What really irks me about the tea party is their foreign policy and views on Muslims

[ibaghdadi]

Saudi Arabia
Iran
Algeria
Five States in Malaysia
Yemen
Bahrain
Oman
Qatar
Jordan

Please don't conflate what a certain government or political party does with "Islam". Saudi Arabia also prohibits women from driving, and Tehran is the only capital in the world that doesn't have a Sunni mosque. This is hardly "Islamic".

I don't get my opinions about Christianity from the Spanish Inquisition, for example.

The long list that you gave are exactly the "tyrannical regimes" that we Muslims keep complaining receive US financial and military aid.

To get the final word on "apostasy" in Islam, read this detailed article. It's quite long and goes into significant detail.

So what? They conquered the arabian peninsula, Persia, the levant, north, Africa, and southern spain, by force, just because not all islamic countries were conquered by muhammad's armies, doesn't mean most countries which are Islamic today weren't.

And while successive Islamic empires spread very fast, much of the expansion was by dynasties of sultans who aimed at personal glorification. Islam was not forced upon the population. Egypt, for example, remained majority Christian for the first 400 years after Islamic rule and only became Islamized after the Crusades, some argue as a reaction to the brutality of the Crusader armies.

Quote:

“History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated” [De Lacy O’Leary in ‘Islam at the Crossroads,’ London, 1923]

I'm really puzzled by the enmity I see for Islam as a religion, culture and civilization - I really am. Very rarely do I find a Christian who is able to have respect for Islam. I mean, Christians did some very horrible things in the past, and the Bible has many surprisingly bloody passages.

Yet I don't equate this with Christianity and I am able to have a deep respect for Christianity, and never did nor ever will say that it's an antithesis to liberty and justice.

 

[BlackTerrel]

I've never been to NY and probably never will. I could care less if the mosque gets built and am sick of hearing about it. If I had it my way, somebody would build a 13-story billboard that says "9/11 was an inside job" on the site.

In regards to the wars, I will never again support any war no matter what the circumstances. I hope we lose these wars because we are in the wrong.

Honestly your type of attitude pisses me off as much if not more than that of the tea party expressed in the OP. And to be frank it is views like yours that turn people off the message and to the neocons.

If you want America to lose keep it to yourself.

"You know [insert teocon's name here], I don't see why our troops should have to stay over there and help those backward ragheads to rebuild their nation. We've been over there for ten years now [actually a lot longer, but don't confuse their tiny brains, since everything in their mind started since 9/11], and those people won't step up and take control of their own country. I say, "f*ck 'em". It's time to come home, stay on our guard, and if anyone messes with us, we just blow 'em up. We don't have to give up our security, but we sure as hell ought to stop putting our troops' lives on the line for theirs."

Pretty much. Although you don't have to come it from a perspective of being so smart and they have "such tiny brains".

If you make the argument that the wars are not in our interests - it costs a lot of our own money, resources, and lives, and doesn't actually cause any good or stop the terror threat - you will be in good shape. 90% of people will either agree with you or at least cede that you have a valid point.

If you make the point expressed by some here "we're so bad", "they're so great", "I hope we lose" you will be rejected by 90% and never accomplish anything.

It's all about whether we want to 1) help stop the wars or 2) we want to get on some fucking moral high ground and preach and laugh about how everyone else is so dumb. To me it's a pretty easy #1 and the gist of what you said is the most effective way to do that.

 

[Minuteman2012]

Please don't conflate what a certain government or political party does with "Islam". Saudi Arabia also prohibits women from driving, and Tehran is the only capital in the world that doesn't have a Sunni mosque. This is hardly "Islamic".

I don't get my opinions about Christianity from the Spanish Inquisition, for example.

The long list that you gave are exactly the "tyrannical regimes" that we Muslims keep complaining receive US financial and military aid.

To get the final word on "apostasy" in Islam, read this detailed article. It's quite long and goes into significant detail.




