable for 9/11?
 
BCR said:
9/11 wasn't even done in the name of Islam. Osama said it was retaliation for American involvement in Lebanon in the 80s so why are we holding Muslims accountable for 9/11?
Click to expand...

because it gives some people a chance to slander a minority they disagree with.
 
Everyones looking at this wrong.

This is a good thing.

It shows LESS of America is stupid then it previously was.

Previously 1 in 4 Americans thought the government had a hand in 9/11.

See, now the crazies are only 1 in 5.

We're reducing the number of crazies!
 
Zyphlin said:
Everyones looking at this wrong.

This is a good thing.

It shows LESS of America is stupid then it previously was.

Previously 1 in 4 Americans thought the government had a hand in 9/11.

See, now the crazies are only 1 in 5.

We're reducing the number of crazies!
Click to expand...

Except some nuts still believe the government had a hand in 9/11.
 
BCR said:
9/11 wasn't even done in the name of Islam. Osama said it was retaliation for American involvement in Lebanon in the 80s so why are we holding Muslims accountable for 9/11?
Click to expand...

Oh will you cut that tired **** out.

A large portion of Bin Laden's isuses with America stem from our dealings with Israel and Palestine (which are rooted in his religious beliefs) and with their involvement in the middle east in general (again tieing in with his religious beliefs). Additionally to that however, having tangible reasons doesn't remove the religious ties to it all. Such as his means of motivating others to do such attacks with such rehtoric as:

"[t]he ruling to kill the Americans and their allies civilians and military - is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Makka) from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, 'and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,' and 'fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah'"


That is a Fatwa put out by him. His issues with Lebanon are both with the generalized issues of upset with a foreign nation aiding an enemy AND with the religious issue of them being in "the lands of Islam". He specifically uses religion to inspire people to do the terrorism they do, to justify it, to excuse it. The very way in which they did the attacks, the suicide bombings, was in and of itself motivated and reasonable to these people based on religious retoric regarding martyring themselves in the name of their god.

Yes, you're absolutely right, it wasn't ONLY religious reasons that caused 9/11 to happen on the part of the terrorists. But it was a large reason and one that has its roots and ties connected to a great deal of the non-religious motivations as well.
 
It surprises me none that 20% of the country gets their education from Rush Limbaugh or FAUXNews.... Hate the game, don't hate the playa.... :mrgreen:
 
What I find sad and somewhat disturbing is that people care.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The facts are that religious tolerance was expressed more in a Muslim country than it was in Christian countries of that time.
Click to expand...

The fact is you are simply wrong all throughout this time period the Muslims were busy perpetrating the largest genocide the world would see until Hitler against the Buddhists and the Hindus on the Indian Subcontinent.

Your choice, to live as a Dhimmi (with all the same or similar rights as a regular citizen) or be killed, expelled, treated as a second class citizen (comparatively speaking)?
Click to expand...

The Dhimmi were in fact 3rd class citizens (women being the 2nd class citizens), they did not have the same rights as Muslims that is an out and out lie. Likewise Christians and Jews were routinely killed during Muslim pogroms the same as Jews in Europe, this whole age of the tolerant Islam is a complete historical fabrication.
 
Agent Ferris said:
The fact is you are simply wrong all throughout this time period the Muslims were busy perpetrating the largest genocide the world would see until Hitler against the Buddhists and the Hindus on the Indian Subcontinent.
Click to expand...

Ok, we are talking about it in comparison to Christianity.
I'd like to see links proving this though.

Agent Ferris said:
The Dhimmi were in fact 3rd class citizens (women being the 2nd class citizens), they did not have the same rights as Muslims that is an out and out lie. Likewise Christians and Jews were routinely killed during Muslim pogroms the same as Jews in Europe, this whole age of the tolerant Islam is a complete historical fabrication.
Click to expand...

Dhimmi's could own property and could, largely, practice their religion freely.
Was it perfect, of course not.

I'd also like to see links with further information on this.

In comparison to Christian Europe, they were free to practice.
 
Mustachio said:
Do you realize that the reason we live in this country is because the colonists wiped out Native Americans,
Click to expand...

