Facsim: 1.A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. 2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. Oppressive, dictatorial control. That's straight out of the dictionary. So - what is meant by the term islamofascist? To me, the term refers to those who by ANY means possible wish to make islam (their version) the ONLY religion on the planet, with them at the head of a totalitarian regime, in the strictest fascistic sense, called a caliphate. Therefore islamofascism is the belief that NO one anywhere on earth has any knowledge of any religion that might be pertinent or relevant, and everyone except those who believe as THEY do are liars, kafir, infidels. Thoughts? E.

Let me start by saying that my knowledge of the Islam is very limited. But here goes: How can a religion say that you have the right to kill when the religion itself is attacked? I don't know mu7ch, but last I looked people attacked people. Countries, attack countries but the last, lets say 2000 years there has been nobody comming down from upstairs telling us to do things. So therefore I must conclude that people want to attack people and use "religion" as a convienient stick to beat with. Futhermore to all muslim or otherwise knowledable people: 1. Can you tell me why Islam countries are often oppressing their people? If Islam is so great people will chose it voluntairly. 2. why do moslims think that democracy=christianity? Just look at Turkey 3. Why do moslims blame the USA all the time? It seems to me that wherever the arab countires have opened dialog with the US(and the rest of the world) their countries have prospered. (egypt, bahrein, maleisia, turkey, etc) The countries with the biggest objections to the USA are the ones with the poorest peoples, most illiteracy etc. Is it me or would it be a job for the whole arab world to correct each other, be open, and start a dialog with everybody? 4. Why did the US had to come and kick saddam out of Kuweit, why didn't the arabs step up? 5. Why don't the arabs come up with a peace plan other than "kick out the jews!!" 6. Why do arabs think it's a good idea the blow up innocent people? When Isreal / USA stricke back at least they try to minimalize the "extra" damage. If you think you're at war go after the politicians, soldiers, etc, but leave the civilians out of it! 7. When islamitic fighters engage in a firefight with the US/uk/etc soldiers they often do so hiding in mosks, schools, groups of civilians. Than when fire is returned the people blame the soldiers and cheer for the islamitic freedom fighters.......I don't get it, why are they never blamed? I could go on and om and on, but for now...please educate me

interrested 2 good luck buddy.i dont think they can rationize it in there own brains,much less on this board.

moving to sacramento,might be a little while b4 ill be back.I SHALL RETURN as the coward gen macarthur chanted.{he left his men to die as he scurried to the aussie mainland,he wasnt ordered by frankie to leave.he pleaded to leave and was granted permission}

You said, "How can a religion say that you have the right to kill when the religion itself is attacked? I don't know mu7ch, but last I looked people attacked people. Countries, attack countries but the last, lets say 2000 years there has been nobody comming down from upstairs telling us to do things. So therefore I must conclude that people want to attack people and use "religion" as a convienient stick to beat with." Ok, yes, I can agree with that to a certain degree - but not totally. As a Christian I am bound to be peaceful, unless attacked; I am to teach my faith to all I come in contact with - but not to force it on them. (point of a sword thing). So I will tell you "God loves you, Jesus died for you, we are all sinners and need to be saved." and you come back and tell me, "I don't believe all that religious tripe, get stuffed, and don't EVER bother me again with it!" At that point, I have no further involvment directly with you on attempting to convert you to my faith. In the west, since about the late 18th century, MOST nations have come to a realization that the seperation of church and state is a good thing. Here is what THAT was all about: The state should not tell me what church to go to, what God to worship, nor should I pay taxes that support a belief or church I don't agree with. The early colonies had state supported churches. if you dissagreed with their interpretation of the Bible and didn't go to church, you could be arrested, fined, imprissoned, or all of the above. islamofascists would have us return to a state where the church and state are basically one entity. further, there would be NO choice in religion except theirs. The penalties for not believing their way is imprisonment or death. Now, what I'm seeing, from doing a bit of research, and from learning from some very scholarly folks here on SP boards, is that what we call islamofascists are actually taking the koran to it's most literal interpretation. The koran says, "And the servants of (allah) Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility and when the ignorant address them, they say, "Peace!" (sura 25:63) Now that sura points to peace, yes? Then you get this, "allaah the Most High and Most Majestic, has stated the objectives behind jihaad in the cause of allaah the Most High. He, the Most Perfect, says: "Fight them until there is no more fitnah(shirk [false religion]), and the religion will be for allaah Alone. But if they cease (worshipping others besides allaah)then certainly allaah is All-Seer of what they do[words of Soorah al-Anfaal]." Also, "Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the [that is, all] religion is god's entirely [2:189, 8:39] and god's word is upermost[9:40], therefore, according to all muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought..." (from shaykh sa'eed ibn 'ali ibn wahf al-qahtaani, "The Levels of jihad" So, if they are to be at peace, as directed by the koran, but they are also supposed to go to war with those who do not agree with them - wow. what to do? Talk about conflicting stories. sheesh. Seems that the overriding theme is actually "kill everyone who does not conform to our picture of a true believer." E.