And while successive Islamic empires spread very fast, much of the expansion was by dynasties of sultans who aimed at personal glorification. Islam was not forced upon the population. Egypt, for example, remained majority Christian for the first 400 years after Islamic rule and only became Islamized after the Crusades, some argue as a reaction to the brutality of the Crusader armies.

Quote:


I'm really puzzled by the enmity I see for Islam as a religion, culture and civilization - I really am. Very rarely do I find a Christian who is able to have respect for Islam. I mean, Christians did some very horrible things in the past, and the Bible has many surprisingly bloody passages.

Yet I don't equate this with Christianity and I am able to have a deep respect for Christianity, and never did nor ever will say that it's an antithesis to liberty and justice.

I didn't realize tyranny was ok because the US subsidized it, maybe you are on the wrong form. The line here, that is, Ron Paul's line, is that we oppose aid to tyrannical regimes which create enemies for us, and want to stay out of irrational middle eastern politics. And why should I not trust Iranian or Saudi Clerics on the matter? The say the Koran and hadith dictates the death penalty. What makes you any more of a religious authority? Is it not possible you just represent an entirely different strand of Islam? It seems like the majority of Islamic authorities(not all, but most, think this is a suitable penalty). And it is a nice an lengthy article, but the Hadith, which correct me if I am wrong, is an Islamic holy book. I will link it here.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/apostasy.htm

Look, I am sure you are a nice guy, and I am sure there are nice Muslims, but there are damning passages in your holy books that are used as fodder for tyrannical governments in the middle east to oppress their people. And unfortunately, they make up a large sect of your religion. Look, maybe you aren't a literalist, I think this is a good thing. If that is the case, we need more muslims like you. Islam needs an enlightenment and this radical nonsense needs to be quelled once and for all by moderate muslims.

Islam was most certainly forced on the populations of arab tribes throughout the middle east, either they converted or were military defeated then converted.

 

[Fozz]

Please don't conflate what a certain government or political party does with "Islam". Saudi Arabia also prohibits women from driving, and Tehran is the only capital in the world that doesn't have a Sunni mosque. This is hardly "Islamic".

I don't get my opinions about Christianity from the Spanish Inquisition, for example.

The long list that you gave are exactly the "tyrannical regimes" that we Muslims keep complaining receive US financial and military aid.

To get the final word on "apostasy" in Islam, read this detailed article. It's quite long and goes into significant detail

And while successive Islamic empires spread very fast, much of the expansion was by dynasties of sultans who aimed at personal glorification. Islam was not forced upon the population. Egypt, for example, remained majority Christian for the first 400 years after Islamic rule and only became Islamized after the Crusades, some argue as a reaction to the brutality of the Crusader armies.

I'm really puzzled by the enmity I see for Islam as a religion, culture and civilization - I really am. Very rarely do I find a Christian who is able to have respect for Islam. I mean, Christians did some very horrible things in the past, and the Bible has many surprisingly bloody passages.

Yet I don't equate this with Christianity and I am able to have a deep respect for Christianity, and never did nor ever will say that it's an antithesis to liberty and justice.

You have made some excellent posts in this thread.

 

[ibaghdadi]

I didn't realize tyranny was ok because the US subsidized it, maybe you are on the wrong form.

Well I never said that it's OK, don't know how you got that. These regimes would be long gone if the US didn't subsidize them.

And why should I not trust Iranian or Saudi Clerics on the matter?

Because they are not independent. Just follow the money - who pays their salaries? The very fact that they're willing to condone tyranny in the name of religion should make it very clear they aren't to be trusted.

The say the Koran ... dictates the death penalty.

There isn't a single verse in the Qur'an that says that apostates should be killed. In fact, the Qur'an's message is exactly the opposite:

Qur'an 10:99: If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!

Here the Qur'an states that if God wanted he would make all people believers, so who is anyone to actually force people to believe?

What makes you any more of a religious authority? Is it not possible you just represent an entirely different strand of Islam?

