Israel

[moseeds]

Moseeds, your opinions or replies are as expected, you give a alternative opinion\response to my posts.

I try to answer your questions best I can. Apologies if I can’t.

You give the opinion that muslims that are doing wrong are deviating from there faith etc but those people(Mughuls\Alijah Mohammed, Ayotalah's\religious groups accross the world) would disagree those people believe that islam is such, i'm sure if you were to have a debate with Osama Bin Laden for eg, he would recite many Surah's from the Quran and passages from the Hadiths to substantiate his methods. Like previous posts i have stated it's about interpretation, the hadiths and quran and mohammeds life is one which is being debated in many different ways...... And as stated before, those minority groups have made a very big impact, a few bad man in power have directed a many good men to do bad deeds...........that's is the truth!!!!!!!!!

Yes you are correct Janab. This is the problem Muslims are facing at this moment in time and to be honest always have done in the past. Only that in the past the Caliphate saw to it that any such deviations were vanquished through arresting those responsible or in the worst case fighting with them. Yes you are spot on the small minority groups have had the biggest impact. It seems history is littered with small minority groups having a big impact, most notably the Bolsheviks. But yes you are right in what you say. This is a problem that Muslims have to combat if they are to preserve their religion.

You spoke about mass conversions, I did not mention mass conversions. As stated the with regards to Sikhi it is fact that the Moghuls applied motions that were for conversions, eg conversion hindu temples in mosques, persecution of non muslims etc!!

I don’t understand what you mean.

Sharia Law, is not one that evolve's it is stagnant, we live in world alot different to one of the 6th century and obviously our values etc have changed. If your saying we apply parts of it then it it's not really Shaira Law. You say it protects society....I believe it takes society backwards....what's more applicable a law book that is written for the people by the people at the time of the people, or a religious law book that was written before the people, not by the people and by people from a totally different culture.

Shariah law is stagnant in terms of laws laid down in the Quran that can be applied today readily and this will never change. Examples include adultery, inheritance, food, marriage, relations, dress, etc and a whole host of other mundane things. Shariah law is not stagnant where no prior rulings or related rulings exist, which is pretty much everything else.

I think the image people have of Shariah law is stoning for adultery and capital punishment in general, harsh penalties for stealing etc and harsh laws with regards to the rights of women. Is this correct?

Sikhs did not kill innocent women and children, infact Sikhs faught more hindu's then anyone else, many comrades were muslims, Sikhs only faught against the Moghul regime and it's allies (many hill raja's)!!!!

Fighting against oppression is comendable, killing a child is not....

Again you imply that I condone Israel and it's actions, which I do not!!!

Killing a child is not condoned nor can it ever be justified. I apologise if I implied incorrectly.

Singh, you obviously do not like the Mughals. I don’t know a whole load about Mughal rule except whatever was learnt at school. But merely by bringing up the topic of the Mughals you show how much of a problem you have with Muslims. Is this a general feeling amongst the Sikh community?

On Asian Network during council election time a few months back, a Sikh man by the name of “Rajput” declared he was standing for the BNP!!! Obviously nobody could take this man seriously, but it showed the amount of hatred certain Sikhs have of Muslims that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” mentality has set in. This is not the first time I have been grilled by a Sikh with regards to Mughals. The last time was while I was waiting to have an interview at Currys electrical shop. Suffice to say the same comments were made by her as they are by you.

If you read about Mughal history, you will find that the lands they conquered were disparate under different princes, many of which were Muslims. The Sikhs fought a valiant resistance and hence faced the harshest penalties. That doesn’t mean what they did was right. But I don’t understand one bit as to how the history of the Mughals relates to Israel invading Lebanon. Please enlighten me.

If you want to talk about conquerors we can talk about Crusaders, the Romans, the Greeks, the Persians, the English, the French, the Germans, the Italians, the Spanish, the Protuguese, the Dutch, the Japanese, the Americans…….but you instead want to focus on the Mughals. Why?

[moseeds]

Moseed, I'm so disapointed in you, alot of what is in this thread is conjucture and unfounded!!!