elbandeedo, thx for the nfo, I'm really not home in religious stuff, but I get pissed when I see people dying because some idiot thinks HE is the true believer and everybody else must believe him....you're right "get stuffed"! :) PS good postings on your side, I hope the thread continues

"Talk about conflicting stories. sheesh." Yeah, I had that problem when I read the Koran the first time too. The Koran directly contridicts itself in several places, and I discovered that these contridictions were not regarded by orthodox Islamic scholars as merely apparant contridictions the way that they would be in Biblical scholarship. Instead, I learned that orthodox Islamic scholars teach something very like a 'doctrine of superceding revelation'. The theory runs something like this, when The Prophet first recieved God's revelation the revelation was incomplete and his understanding of it was incomplete. As God revealed more and more of his will to Mohammed, Mohammed's understanding becare more and more complete. Therefore, where The Prophet appears to contridict himself it is because the earlier pronouncement was made with incomplete understanding and it is supercede by pronouncements made latter in life when his revelation and understanding was more complete. Finally, at the time of The Prophet's death, his understanding was perfect and complete (and therefore unsupercedable). This little bit of theological trivia turns out to have very important implications for my relationship as a Christian to a Moslem with an orthodox interpretation of the Koran. When Mohammed first started recieving his visions about the One God, he was accepted in the nascent Christian community in Mecca as a fellow believer. Gradually, however, as his revelations began to depart from orthodox understanding of the One God , and specifically to deny the Incarnation of The Christ, his death, and resurection, the Christian (and Jewish) community revised their opinion and became some of his most ardent detractors. Not surprisingly, while the Christian and Jewish communities were embrasing him and protecting him during the early period of his rise to power as a cult figure, he spoke of them very graciously and made pronouncements of friendship with them. However, when the Christian community pronounced that his teachings were not in fact revelations from God, Mohammed say this as a deep betrayal and his latter pronouncements toward Christians and most especially Jews are filled with venom. By the orthodox understanding of the Koran, the theological implication was that God had not yet revealed to Mohammed the 'perfidy' of Jews and Christians, and after God did, that the theological implication was that Moslems were encouraged to fight with and subjegate Jews and Christians whereever they were encountered. Thus, all those early charitable pronouncements are meaningless to anyone who takes the Koran seriously (or at least seriously in the way that a majority of Islamic sects do). They make good platitudes to tell Christians when you fear them, but as soon as you gain the upper hand under orthodox Islamic theology - and I'm not talking about 'radical islam' but something like what we call 'mainstream Christianity' - you undertake to conquer them. That's the way the Koran reads, and that's the way respected commentary on the Koran reads. The main theological dispute between orthodox Islam and radical Islam on this issue, is who has the right to declare Jihad. The orthodox group insist that the declaration of Jihad is a right reserved to the (religious) state, and that a war against Christianity must be declared, conducted, and organized at this level. The radical wing insists that Jihad is the duty of every Moslem at all times, and that explicit permission by the state is not only not required, but where it is lacking is proof that the state is not part of the sphere of Islam. I tell you the truth, when I first started reading the Koran, I was shocked. I did not expect to find what I found. I thought, since they religion was putatively derived from Judeo-Christian sources, that it would differ from Christianity as Judiasm differs from Christianity, or perhaps as Mormonism differs from Catholicism. At most, I thought that it would differ from Christianity to the same degree that Buddism, or Socratic Humanism, or some of the more proactive Hindu sects do. Instead what I found was a religion that was literally incomprehensible, lacked philosophical rigor, was less prosaic than the book of Mormon, and differed from Christianity almost as much as Greek paganism or Aztec blood cults differ from Christianity. That was kind of shocking to me. My experience in religious studies didn't prepare me for the existance of that sort of religion of hatred and death as a widespread and present thing. Even though I have always believed in the exclusivity of Christian truth, I had always viewed other religions I had studied as groping for the truth and at least in part finding some beautiful thing. I didn't find that of Islam. For example, one of the first verses I encountered was this: "It is not allowed to you to take women afterwards, nor that you should change them for other wives, though their beaut