All Islamic rulings go back to the Qur'an (in word and spirit) and to the authenticated hadith (interpreted within context). Different schools can argue over the interpretation but not over the sources. Each successive generation is expected to add to the "fiqh" or understanding of the religious texts within the context of their society and times. This isn't a view held by me personally, it's canonical.

It seems like the majority of Islamic authorities(not all, but most, think this is a suitable penalty).

There's no doubt that it used to be at a previous historical epoch. The article cites examples that modern Muslims largely abandoned it. I'm quoting the article here:

Abandoned by the leading Sunni authority in 1844:

Punishment for apostasy (in any case, extremely rare) was not in practice enforced in later times and was completely abolished by the [Ottoman] Turks by a decree of the Ottoman government in 1260/1844.
(The New Encyclopedia of Islam, by Cyril Glasse, p.54)

Abandoned by the leading Arab authority in 1953:

The debate triggered by the Ottoman reform was continued when al-Azhar University in Cairo, the supreme religious authority in the Arab world, delivered a formal fatwa (religious edict) in 1958, which confirmed the abolition of the classical law in this area.
(T.J. Winters writing for Newsweek)

And it is a nice an lengthy article, but the Hadith, which correct me if I am wrong, is an Islamic holy book.

"Hadith" isn't a holy book, it's a collection of the sayings of the Prophet. Hadiths come in various levels of "authenticity", ranging from "strong" (i.e. it's almost certain the prophet said it) to "weak" (i.e. it's almost certain the prophet didn't say it). Furthermore, hadiths cannot be taken without their context because unlike the Qur'an, they are not considered timeless.

there are damning passages in your holy books that are used as fodder for tyrannical governments in the middle east to oppress their people.

Yes, and that's precisely our complaint. "Official" clerics are in the employ of the dictators and their job is simple - to use religion to keep people servile to the tyrants. Virtually all Muslims see through this, and widely believe that these regimes are anti-Islamic. When the late Sheikh Tantawi, the "Grand Mufti" of Egypt died not too long ago, many Muslims passed greeting messages (I saw more than a few on Facebook, for example.)

Islam needs an enlightenment and this radical nonsense needs to be quelled once and for all by moderate muslims.

I'll quote the article again:

The point is that the Islamic state had embraced change and reform of their religious understanding. The debate had begun, but after World War I, the Allies occupied Turkey and Arab lands. They broke up the Ottoman Empire, and carved out mandate states, installing despots into power, something which of course retarded further Muslim intellectual growth.

The modern Muslim world is living with the consequences of these events. Unfortunately, feelings of anti-Westernism have emerged as a backlash to colonialism and subsequent events. Extremists and religious fundamentalists began to define themselves in opposition to the West; the more the West condemned their extreme understandings of Islam, the more “street cred” these fundamentalists garnered. Hey, if the West hates you, and the West is the colonialist, then you must be right! Such was the thought process.

 

[bunklocoempire]

Depressed Liberator- What really irks me about the tea party is their foreign policy and views on Muslims

I hear ya.




From a post I put up on another forum. "Hallowed ground" has been the latest catch phrase. But a good talking point.

Bunkloco wrote:These arguments kinda sound familiar, where have I heard them?

Oh yeah. Not a mosque being jammed down someone’s throat, but foreign troops.

In other words, we would have no mosque in our nation of property rights and religious freedom “overlooking hallowed ground”, but we believe our troops should be welcomed through out the world on other's “hallowed ground”.

I imagine a good number of Osama followers view/ed foreign military and monetary support in their area as 'recruiting for Satan', as well as 'gaining a foothold' etc..

What do ya know, disdain for foreign intrusion and mistrust of foreign government is a common thing.


Note the date.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html
The following text is the second fatwa originally published on February 23, 1998, to declare a holy war, or jihad, against the West and Israel.
It is signed by Osama bin Laden, head of al Qaeda; Ayman al-Zawahiri, head of Jihad Group in Egypt, and several other Islamic terrorist groups.

Praise be to God, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but God is worshipped, God who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.