I hope not. Opinions is one thing, conjecture is another.

[moseeds]

You are the very first fool to say that, you must have hit your head as hard as I hit mine today

Funnily enough, I was walking along and managed to smack my head straight into a cupboard door..so you might be right!

[moseeds]

Actually Hizbollah are very clear that they will not stop until Israel is destroyed. They are essentially an anti-semitic group. Would popular support for such groups dissapear if Israel were to retreat to its 1967 borders? It's possible and maybe even probable.

Hizbullah support amongst the people has been dwindling for years. Now it has resurged.

From what research I have done into extremist Islam he would have to primarily quote from the Hadith's rather than the Qour'an to justify his actions theologically. That is where he differentiates form a "moderate" Muslim.

Partly true, but mostly to do with the way in which Hadiths (prophetic traditions) which contradict their stance are neglected and then interpreting events in the Quran in completely different directions and contexts.

Their fight for the right for a state and Israel to return to the 1967 borders is just. Hamas stating that they will not recognise Israel's existance is not.

As far as I understand Hamas is willing for a 2-state solution. Did you mean Hizbullah?

[Thracian]

Thanks for highlighting that Ultra. For some reason condemning Israeli actions is taken as condemning Jews. In the same vain is condemning UK actions condemning Christians? Or condemning Indian actions condemning Hindus?

Like you say the Holocaust rightly casts a long shadow on European guilt. Therefore the White man cannot bring himself to speak out against Israel because of their own collective guilt. If you don’t believe this is true then why do Israeli politicians always bring this up when defending their actions?! If you think I am exaggerating only yesterday Benjamin Netanyahu was doing the same thing on BBC!

You can say the same thing about why Israel bombed the civilians. Yes Hizbullah’s ideology is stupid.

From today’s (02/08/06) Guardian:

ISRAEL READY FOR MASSIVE INVASION.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,,1835302,00.html

Also from today’s Guardian

This is not to mention the power stations hit, roads, harbours, water supplies, hospitals, schools etc etc.

You used the words “Hizbullahs Muderous Missilesâ€Â. As the stats show, I believe you meant to say Israel’s MUDEROUS MISSILES. I read the other day that Hizbullah's missiles are so rubbish they ended up killing palestinians instead because of their "crudeness". However that does not justify what they are doing, but nor does it justify the response. The finger of blame is squarely on Israel. I urge you to read today’s (02/08/06’s) Guardian G2 section to understand what is happening in Lebanon while we discuss who is fanning the flames of hatred.

I'm not sure I know what you mean about European guilt about the Hollocaust.

Some willingly co-operated and frightened people may have been forced to co-operate but the Holocaust was a German attrocity and one which will forever leave its disgusting mark on that nation's history.

That Hitler survived long enough to ever oversee the Holocaust is the real source of guilt - and that is another massive stain on German respectability. A few tried to end his days but most Germans either joined the Nazi's, served the Reich or just kept their heads down and were willing to benefit from any spoils if they came along.

Another question - because it is a feeling I pick up from much of what you write.

It may some thinking about to come up with a genuinely honest answer but do you somehow believe Arab-extract Muslims are somehow better than white non-Muslims?

If so why is that?

[Dr The Singh]

I try to answer your questions best I can. Apologies if I can’t.

Yes you are correct Janab. This is the problem Muslims are facing at this moment in time and to be honest always have done in the past. Only that in the past the Caliphate saw to it that any such deviations were vanquished through arresting those responsible or in the worst case fighting with them. Yes you are spot on the small minority groups have had the biggest impact. It seems history is littered with small minority groups having a big impact, most notably the Bolsheviks. But yes you are right in what you say. This is a problem that Muslims have to combat if they are to preserve their religion.

I don’t understand what you mean.

Shariah law is stagnant in terms of laws laid down in the Quran that can be applied today readily and this will never change. Examples include adultery, inheritance, food, marriage, relations, dress, etc and a whole host of other mundane things. Shariah law is not stagnant where no prior rulings or related rulings exist, which is pretty much everything else.