Thankyou Ward Churchill, they're are more Native Americans living in North America than there when the evil Europeans started taking censuses.

claiming that they were barbarians who hadn't accepted Christ? And Christopher Columbus did the exact same thing when he came over from Europe. The colonization of both North and South America was based on Christians killing in the name of divine right.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that the Conquistodores were the ones who settled what is today the United States. :roll:

9/11 was not done for religious reasons. It was done for political reasons.
Click to expand...

No it was done for religious reasons the trouble is the Islamist does not distinquish between the religious and the political.

They hate America because America occupies the Arabian peninsula,
Click to expand...

And by occupies you mean has since left after the threat of Saddam was removed, and by occupied you mean was there upon invitation of their sovereign government to defend the Kingdom.

interferes with their politics, inserts puppet dictators
Click to expand...

Cite specific examples.

and steals their oil.
Click to expand...

And by steal you mean found, developed, didn't do anything when they renigged on the agreed upon PSA's, and now continues to purchase.

Moderate Muslims condemn acts of terror, but when you have a whole region destroyed by war and poverty, extremism is going to manifest itself there and it cannot be completely stopped.
Click to expand...

The first Muslim extremist was Mohammad. Islam has been expanding through the sword since its very founding and long long long before the U.S. came onto the scene, so your assertions simply hold no water. And Islam has itself destroyed or nearly destroyed entire peoples and their religions through a vast systematic policy of cultural genocide from the India Subcontinent to North Africa.

It's amazing to me how ignorant Americans still are. Do you think the Muslim world likes Barack Obama? Let me tell you, they don't. They like him better than Bush, but they don't agree with his policies at all. Not that facts are going to persuade you, but I thought at least one or two people here could get something out of the truth.
Click to expand...

You know the policies that I don't agree with? The fact that all five mainstream branches of Islam still call for capital and/or corporal punishment for the non-crimes of apostasy, homosexuality, adultery, and/or premarital sex.
Click to expand...
 
BCR said:
9/11 wasn't even done in the name of Islam. Osama said it was retaliation for American involvement in Lebanon in the 80s so why are we holding Muslims accountable for 9/11?
Click to expand...

And this was in a speech intended for Western consumption IE al-Taqqiya propaganda.

What OBL said in private conversation with his fellow Islamists in a video recording that was not supposed to make it to the Western world was that he was ordered to fight the Infidel until they say there is no god but Allah and Mohammad is his prophet.

OBL is a Qutbist, he is in a war to expand Islam through offensive Jihad against the infidel and secular Muslims until all world governments are replaced by theocracies based on Sharia law with the Koran as their Constitution.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Ok, we are talking about it in comparison to Christianity.
I'd like to see links proving this though.
Click to expand...

Oh I see only monotheistic religions counts when we're talking about religious tolerance.

Anyways wiki will give you a nice base line from which to start:

Persecution of Hindus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dhimmi's could own property and could, largely, practice their religion freely.
Click to expand...

Could not testify against Muslims, could be killed by Muslims outright with only a tribute of blood money to be payed, could not in fact practice their religion in public or prosteltyze to Muslims in any way and suffered immense state and non-state sponsored persecution and numerous pogroms.

Was it perfect, of course not.

I'd also like to see links with further information on this.

In comparison to Christian Europe, they were free to practice.
Click to expand...

Fellows of the book were allowed to practice, this was not the case for the Pagans and it depends when exactly we're talking about in Christian Europe, eg when the Christian religion was first adopted by the Roman empire they were very tolerant of other religions in the territories under their control and that would include the peoples who still practiced Paganism.
 
Agent Ferris said:
Oh I see only monotheistic religions counts when we're talking about religious tolerance.

Anyways wiki will give you a nice base line from which to start:

Persecution of Hindus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Yep, you're moving the goal posts.
We are talking about the comparison to Europe and Christianity at that time.

Agent Ferris said:
Could not testify against Muslims, could be killed by Muslims outright with only a tribute of blood money to be payed, could not in fact practice their religion in public or prosteltyze to Muslims in any way and suffered immense state and non-state sponsored persecution and numerous pogroms.
Click to expand...