The Arabian Peninsula has never -- since God made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas -- been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations. All this is happening at a time in which nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food. In the light of the grave situation and the lack of support, we and you are obliged to discuss current events, and we should all agree on how to settle the matter.
No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.
If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.
So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al-Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said: "As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed [by the ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life." On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:

The 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 and the holy mosque [Mecca] 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 God, "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 God."

This is in addition to the words of Almighty God: "And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? -- women and children, whose cry is: 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'"
We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.

Almighty God said: "O ye who believe, give your response to God and His Apostle, when He calleth you to that which will give you life. And know that God cometh between a man and his heart, and that it is He to whom ye shall all be gathered."
Almighty God also says: "O ye who believe, what is the matter with you, that when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of God, ye cling so heavily to the earth! Do ye prefer the life of this world to the hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For God hath power over all things."
Almighty God also says: "So lose no heart, nor fall into despair. For ye must gain mastery if ye are true in faith."

And I put this on another forum in reply to an anti-individual freedom "article":

"...Most Americans, however, seem to understand that we are engaged in a battle for the soul of America. No amount of genuflection toward our enemies will make us safer. And each accommodation we make in the name of political correctness brings us one step closer to ruin.
It is both fascinating and infuriating that the mosque’s supporters do not understand this simple truth. Or perhaps they do understand it, but simply choose to ignore it."

Joe Muslim in the Middle East would agree about his 'hallowed ground'. Disdain for foreign intrusion and mistrust of government is a universal theme.

Bunkloco wrote:"...Most muslims , however, seem to understand that we are engaged in a battle for the soul of the Holy Land. No amount of genuflection toward our enemies will make us safer. And each accommodation we make in the name of political correctness brings us one step closer to ruin.

It is both fascinating and infuriating that the Coaltion Force supporters do not understand this simple truth."

That ain't guilt or hating America, it's understanding human nature and applying it evenly so as to avoid things like perpetual war. Ignore human nature at your own risk.

By the way, it is an election cycle and time of course to pound home the supposed "differences" between the two parties. What a coincidence that the mosque should be talked about endlessly by both.

Bunkloco

 

[Minuteman2012]

I will only post once more on this issue, but that verse you cited is just a verse against forced conversion, but it doesn't say that you shouldn't kill apostates.

 

[acptulsa]

Our people in Montana held the first Tea Party in over two hundred years. So how is this movement in no way ours?

What I find depressing is how much more seriously this is taken since the opportunistic has-beens popped up. Seriously now. The MSM spend twenty years doing its damndest to convince everyone not to take Newt Gingrich seriously, and now they crown the bastard king of our movement.

Yes, events are depressing, 'liberator'. But don't let depression convince you to try to convince us to give up on our baby just when we can do the most good by attending and speaking out!

 

[Slutter McGee]

You guys are getting all confused. There is a difference between the Establishment and Neo-cons. Neo-cons could care less about co-opting the teaparty movement. The establishment is certainly trying though.

The neo-con agenda is being carried out by Obama just like it was by Bush. Why should they care about a Republican controlled congress?

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

 

[Minuteman2012]

You guys are getting all confused. There is a difference between the Establishment and Neo-cons. Neo-cons could care less about co-opting the teaparty movement. The establishment is certainly trying though.

The neo-con agenda is being carried out by Obama just like it was by Bush. Why should they care about a Republican controlled congress?

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

This.

 

[Vessol]

You guys are getting all confused. There is a difference between the Establishment and Neo-cons. Neo-cons could care less about co-opting the teaparty movement. The establishment is certainly trying though.

The neo-con agenda is being carried out by Obama just like it was by Bush. Why should they care about a Republican controlled congress?

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

They like playing opposite sides. It's like a swing, sometimes they'll push one side sometimes they'll push another. It's all to continue power.

 

[Slutter McGee]

I know it seems like I am always playing semantic games, always arguing the differences between neo-cons, establishment, traditional republicans etc. But I think these distinctions are key to understanding who our political enemy really is.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

 

[ibaghdadi]

I will only post once more on this issue

Fair enough...

but that verse you cited is just a verse against forced conversion, but it doesn't say that you shouldn't kill apostates.