I think the image people have of Shariah law is stoning for adultery and capital punishment in general, harsh penalties for stealing etc and harsh laws with regards to the rights of women. Is this correct?

Killing a child is not condoned nor can it ever be justified. I apologise if I implied incorrectly.

Singh, you obviously do not like the Mughals. I don’t know a whole load about Mughal rule except whatever was learnt at school. But merely by bringing up the topic of the Mughals you show how much of a problem you have with Muslims. Is this a general feeling amongst the Sikh community?

On Asian Network during council election time a few months back, a Sikh man by the name of “Rajput†declared he was standing for the BNP!!! Obviously nobody could take this man seriously, but it showed the amount of hatred certain Sikhs have of Muslims that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend†mentality has set in. This is not the first time I have been grilled by a Sikh with regards to Mughals. The last time was while I was waiting to have an interview at Currys electrical shop. Suffice to say the same comments were made by her as they are by you.

If you read about Mughal history, you will find that the lands they conquered were disparate under different princes, many of which were Muslims. The Sikhs fought a valiant resistance and hence faced the harshest penalties. That doesn’t mean what they did was right. But I don’t understand one bit as to how the history of the Mughals relates to Israel invading Lebanon. Please enlighten me.

If you want to talk about conquerors we can talk about Crusaders, the Romans, the Greeks, the Persians, the English, the French, the Germans, the Italians, the Spanish, the Protuguese, the Dutch, the Japanese, the Americans…….but you instead want to focus on the Mughals. Why?

Mosseds, i'm sorry if i came accross as anti muslim, but it's quite the contrary, I have nothing against anyone, I have been lucky to have bought up in westcotes area of leicester wher the immigrant community were in a minority which bought together individual groups as a neccessity and all lived harmonously.

My parents when they first arrived in UK rented a property off a pakistani Muslim (Babu), and my parents were very poor and during my mums pregnancy and the birth of me, Babu like a father to my mum bought clothes for me and bought milk and provisions......

I feel as though you are purposely trying to deviate from the thread.

The answer to how it relates to Israel is in the post we made to each other in this thread, but i will summice, it started off with a discussion of moderates outlawing extremism, and how the mosques should do so..........contrary to your thinking Moghul was not a primary thought, myself I i were discussing 1984 Anti Sikh massacre and Hinduisation long before this. The thread evolved and bought about concepts of Islamization and conversion, and I first mentioned it on page 11 of this thread in a response to people using religion as a tool and conversion being used a tool, please read the first post where I have mentioned Moghuls:

"We have seen in the past the christians attempt to convert the world to christianity, we are seeing Moslems (not all but a %) through various means trying, in the past through there own conquest ie Mogul Empire etc, and more recent Jahidi's and devious groups such as HUT etc, and also India with Hindu nazi's that wish to make India a Hindu only nation. The only difference is that in more recent times the pro religious groups are doing there deeds in a devious, covert methods, trying to aviod public outcry."

Obviously you responded and it delved deeper into the Moghul conquest naturally....as you can see my mentioning it, only mentioning it, not portrating or forcing or particularly highlighting the Moghul issue has evolved, I have honestly no particular gripe on the issue, but honestly if sackmycook said I have a gripe with the anti sikh riots in 1984 I would agree!!! I will also admit, a reason I would use the Moghul\Sikh issue is bacause I have studied it very thoroughly, and it makes sense to use it!!!

Yes, your right there are a few Sikhs that are anti muslim built up on hatred from the past ie partition of india\pakistan and Sikh history but there are some muslims that are anti Sikh for the same reasons......the guy Rajput is not a Sikh but a hindu punjabi (but calls himself Sikh) but the BNP has had links with Shere Punjab (formally a proud, protectorate Sikh group, now a split with one faction a criminal gang).........and to b honest i'm ashamed of such people, the past is the past, a son is not punishable for a fathers crime....and as stated before a minority fo people can cause utmost damage and to be honest the Sikhs as group has actively targeted such groups which are banned form all Sikh temples...a hukamnama (a order from the supreme Sikh council)ha been ordered to stop such behaviour . But to add, there is nothing in the Sikh faith, doctrine that permits behaviour, there is no 'ayotalloh' or Sikh priest that have any doctrine towards such behaviour....these individuals have acted on history not there faith!!!!