I'll withhold comment on your first point until you provide proof.

You're using subjective measures of good and bad here.
Could not practice in public, how?
They were allowed their own communities and places of worship.

Muslims didn't proselytize either, it's not part of their religion to do so.

Life isn't perfect and never claimed that it was.
Compared to European states, which only allowed 1 religion, they were light years ahead.

Agent Ferris said:
Fellows of the book were allowed to practice, this was not the case for the Pagans and it depends when exactly we're talking about in Christian Europe, eg when the Christian religion was first adopted by the Roman empire they were very tolerant of other religions in the territories under their control and that would include the peoples who still practiced Paganism.
Click to expand...

We are talking about the Ottomans compared to their contemporaries.
For a long time the Roman empire killed Christians.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Yep, you're moving the goal posts.
We are talking about the comparison to Europe and Christianity at that time.
Click to expand...

And the Muslims were perpetrating mass democide and cultural genocide on the Indian Subcontinent at that time.


I'll withhold comment on your first point until you provide proof.
Click to expand...

Dhimmi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're using subjective measures of good and bad here.
Could not practice in public, how?
They were allowed their own communities and places of worship.
Click to expand...

They could not wear crosses on the outside of their clothing, they, could not advocate their faith to others, and they could not pray in public either.

Muslims didn't proselytize either, it's not part of their religion to do so.
Click to expand...

lol, it's an integral part of their religion, I'm begining to think you know very little about what you're commenting on.

Dawah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Life isn't perfect and never claimed that it was.


Compared to European states, which only allowed 1 religion, they were light years ahead.
Click to expand...

So there were no non-Christians living in Christianized Europe? Sure thing.

We are talking about the Ottomans compared to their contemporaries.
Click to expand...

Which contemporaries? Europe was not a monolithic entity like the Ottoman Empire.

For a long time the Roman empire killed Christians.
Click to expand...

And for a longtime they didn't.
 
Agent Ferris said:
Thankyou Ward Churchill, they're are more Native Americans living in North America than there when the evil Europeans started taking censuses.
I wasn't aware that the Conquistodores were the ones who settled what is today the United States. :roll:

No it was done for religious reasons the trouble is the Islamist does not distinquish between the religious and the political.
And by occupies you mean has since left after the threat of Saddam was removed, and by occupied you mean was there upon invitation of their sovereign government to defend the Kingdom.
Cite specific examples.
And by steal you mean found, developed, didn't do anything when they renigged on the agreed upon PSA's, and now continues to purchase.
The first Muslim extremist was Mohammad. Islam has been expanding through the sword since its very founding and long long long before the U.S. came onto the scene, so your assertions simply hold no water. And Islam has itself destroyed or nearly destroyed entire peoples and their religions through a vast systematic policy of cultural genocide from the India Subcontinent to North Africa.
You know the policies that I don't agree with? The fact that all five mainstream branches of Islam still call for capital and/or corporal punishment for the non-crimes of apostasy, homosexuality, adultery, and/or premarital sex.
Click to expand...

Native American population in the pre-Columbian era: about 12 million people, estimated as high as 18 million. Native American population according to the 2003 US Census: under 3 million. When you're making a long list of accusations, it's not good to start out with blatent misinformation, but you managed to do just that. And did you see the sentence that followed the one about Columbus -- "North and South America," you think I just threw in South America as a non sequitor? Both continents were taken by Christians who believed that God wanted them to have the land that they desired for wealth and power, just as Muslims believe that God supports their politically motivated terrorist tactics against western targets.

You want examples of United States puppet dictators? How about Hamid Karzai? How about Ilham Aliyev? Look at all we've done to help Musharaff. There is a huge list of incredibly horrible, powerful people in the Middle East that our government assists for tactical reasons.

I'm not interested in arguing about Islam with you. It's just like any other religion: it can be used to justify violence or it can motivate great acts of charity. I don't agree with theocracy and I don't agree with suppressing women's rights or homosexual rights. I have no interest in defending those things.
Click to expand...
 