See what I mean Interested2? Scholars. I know a little. I've read some. I am gaining knowledge. and then someone like Celebrim comes along and makes me feel like an utter moron. :-/ Thanks Celebrim. That is a beautiful post. I'll have to read it a little more in the morning, I've been at the computer since Oh-Dark-thirty, and my eyes are bleary, my understanding is diminished. Oh yeah, Celebrim; Please drop SW an email and get MY email from him and drop me a line; I have an off board query for you, if you don't mind. Cheers, E.

I must say that there are mant different translations and interpreations of Islam. Most Turks belonged to Hanefi sect(group) of Sunni's or Alevi sect (which is somewhere between Sunni and Shia). Both this sects are known as very moderate. What you just have written about 'doctrine of superceding revelation' is totaly nonsense in our belief (I am Hanefi). In our belief there is no contradiction in Islam. Some Sures' telling about general issues, some are about specific issues. I am not a scholar of religion. So my knowledge is up to this. Mu guess is you probably read a radical interpreation of Kuran. I am right in the middle of a computer server crise, so I can not write more right now.

I believe most of the misunderstandings about Islam comes from confusing major groups of Islam. Secularist group: Popular in Turkey, Azerbeycan, Turkmenistan, Ozbekistan. Mostly followers of Hanefi and Alevi sects. This group believes that every man's religion is for himself. Noone can enter between a person and the God. Governmental and religious matters are seprate. Government must not have any law about or concerning religion. Modernist group: Popular in North Africa, Bayreyn, Kuwait, Malaysia, Syria, Saddam era Iraq. Similar to secularist group. Main differance is this group believes that government can not seprate itself from religion totaly. Government must have laws concerning about religional rights. For example in Turkey, religionist symbols are forbidden for government officials and in schools (same issue that France is now discussing). In modernist countries they are free. Modernists believe that secularists are limiting freedom of will (which I disagree). Conservatists: Saudia Arabia, Yemen, UAE. Conservatives believe that religion must be controlled by government. In this countries non-believers of state religion must respect state religion. In these countries every day life is programmed according to religion. For example it is forbidden by law to eat/drink something in public at daylight times during Ramadan (no penalty only warning). Law must be written paralel to Kuran. Fundementalist group. Iran, Taliban, Hamas. Numereous minor groups worldwide. This group even frightens conservatists. They believe that western powers are trying to destroy Islam culture. They are not trying to conquer world. In their belief they are trying to protect Islam. Most groups cooperates worldwide by internet. They are the ones that declared Jihads. Right now they have ongoing Jihads in Afganistan, Iraq, Checynia, Palestian. They described their tactics as defensive. In all muslim groups only fundementalists believe that lying to a non-believer is OK. The reasoning of fundementalism about 9/11. According to fundementalist, citizens of a democratic country are directly responsible what their governments do as they selected them. For them 9/11 is a payback for US bombardment of Iraq during GW1. Fundementalist are declared muslims who helped USA, Israel and Russia in their invasion of muslim populations as also enemies. As Saudia Arabia is a monarchy, in this country attacks are only directed to US troops or royal family. As Turkey is a democracy, they are bombing places which have US, UK, Israel connections. Which means a shopping center which has UK partners, a street which has a Sinagog etc.. Take note that Fundementalism is far different than Facism. Saddam's regime can be classified as Facist as they are Arab Nationalists but they are modernist in Islam. Fundementalists do not believe in nation or race. For them there are only believers and non-believers (including all muslims who do not share their belief). War of Civilizations is totaly non-sense. Only Fundementalists have agendas of continous war in Muslim world. The wars aginst Israel were mostly the result of Arab Nationalism. Syria was threatening Turkey for years that our Hatay province is belonged to them. There was a plecipite at republic of Hatay at 1938 in which Republic joined with Turkey with a very high vote majority. Of course with no effect. Against Turkey, Syria could not find any ally; but against Israel they had found. Any questions?