IceDragon

"Allah is our objective.
The messenger is our leader.
Quran is our law.
Jihad is our way.
Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. "


It could have been written at any time around the time of 9/11, in the run up to or during the Iraq war, my a "disaffected" Muslim in this or many other countries couldn't it.

Not so, these words come from the early part of the last century, getting on for a hundred years ago. Long before George Bush, the state of Israel, or even Denmark was famous for anything other than Hamlet.

A few more items from the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928.

"Main objectives
A huge tree of "sub-goals" branches from these main objectives which are derived from the Quran and the tradition of the prophet (pbuh) [3,4]:

1- Building the Muslim individual: brother or sister with a strong body, high manners, cultured thought, ability to earn, strong faith, correct worship, conscious of time, of benefit to others, organized, and self-struggling character [3].
2- Building the Muslim family: choosing a good wife (husband), educating children Islamicaly, and inviting other families.
3- Building the Muslim society (thru building individuals and families) and addressing the problems of the society realistically.
4- Building the Muslim state.
5- Building the Khilafa (basically a shape of unity between the Islamic states).
6- Mastering the world with Islam. "

Take note of number six. Take a good note.

http://www.ummah.net/ikhwan/

Straight from a Muslim web-page. Form your own conclusions.

Westcountryman

To be fair, I'm sure you could find web pages for Christian nutters too.

__________________
Manus haec inimica tyrannis ense petit placidam sub libertate quietam - "This hand of mine, which is hostile to tyrants, seeks by the sword quiet peace under liberty."

IceDragon

Of course I could, there are plenty about.

John Carter

And here's the difference:

Christian nutters are in violation of Christian principles and are going against what the Bible tells them to do.

islamic nutters are in accordance with their book.

kernow

I'm just glad I was born into a normal family who put more faith into living than dying. Dying is dead easy, living a good life takes a bit of effort. We know we've got this life, we can only "Hope" we have another!

Westcountryman

I'll agree that the Christian nutters go against what the good book says. As for Islamic nutters, not having read the Qu'ran, I couldn't possibly make a fair comment regarding whether it's in accordance with their teachings. I'll still agree that they're nutters though.

__________________
Manus haec inimica tyrannis ense petit placidam sub libertate quietam - "This hand of mine, which is hostile to tyrants, seeks by the sword quiet peace under liberty."

For_England

Yes, absolutely. Not only that, but I have never come across Christian suicide bombers yet. The Bible teaches Christians to love their enemies, be the salt and light of the world, and to spread the good news by word of mouth, not the sword. Islam on the other hand is a social/economic/religious/political system that is committed to world subjugation by the sword.

g hall

Far too generalised - there are some Christian who sects who have used violence and some still do but as violence of the mind. Not all Muslims are as you portray them and Jihad can in some contexts not be unlike the concept of Crusade
http://www.cqpress.com/context/articles/epr_jihad.html

It's just there are some very lazy and cynical people out there.

As John Wayne allegedly said "Kill em all let God sort em out"

Thank God for Atheism

__________________
"That government is best which governs least."
"This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries".
"To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."

For_England

I didn't generalise. Even 'moderate' Muslims, when challenged (as I have done many times) and when not allowed to wriggle out of it, admit they would prefer Sharia law. They are moderate because they don't believe that citizens should be targeted by terrorists. There is simply nothing comparable in Christianity to Islam. The Crusades are hundreds of years in the past, and the Roman Church certainly has caused Britain some problems with fanaticism, centuries ago. Atheism, on the other hand, wins hands down in being responsible for more deaths in the twentieth century than all religions combined. You cannot assume that your beliefs are 'neutral' and therefore that only religion causes deaths. The fact is we all are going to hold philosophical belief systems - some theistic, some atheistic. Those systems will result in certain actions. I find, on balance, the idea of godless people with no reason (whatever is said to the contrary) to act without self-interest, running this world, to be very scarry. Just look at what lefties have done to our societies.
My own view is that a natianal government should represent the culture of the people - whether Islamic, Buddhist, Christian or whatever. Only by subversion have atheists (who cannot be held to oaths) gained positions of authority in western countries, to the point that now laws have been rewritten to allow atheists to stand for government. I personally favour bringing back christian qualifications for those seeking government, but until the people start digging back into their deep roots, and reject the fluffy, artificial, superficial and pseudo-intellectual views of the Englightenment, that is not going to happen.

However, I think you reveal your own prejudice when you try to equate Christianity and Islam. Your goal is to try to use Islamic extremism to discredit all belief, since it is your contention that all religion is bad, and presumably should be banned by the strong arm of government, or at least severely moderated.

For_England

hang on ... the flatlands? You are American? Sorry, but I came to a forum to discuss with British people. There are things about culture and society that a country which is a direct production of the Enlightenment (Patrick Henry's cry of 'treason' notwithstanding) cannot, in my opinion, comprehend. I would also question the logic of one who quotes an address given by one who destroyed government by the people, talking about preserving government by the people. I think that is the problem with America: image is substance: it is the reality. UKIP seem to want Britain to become Americanised (balkanised, where citizenship is based upon allegiance to some temporary Enlightenment principals, not kith, kin, land, culture, and history). I don't want some plastic country where 'meaning' is defined by the dollar.