Agent Ferris said:
And the Muslims were perpetrating mass democide and cultural genocide on the Indian Subcontinent at that time.
Click to expand...

Was reading that link as well.
It said that the time of Mughal control was marked by times of tolerance and times of brutality.

Although that doesn't excuse the brutality at all.
Just seems like it's not all or nothing, like you implied.

Agent Ferris said:
Dhimmi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Dude, did you even read the link?

"The Hanafi school, which represents the vast majority of Muslims, believes that the murder of a dhimmi must be punishable by death, citing a hadith according to which Muhammad ordered the execution of a Muslim who killed a dhimmi. In other schools of Islamic jurisprudence the maximum punishment for the murder of a dhimmi, if perpetrated by a Muslim, was the payment of blood money; no death penalty was possible. For Maliki and Hanbali schools of jurisprudence, the value of a dhimmi's life was one-half the value of a Muslim's life; in the Shafi'i school, Jews and Christians were worth one-third of a Muslim and Zoroastrians were worth just one-fifteenth.[122]"


Agent Ferris said:
They could not wear crosses on the outside of their clothing, they, could not advocate their faith to others, and they could not pray in public either.
Click to expand...

You know, comparatively, that's not a big deal at all.
At least they got to practice, largely, how they wanted to.

Agent Ferris said:
lol, it's an integral part of their religion, I'm begining to think you know very little about what you're commenting on.

Dawah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Be that as it may, Islam does not proselytize like Christianity does with missionaries.
That link provided very little information.

Agent Ferris said:
So there were no non-Christians living in Christianized Europe? Sure thing.
Click to expand...

There were, of course they were persecuted and had limited privileges compared to their peers living in the Ottoman Empire.

Agent Ferris said:
Which contemporaries? Europe was not a monolithic entity like the Ottoman Empire.
Click to expand...

Each state had a (more or less) state religion.
Germany, France, Spain, Britain, etc.

By and large, the Ottoman state was more tolerate of different religious faiths, than Europe was.

Agent Ferris said:
And for a longtime they didn't.
Click to expand...

You're just derailing the discussion with this because you have, at best, flimsy evidence to counter me.
 
Mustachio said:
Native American population in the pre-Columbian era: about 12 million people, estimated as high as 18 million.
Click to expand...

LOL, your article clearly states that this is the highest estimate and that credible estimates go as low as 900,000.

Native American population according to the 2003 US Census: under 3 million. When you're making a long list of accusations, it's not good to start out with blatent misinformation, but you managed to do just that.
Click to expand...

Your own article states that credible estimates put the number as low as 900,000.

And did you see the sentence that followed the one about Columbus -- "North and South America," you think I just threw in South America as a non sequitor? Both continents were taken by Christians who believed that God wanted them to have the land that they desired for wealth and power, just as Muslims believe that God supports their politically motivated terrorist tactics against western targets.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that the settlers in North America were more interested in getting away from religious persecution.


You want examples of United States puppet dictators? How about Hamid Karzai?
Click to expand...

Not a dictator, and was originally elected in free and fair elections though the latest elections were less credible.

How about Ilham Aliyev?
Click to expand...

We didn't install Aliyev, and how exactly is he our puppet?

Look at all we've done to help Musharaff.
Click to expand...

We didn't install him and he sure as hell wasn't our puppet.

There is a huge list of incredibly horrible, powerful people in the Middle East that our government assists for tactical reasons.
Click to expand...

Well aside from the fact that not one of the three countries which you listed are in the Middle East, besides Kharzai we didn't do anything which could even be construed as installing them, and Musharaff actively worked against U.S. interests.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Was reading that link as well.
It said that the time of Mughal control was marked by times of tolerance and times of brutality.


Although that doesn't excuse the brutality at all.
Just seems like it's not all or nothing, like you implied.
Click to expand...

Nothing except the largest genocide until Hitler, more than 13 million Hindus were systematically killed during the Islamic conquests of the Indian Subcontinent.


Dude, did you even read the link?