Just to add, there is misonception that all Sikhs hate Muslims and that it a religious aspect.......during Kashmir disaster, the Sikhs were one of the first to respond and provided 'langer' (free food as part of Sikh congregation), clothing to those in need, Sikh truck drivers were the few that were willing to drive in trecherous conditions, there are many accounts of there generousity and courage of Sikhs on both sides of the border. Currently as part of the UN, over 300 Sikhs soldiers of the Sikh Regiment are based in Lebanon, 2 have been injured by shelling from Israel!!!

BNP\Sikh issue is one of humour, only a fool would be willing to join a group of thugs and to be honest all they have done have attracted thugs from the Sikh community. Compare that to some Islamic groups (eg Al Muhajiroun)that have in the past distributed anti sikh literature.....telling there muslims brothers to convert Sikh girls by use of alcohol etc..........the annual meeting at Trafalgar square (which could be the first instance and cause of the meeting of BNP\Shere Punjab in response to Al Majroun meeting in July 24th 2004), slandering other faiths and getting converts to slander there previous faiths!! Such attacks on th Sikh community by a minority only will only enhance the Sikh\Muslim hatred. I do not agree with the SHere Punjab and it's no consolation to me but compared to Al Majroom they have behaved like boys scouts, they have chosen a political route not a agressive, confrontational one!!

Overall i'm generally disapointed with many youth of the SIkh faith infact, they have not enhanced the previous qualities of there forefathers of seeking the truth, humility and mercy. The lack of education of the youth in Sikhi history and warrior bravado has lead to thug culture built on hatred of others, but that can be said of youth in general................

We obviously disagree on Sharia Law!!!

I hope that answers alot of your questions and I hope that has put your mind at rest that The Singh is not a racist!!!!

[Steven]

I'm not sure I know what you mean about European guilt about the Hollocaust.

Some willingly co-operated and frightened people may have been forced to co-operate but the Holocaust was a German attrocity and one which will forever leave its disgusting mark on that nation's history.

That Hitler survived long enough to ever oversee the Holocaust is the real source of guilt - and that is another massive stain on German respectability. A few tried to end his days but most Germans either joined the Nazi's, served the Reich or just kept their heads down and were willing to benefit from any spoils if they came along.

Another question - because it is a feeling I pick up from much of what you write.

It may some thinking about to come up with a genuinely honest answer but do you somehow believe Arab-extract Muslims are somehow better than white non-Muslims?

If so why is that?

What about the Belgians, Dutch, French, Slovenians (who paid the Germans to take their Jews away) and others who participated with the Germans in transporting Jews (and others) to the camps.

[Dr The Singh]

What about the Belgians, Dutch, French, Slovenians (who paid the Germans to take their Jews away) and others who participated with the Germans in transporting Jews (and others) to the camps.

Sorry Steven, did they transport them willingly or was under force or pressure?????

[Steven]

Sorry Steven, did they transport them willingly or was under force or pressure?????

Sadly willingly in many cases.

[Dr The Singh]

Sadly willingly in many cases.

[moseeds]

Anti-Semitism was strife during and before the World-Wars across much of Europe, then in the new Soviet Union as well. This is where the Zionist movement grew out from. The Holocaust confounded the movements fears. Funniliy enough Zionism was a minority movement which was despised by the Orthodocy. The Holocaust and events during WW2 swung opinion the other way.

[moseeds]

I'm not sure I know what you mean about European guilt about the Hollocaust.

Some willingly co-operated and frightened people may have been forced to co-operate but the Holocaust was a German attrocity and one which will forever leave its disgusting mark on that nation's history.

See Steven's comment above.

Another question - because it is a feeling I pick up from much of what you write.

It may some thinking about to come up with a genuinely honest answer but do you somehow believe Arab-extract Muslims are somehow better than white non-Muslims?

If so why is that?

In all honesty (although I don't want to generalise) Arabs look down upon those from the sub-continent - Muslim or non-Muslim. Therefore you'd think I would not give a c*ap about them. However I do get upset seeing innocent people killed, especially those that have no way of defending themselves or nobody to protect them. In normal language or any other stuation that is known as a massacre.

So no, I don't believe a non-Muslim life is worth less than a Muslim life. I put up those stats from the Guardian to show you what "Hizbullahs missiles raining down on Israel" look like in terms of "collateral damage" compared to what a Patriot anti tank missle's "collateral damage".

Do you believe that a Muslim life is worth less than a non-Muslim life? Is it justified killing people to apparently wipe out terrorism when you know that after trying for 20 odd years you still couldn't do it?

There's the old saying that madness is doing the same thing again and expecting a different outcome.

[Lemon Harpic]

What, like with Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot? Chairman Mao? Pinochet? Franco? Mussolini? These guys are responsible for more deaths than all religions put together.

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

--Adolf Hitler.

General Franco modelled himself as a twentieth-century Catholic crusader.

Benito Mussolini was a baptized Catholic.

Augusto Pinochet sought (and received) approval from the Vatican for his murderous regime.

There are currently 17 million people dying of AIDS in Africa, and the Vatican uses it's missionary network to spread the message that contraception is evil.

To the Catholic Church, adherence to dogma is more important than human life. The same goes for Islam (50 million deaths in around 1,440 years).

Atheists could never match the death toll from religion. We would be much better off without it.

[macbeth]

i agree; atheism is the only way forward .........these riduculous belief systems belong in the dark ages

[Ultra]

But didn't Stalin and Mao try to get rid of religion?

There are many instances where it has been a force for good as well as evil.

[macbeth]

the only problems religion have solved, have been the problems we would not have had without it

[Dr The Singh]

the only problems religion have solved, have been the problems we would not have had without it

Let's try creating a new religion called Athiesm, and you can be it's prophet......maybe then we will solve all problems religion may have caused!!!!

For me religion is just another means for man to control man.........military genuises such as Alexander, Gengis Khan, were only interested in wealth and power cared not for the spiritual or the way the people thought, prophets on the other hand want absolute control, power, wealth and spiritual\mental control..........

[macbeth]

Let's try creating a new religion called Athiesm, and you can be it's prophet......maybe then we will solve all problems religion may have caused!!!!

For me religion is just another means for man to control man.........military genuises such as Alexander, Gengis Khan, were only interested in wealth and power cared not for the spiritual or the way the people thought, prophets on the other hand want absolute control, power, wealth and spiritual\mental control..........

profits now your talking my language........yes i'll take the profits .........is there much to be made out of the mugs in churches ; i always assumed they just rattled the plates with an old half crown or something and by slieght of hand replaced it into their pockets

if you're telling me there's a way we could make a pile out them ....i'm in

[Dr The Singh]

profits now your talking my language........yes i'll take the profits .........is there much to be made out of the mugs in churches ; i always assumed they just rattled the plates with an old half crown or something and by slieght of hand replaced it into their pockets

if you're telling me there's a way we could make a pile out them ....i'm in

Think of all the donations people will make to our church....just to listen to you tell them that they are damned if they don't do as you tell them and at that without giving money to charity (our church) they will be sinning!!!!!!!!

Not to say the recruitment of the rich, we could be a exclusive faith whereby you need trillions of pounds to join but are guarenteed a place in heaven!!

[macbeth]

Think of all the donations people will make to our church....just to listen to you tell them that they are damned if they don't do as you tell them and at that without giving money to charity (our church) they will be sinning!!!!!!!!

Not to say the recruitment of the rich, we could be a exclusive faith whereby you need trillions of pounds to join but are guarenteed a place in heaven!!

we've hit on a cracker here Singh..........captive audience lots of spare cash and willing to be parted from it just for promises that they'll never know about until its too late to complain......i'm surprised no ones thought of it before ...still as they say; the simplest of ideas are usually the best....lets get some "offshores" opened up now :thumbup:i hear they don't ask a lot of questions in the cayman islands about sources ; is that true?

