Physia

Any comments on these? It is not hurting us. It is already growing day by day. This bumps us back to the point of "reform." That's how it's for the better.

Since the Quran says that 'Mecca' can't be bombed, it will create contradictions, which will lead to reform. I believe I have said it in other posts, so I am repeating it here. It would be more interesting to have Muslims discuss this topic with us, but I believe that we must look at the bigger picture of it. Reform in Islam equals a new way of thinking and interpreting Quran. There is a downfall in the proposition of bombing Mecca I believe, and that is the freedom the radicals have to interpret the Quran however they want. They can easily continue on with their radical Islamic teachings of anti-Democracy, anti-West, etc., and by bombing Mecca that will attract others, moderates could be included. What I would like to question is: Are moderates going to be attracted to the idea of contradictions in the Quran and hint for reform, or are they going to be attracted to the idea that 'an imperialist state,' as they regard us, attacked the center and holiest place in Islam? I will go ahead and actually question some of my Muslim friends about this, and get their input. I do not have a Quran with me, but I've asked a friend to look up. Once they get the correct Aya's, I'll post them on here. They assured me, however, that there's something close to this in the Quran. 9/11 and taking over Jerusalem are not the same issue as Mecca. Mecca is mentioned in the Quran that it can't be bombed, so based on that I make a conclusion that there will be 'reform' or 'some type of change' within Islam. Also, to clarify myself, I did not deny that it will create hatred, but I believe it is for the better.

I'll try to get some information about the Quran and Mecca relations and all that. Now, what I am certain about, Mecca is considered the center of Islam, the place where their Prophet was born.

I believe I've said how before, in my previous posts. Make no mistake here; I did not deny that there is a population that does not hate America, I've stated that there are moderates that hate America, even if they are moderates. Islamic teachings, and I have also been told by a Muslim friend that it has been said in the Quran; thus why I said it's said in the Quran in previous posts. I will get more information on this as soon as I can, but Islamic teachings do teach that. On Iraqi tv, there was a Sheikh that usually explained why they think that's the case, but I am not sure what happened to this Sheikh. I do like to stick to the point that reform is one of the two cases that will stop radical Islam from growing. Once reform happens, Muslims will get a different view about certain subjects in Islam, thus there are no excuses for radical Sheikhs to produce more radicals. Not to forget that it will grow more hatred if Mecca was bombed, but it will create a big mess that can't be controlled except by reform. As Phi for All said, they will find a way to create explanations for why it happened, and that's what results in reform.

These are the guidelines to show that they do not approve of radical Islam, not the guidelines to disapprove of it. That they can do amongst themselves, but this they must show in public. What is the point of having moderates that disapprove of radical Islam, but don't do anything about it? Are they making any difference? Of course not, hence it is like they are not present there. It will create contradictions inside the Quran, which will lead to reform. Hatred.. That's already present, it should not be a worry at all. Even if they are moderates, that doesn't mean they like you. The Vatican issue is totally different., review my reply to ecoli about the Mecca comment if you please. Mecca is said to be 'unbreakable,' a place that can't be bombed. The Vatican, on the other hand, is just like any other place, hence the consequences of bombing the Vatican differ from the consequences of bombing Mecca.

Don't be so sure. They are two faces of the same coin. If you think outside of the box for a moment, they are both fighting those who they call 'infidels' or 'koffar' or 'people of the book.' Shiites don't necessary need to support Al Qaeda with money or weapons to be supporting them. They are supporting them by sparking an increase in radicalism, and by being a home for exported terrorism. Iran supports Hamas, for example, who are Sunnis. You're entitled to your opinion. I don't have any problems with Islam, if I need to clear myself. Now back to my original comment and why I said it; being a scientist does not mean you can't be a believer, and being a priest does not mean you don't believe in evolution. Nobody's perfect.

He is Muslim by origin. Keep in mind the place where he was raised; Indonesia. Their teachings make us inferior to them, hence why I do not support a Muslim running the United States. About the videos, what difference do they make? You think that a person who pledge allegiance to the flag can't do anything against it? And about the e-mails, I never got anything about Obama or anything related to the U.S. elections. I don't believe in such e-mails anyways. I am entitled to my own opinion. History for the first part. Racism is still present in the United States. End of the civil war did not end racism, a very big difference. About the 'harsh sex' comment; women think with their heart, not their brain. I do not mean to generalize, but it is well-known. Very few women think with their brain; Clinton certainly is not one of those. I am not really that much 'into' American elections; whoever comes won't make a lot of difference anyways, but McCain is preferable. For the links you gave, what difference does it make? If he denied evolution for example, does it mean it is not present? And does it mean that the United States will quit all of its scientific and technological advances? I don't think so. The person is free to say whatever he wants. Not everything that is said, is true. A person, especially in such position, can say whatever they can in order to get a certain group of supporters. Now, I am not saying that this is surely the case, but it could be. Bottom line, it does not affect the line of the United States. It is a minor issue, not a major one. Religion and science complete each other, IMO.