"The Hanafi school, which represents the vast majority of Muslims, believes that the murder of a dhimmi must be punishable by death, citing a hadith according to which Muhammad ordered the execution of a Muslim who killed a dhimmi. In other schools of Islamic jurisprudence the maximum punishment for the murder of a dhimmi, if perpetrated by a Muslim, was the payment of blood money; no death penalty was possible. For Maliki and Hanbali schools of jurisprudence, the value of a dhimmi's life was one-half the value of a Muslim's life; in the Shafi'i school, Jews and Christians were worth one-third of a Muslim and Zoroastrians were worth just one-fifteenth.[122]"
Click to expand...

1 out of 5 aint bad huh? And you fail to take into account the systematic legal discrimination, the article, also, points out that Christian testimony against a Muslim was seen as worthless, so it would be very difficult to prove crimes perpetrated by Muslims against Christians in the first place.

You know, comparatively, that's not a big deal at all.
At least they got to practice, largely, how they wanted to.
Click to expand...

Compared to who?

Be that as it may, Islam does not proselytize like Christianity does with missionaries.
That link provided very little information.
Click to expand...

Islamic Dawa is exactly the same thing as Christian prostelytizing.

They even have their own missionaries:

Islamic Missionary Activity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There were, of course they were persecuted and had limited privileges compared to their peers living in the Ottoman Empire.
Click to expand...

Prove it.


Each state had a (more or less) state religion.
Germany, France, Spain, Britain, etc.
Click to expand...

And now prove that each of these states acted in the same way towards non-Christians.

By and large, the Ottoman state was more tolerate of different religious faiths, than Europe was.
Click to expand...

The Ottoman Empire encompassed a long time period, the status of Dhimmi's depended upon the rulers of the specific time as was the case in Europe as well.

You're just derailing the discussion with this because you have, at best, flimsy evidence to counter me.
Click to expand...

The point is you're pointing to the Ottoman Empire which had different policies towards Dhimmi's throughout its history, the same is true in relation to Christianized Europe, different states had different policies at different times.a
 
Last edited:
That must be the 20% that actually believe that FauxNews is credible...buy into anything that Hannity/Rush/Beck spew....and actually believed that GWB was a good PResident.
 
Agent Ferris said:
Nothing except the largest genocide until Hitler, more than 13 million Hindus were systematically killed during the Islamic conquests of the Indian Subcontinent.
Click to expand...

Yep and it doesn't excuse it but again you're deflecting the issue away from the tolerance they had over Christians and Jews.


Agent Ferris said:
1 out of 5 aint bad huh? And you fail to take into account the systematic legal discrimination, the article, also, points out that Christian testimony against a Muslim was seen as worthless, so it would be very difficult to prove crimes perpetrated by Muslims against Christians in the first place.
Click to expand...

Deflecting again.
The fact that they could go to a court and had a chance to argue their case was better than the persecutions in Europe.

Agent Ferris said:
Compared to who?
Click to expand...

We've discussed this already.

Agent Ferris said:
Islamic Dawa is exactly the same thing as Christian prostelytizing.

They even have their own missionaries:

Islamic Missionary Activity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Except in the Ottoman empire this was not largely practiced and those Muslims largely did not do this.

Agent Ferris said:
Prove it.
Click to expand...

Christian debate on persecution and toleration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It covers all the areas I mentioned. ;)


Agent Ferris said:
And now prove that each of these states acted in the same way towards non-Christians.
Click to expand...

Forced conversion, execution of heretics and expulsion.
All cataloged in the above link.

Agent Ferris said:
The Ottoman Empire encompassed a long time period, the status of Dhimmi's depended upon the rulers of the specific time as was the case in Europe as well.
Click to expand...

Which largely compared to Europe was better.

Agent Ferris said:
The point is you're pointing to the Ottoman Empire which had different policies towards Dhimmi's throughout its history, the same is true in relation to Christianized Europe, different states had different policies at different times.a
Click to expand...

Yep but over the course of the Ottoman Empire, relations between the different religions, were better in the Ottoman Empire than they were in Europe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom