A BIG post to reply:
YES! It WAS the Jews that crucufied him! It dosen't make sense only because you haven't read the New Testament. He was REQUIRED to die! That is the SOLE PURPOSE that Jesus had on Earth! If he didn't die on the cross, NO ONE would get to Heaven! He died for YOU! He suffered so you didn't have to! The only cavet there, is that you must accept that fact! Other than that, you burn in Hell. Sorry, but that's how it works, dude!
Did Jesus as God say I must die, so come and crucify me? And why such a torturous death? If the Jews believed he was a God, why is their still a Jewish faith? I'm sorry, Muslims believe in Jesus, but we consider him to be a prophet, not a God. The statement about burning in Hell sounds better if coming from the mouth of a fanatic. I'm good with my religion, you shouldnt try becoming a fanatic. Thats how it works, dude!
Yes, being Jewish and practicing Judaeism are not automatically mutual. There are agnostic Jews, Wiccan Jews, etc. Being Jewish is a etnicity, not a religion. Judaeism is the religion.
A Jew is a follower of Judaism. Like Muslims are followers of Islam. First time I heard anyone claim Jewish is a etnicity.
In the Old Testament, Moses wrote the first 5 books, David the Psalms and I believe Proverbs, and generally speaking, the rest of the books are named after those who wrote them. Daniel, Isaiah, Ruth, etc. Jews don't. Like I said before, The Bible's Old Testament is pretty close if not identical to what Judaeism uses as their Torah, but Christians added the New Testament, which is the story of Jesus Christ. The Gospels in the New Testament were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, John also wrote Revelations, and pretty much the rest was wtitten by Paul.
Ok, so the New Testament is NOT the word of God???
Why? Just do a Google search regarding Jewish belief in Jesus contradicts your claim of Jews believing in Jesus as a God, a Prophet or a Messiah.
http://]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26265<h">[url]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26265[/Q[/url]</a>[/L]
THREE people? :Q OMG! Come on buddy, isolated incidents dont account for the entire mindset of Muslims or the teaching of Islam. Without belittling the incident, so far the three people have only claimed to have been tortured.
Name ONE that has lasted more than say, 2 years without some persecution of a differing religion.
Caliphate of Abu Bakr, Umar, Umar ibn Aziz (I think), blah blah blah.
You didnt respond to the following:
"Since you are not aware of what is taught in Masjids across the world, you cannot be serious about your claim. I have studied in a Masjid and so have my brothers, my parents, their parents and so on and so forth. In fact, the vast majority of people in Pakistan go through religious teachings at the Masjids. Friday congregation prayers ALL over the world have sermons, even in the United States. Do you see me holding the belief that you state? "
OK, so NO WHERE in the Quran does it talk of convert the infedles or slay them, not does it talk of 72 virgins for dying while killing infidels nor anything like that! DUDE, COME ON! I am not saying that all sects of Islam preach hate! BELIEVE ME! I am NOT saying that, HOWEVER, I AM saying that in the middle east, particularly Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanastan and the West Bank, THAT CRAP GOES ON BIG TIME!
If you read it out of context, yes, thats what the Quran says. If you would keep an open mind and read properly, the context was that the Muslims should fight those who oppress them or attack them, and the Muslims should show faith in their religion and fight in the name of God and slay those who wage war against the Muslims. If the Quran indeed said "convert the infidels or slay them", wouldnt the Muslims be at perpetual war with everyone else for the last... oh... 1400 years? The 72 virgins is oft brought into such discussions. The implication of such a promise is not to have an orgy, but as a symbolic gesture to signify the rewards of Heaven. I'm sorry, I dont agree with you on the "crap" part. I dont know whether you've been to the countries you've named, so I cannot speak for you. But having close geographical relations with the above countries as well as personal associations with citizens of those countries, I can just say your claim is completely false.
There is a SIMPLE definition of a terrorist. A terrorist is someone who targets civilians for death and destruction for political gain. al Sadr was doing this. He was using his "newspaper" to instruct his followers to target the Iraqi police force as his main targets, because they are soft targets. The Iraqi police force is a CIVILIAN force. Iraqis were dying at his hands daily. He was invited to sit on the Iraqi governing council NUMEROUS time, which he REFUSED. He wants all the power for HIMSELF! He dosen't want to share: he is a facist.
And as far as your "CIA dude", it was actually a Senator named Joseph McCarthy back in the 50's. And yes, he was bold and brash in his claims, but you know what? After the fall of the Soviet Union, intercepted cables were made public called the Venoa Project. HE WAS 100% CORRECT IN HIS CLAIMS!
I dont know where you read Sadr's newspaper articles. If you have any reference, please let me know. Iraqi police are not civilians, period. People carrying guns, supporting the 'liberation' or 'occupation' forces - whichever you prefer are NOT civilians. Therefore Sadr cannot be called a terrorist. Our government itself calls him a militant cleric, how do you impose the label of terrorist on him? I thought Sadr's main demand is for the US to leave the country, and not be a part of the Governing Council. Your claims are quite opposite to what the BBC reports.
Yeah, McCarthy it is. Again, from what I saw on the History Channel just a few months back, your claims about him being 100% correct is quite false Either that or in the past month or so, they discovered the 'Venoa Project'.
Their attitudes ARE threatening towards others! It has been proven OVER and OVER! Mabye I came across the wrong way, but I have NO PROBLEM with them developing to 100% the capacity of the USA, in fact I SIUNCERELY HOPE THEY DO! But NO NUKES for them UNTIL THEY DO! Heck, I would even say that the USA should give them plans for Hydroelectric, Nat Gas and Coal fired plants to get them going!
Just NO NUKES RIGHT NOW! The region is TOO UNSTABLE!
What do you mean their attitudes are threatening? Saudia Arabia is not threatening, Kuwait, Dubai, Yemen, hell, even Iran has not attacked any of its neighbors. What are you talking about? And as I said, whats a Nuclear Power Plant to do with Nukes? And how come you dont have any objection on Israel possessing a Nuke? They are equally threatening.
Read this and then look up the points for yourself:
http://www.anncoulter.org/columns/2004/051204e.htm
lol. Ann Coulter? Facts? ok buddy This woman is still trying to prove Iraq/Saddam was behind 9/11.
Even if he didn't develop a fissible bomb, dirty bombs will still take out huge metropolitan areas with radiation. The retaliation would have been swift and sure leading to nuclear exchanges.
You are misinformed. A dirty bomb will not spread more than few city blocks. Again, you dont need a Nuclear Power Plant to get the radioactive material for making such a bomb.
NO, I think you misunderstand me, and that is my fault. I DESPERATLY WANT the middle east to become Constitutional Republics where everone has a fair shake and a chance at being the best they can be. But when people are held down, they turn to whoever says they can help them. Right now, that is the Mosques. And in MANY of those Mosques, hate IS being preached! Those people are EVIL! When they are gone, and their followers are gone, the whold world WILL be safer, and THEN they can have all the Nuclear power they want. Until then, NO NUKES. Coal, NG, HE, whatever will get them on the road to prosperity, just NO NUKES. Too dangerous.
I think that you have made it clear that you are Pakastani, and Pakistan happens to be probably the most economically and free country in the middle east. However, just to your north, Afghanistan was (is) the polar opposite. Women were (are) killed for not wearing their burkahs if they went outside and were forbidden from going to school.
That HAS to stop. A REAL education is the only thing that will save the Earth from terrorists.
The Masjids have nothing to do with the decline in the economic state of the Middle Eastern countries. Neither do they preach what you accuse them of. Those people are not evil. Pakistan is not in the Middle East, and it is also in a pretty sorry state. You are again wrong in your accusation of women being killed in Afghanistan for not wearing Burkhas. You are just basing your opinions on the news you watch. I can base my opinions on first hand observation. I asked you before as well: Have you ever frequented such a Masjid ever in your life? I told you before, almost EVERY Pakistani goes to the Masjid atleast once each week. Are all Pakistanis out to 'slay the infidels' and bear hatred towards the non-Muslims? No they dont.
I hope I made a difference in your perspectives. Do reply to this post. Civil conversations help both sides.