I don't think so. Enough priests and sisters in Palestine and Iraq were killed that prove that. They claim that they are fighting the Jews, because in the Torah 'supposedly' (something they claim), it says that the Jews believe they are the 'chosen' people on earth, while all other religions do not and should not exist. Their actions, actually, contradicts with the reason they are giving for fighting the Jews. They're putting that claim on them. Don't worry bud, I know many, many moderate Muslims as friends, in fact my girlfriend is a Muslim, from a well-known family in Muslim history. But, that's not what I am suggesting here. I do not care about individuals who oppose radical Islam. I am talking about the bigger image. A few moderate Muslims here and there won't do anything. Moderate Muslims need to protest, protest, and protest. They need to have their voice heard by the radicals. They need to prove to the world, and to other Muslims, that radical Islam is wrong, that it does not portray the message of Islam. Bombing Mecca will trigger reform inside Islam. In their Quran, it says that Mecca is surrounded by a cover and it can't be bombed. Make conclusions about what will happen if it was bombed. If there are moderate ordinary Muslims, then there must be moderate sheikhs. These sheikhs should issue Fatwas condemning redical Islam. These sheikhs must teach that radical Islam is wrong. They should preach moderate Islam. Moderate Muslims must protest and make their voices heard. As I told ecoli, I am not talking about individuals, for they can't do anything really. They must be in large groups, in large protests, in order to get attention, lots of it. Moderate Muslims, especially sheikhs, must go on Al Jazeera tv to preach moderate Islam. Muslims do have religious references (Khamani'i for Shiites and the Saudi king for Sunnis, in addition to many religious leaders), sadly most of those are radicals. If there are some moderates from those, these are the ones that perform a great danger on those radicals. The choice of not supporting radical Islam does not really do anything. It is like saying there is nothing such as 'moderate Islam.' Now, to the issue of bombing Mecca, and I explained it to ecoli. It will trigger reform inside Islam, and that is what I want. At the peak of Christian extremism, reform was the only way that changed that. Again, I am speaking about the bigger image.

That's your opinion. The reason is one, but the ways change. Removing Saddam was a mistake I tell you. He was killing thousands of Shiites, but it had to be balanced by removing him .

That's propaganda. 'If' is the problem. But, those so-called 'moderate' Muslims who do not stand against radical Islam, approve of it.. Don't they? Otherwise, why wouldn't they stand against it? The only way to defeat them is to bomb Mecca. Those who know about Islam will understand the reason behind this .

Do some research bud. CNN's or FOX's opinions don't matter to me. Muslims can't run the United States; that's the matter. We need a white president, not a dark one , from the harsh sex also. McCain for president. It's an analysis that you must think about. It goes further than your nose, so try to think based on that. Question yourself of why I said that, then you might disagree with your statement.

America can't afford to elect a dark person (who is Muslim by origin and all of a sudden radical-relations appear) or a woman (whose husband's term was one of the worst and whose tears run down her cheeks on television) as presidents.

They do have a very simple plan. They either kill you or you convert to Islam.

God bless George W. Bush, one of the best presidents to come to the U.S. We just need a nuclear hit on Iran before you leave office... Then go ahead and continue with your life. Don't be so cheerful, McCain is stronger and is on the same steps.. Well, most of them. One who laughs at last, laughs a lot .

An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, the Almighty. He asks one of his new students to stand and..... Prof: So you believe in God? Student: Absolutely, sir. Prof: Is God good? Student: Sure. Prof: Is God all-powerful? Student: Yes. Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm? (Student is silent.) Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fellow. Is God good? Student: Yes. Prof: Is Satan good? Student: No. Prof: Where does Satan come from? Student: From...God... Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world? Student: Yes. Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct? Student: Yes. Prof: So who created evil? Student does not answer. Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they? Student: Yes, sir. Prof: So, who created them? Student has no answer. Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God? Student: No, sir. Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God? Student: No, sir. Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter? Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't. Prof: Yet you still believe in Him? Student: Yes. Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son? Student: Nothing. I only have my faith. Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has. Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat? Prof: Yes. Student: And is there such a thing as cold? Prof: Yes. Student: No sir. There isn't. (The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.) Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it. (There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.) Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness? Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness? Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light....But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you? Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man? Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed. Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how? Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey? Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do. Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir? (The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.) Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher? (The class is in uproar.) Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain? (The class breaks out into laughter.) Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir? (The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable.) Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son. Student: That is it sir... The link between man & god is FAITH. That is all that keeps things moving & alive. WANT TO KNOW WHO THAT STUDENT WAS? This is a true story, and the student was none other than: Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, the current president of India.