Well killing apostates is a fancy type of forced conversion. "Convert back or we'll kill you."

Besides, my point was that there isn't a single verse in the Qur'an supporting death for apostates, and that point stands.

 

[ibaghdadi]

I know it seems like I am always playing semantic games, always arguing the differences between neo-cons, establishment, traditional republicans etc. But I think these distinctions are key to understanding who our political enemy really is.

+1

I don't think they are semantic games at all, I think they're important distinctions and should be made clear.

 

[oyarde]

Well I never said that it's OK, don't know how you got that. These regimes would be long gone if the US didn't subsidize them.


Because they are not independent. Just follow the money - who pays their salaries? The very fact that they're willing to condone tyranny in the name of religion should make it very clear they aren't to be trusted.


There isn't a single verse in the Qur'an that says that apostates should be killed. In fact, the Qur'an's message is exactly the opposite:

​

Here the Qur'an states that if God wanted he would make all people believers, so who is anyone to actually force people to believe?


All Islamic rulings go back to the Qur'an (in word and spirit) and to the authenticated hadith (interpreted within context). Different schools can argue over the interpretation but not over the sources. Each successive generation is expected to add to the "fiqh" or understanding of the religious texts within the context of their society and times. This isn't a view held by me personally, it's canonical.


There's no doubt that it used to be at a previous historical epoch. The article cites examples that modern Muslims largely abandoned it. I'm quoting the article here:

Abandoned by the leading Sunni authority in 1844:


Abandoned by the leading Arab authority in 1953:



"Hadith" isn't a holy book, it's a collection of the sayings of the Prophet. Hadiths come in various levels of "authenticity", ranging from "strong" (i.e. it's almost certain the prophet said it) to "weak" (i.e. it's almost certain the prophet didn't say it). Furthermore, hadiths cannot be taken without their context because unlike the Qur'an, they are not considered timeless.


Yes, and that's precisely our complaint. "Official" clerics are in the employ of the dictators and their job is simple - to use religion to keep people servile to the tyrants. Virtually all Muslims see through this, and widely believe that these regimes are anti-Islamic. When the late Sheikh Tantawi, the "Grand Mufti" of Egypt died not too long ago, many Muslims passed greeting messages (I saw more than a few on Facebook, for example.)


I'll quote the article again:

Some of these regimes may be gone if not helped.What would replace them ? Take a look at Egypt as an example.The govt. subsidizes food.Without that , the starving would revolt.

 

[ibaghdadi]

Some of these regimes may be gone if not helped.What would replace them ? Take a look at Egypt as an example.The govt. subsidizes food.Without that , the starving would revolt.

Well such governments tax people, impose very high customs and tariffs, monopolize vast tracts of irrigable land making people go through an impossible process to get a permit to actually grow anything there... and then turn around and says "you'll starve if it weren't for your government."

I'd say people are starving because of such government.

 

[VirginiaRising]

Why are people still treating the "Tea Party" like a real organization?

They are people who attend Tea Parties, but there is no "official" party line is there? Wouldn't that defeat the whole original purpose?

Don't tell me the MSM is drowning out memories already of early Tea Partiers who made it clear they were NOT a political party?

That's what's irking me.

 

[oyarde]

Well such governments tax people, impose very high customs and tariffs, monopolize vast tracts of irrigable land making people go through an impossible process to get a permit to actually grow anything there... and then turn around and says "you'll starve if it weren't for your government."

I'd say people are starving because of such government.

I see your point.I think there is a problem in some of those areas that the land would not produce enough to feed the population.There is an Indiana National Guard unit in Afghanistan that is an agriculture unit.They are teaching irrigation and diversified crop growing.Maybe that would be a better way of giving foreign aid than what is done now.I would like to quit sending foreign aid money to Egypt ( as an example) , but I do know they use that money to feed the people.