[Dr The Singh]

we've hit on a cracker here Singh..........captive audience lots of spare cash and willing to be parted from it just for promises that they'll never know about until its too late to complain......i'm surprised no ones thought of it before ...still as they say; the simplest of ideas are usually the best....lets get some "offshores" opened up now :thumbup:i hear they don't ask a lot of questions in the cayman islands about sources ; is that true?

Many have thought about it but many do not have the skills you have to implement the master plan. They usually fail because they involve free sex in the plan and as we know nothing in life is for free!!

Forget the Cayman Island, I hear the Love Island is full of right thicko's, they will not ask a thing.....other than Sophie Anderton asking you to join her in the love shack!!!!

[TrickyTrev]

As far as I understand Hamas is willing for a 2-state solution. Did you mean Hizbullah?

Some statements form the Hamas covenent/charter...

"Raise the banner of God over every inch of Palestine,"

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up."

I think that pretty much constitutes the destruction of Israel...

(I do however understand mixed messages have come out in recent year especially since they won this years Palestinian elections, I firmly believe that Hamas will eventually negotiate a two state solution with Israel)

[moseeds]

I feel as though you are purposely trying to deviate from the thread.

No, this thread was about Israeli aggression in Lebanon. I did not realise it was about Islam. But chalo, khair!

Yes, your right there are a few Sikhs that are anti muslim built up on hatred from the past ie partition of india\pakistan and Sikh history but there are some muslims that are anti Sikh for the same reasons......the guy Rajput is not a Sikh but a hindu punjabi (but calls himself Sikh) but the BNP has had links with Shere Punjab (formally a proud, protectorate Sikh group, now a split with one faction a criminal gang).........and to b honest i'm ashamed of such people, the past is the past, a son is not punishable for a fathers crime....and as stated before a minority fo people can cause utmost damage and to be honest the Sikhs as group has actively targeted such groups which are banned form all Sikh temples...a hukamnama (a order from the supreme Sikh council)ha been ordered to stop such behaviour . But to add, there is nothing in the Sikh faith, doctrine that permits behaviour, there is no 'ayotalloh' or Sikh priest that have any doctrine towards such behaviour....these individuals have acted on history not there faith!!!!

The groups you mention, such as HT, al-Mouhajiroun (they are the same people running these things) are also banned from the majority of mosques. The difference is compared to the number of mosques and the number of Muslims the Sikh community is tiny. It is far easier to implement the hukams in a relatively few number of buildings then it is to implement in a fairly large and disparate community. Nearly every mosque in the UK is Sunni and therefore there is no clergy or “pope” figure to issue orders, hence the growing importance of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB).

Just to add, there is misonception that all Sikhs hate Muslims and that it a religious aspect.......during Kashmir disaster, the Sikhs were one of the first to respond and provided 'langer' (free food as part of Sikh congregation), clothing to those in need, Sikh truck drivers were the few that were willing to drive in trecherous conditions, there are many accounts of there generousity and courage of Sikhs on both sides of the border. Currently as part of the UN, over 300 Sikhs soldiers of the Sikh Regiment are based in Lebanon, 2 have been injured by shelling from Israel!!!

Nobody is safe from Israeli aggression it seems – not even the poor guys in the UN. I have enormous respect for the Sikh community, I think everyone should be more like them.

BNP\Sikh issue is one of humour, only a fool would be willing to join a group of thugs and to be honest all they have done have attracted thugs from the Sikh community. Compare that to some Islamic groups (eg Al Muhajiroun)that have in the past distributed anti sikh literature.....telling there muslims brothers to convert Sikh girls by use of alcohol etc..........the annual meeting at Trafalgar square (which could be the first instance and cause of the meeting of BNP\Shere Punjab in response to Al Majroun meeting in July 24th 2004), slandering other faiths and getting converts to slander there previous faiths!! Such attacks on th Sikh community by a minority only will only enhance the Sikh\Muslim hatred. I do not agree with the SHere Punjab and it's no consolation to me but compared to Al Majroom they have behaved like boys scouts, they have chosen a political route not a agressive, confrontational one!!

Al-Mouhajiroun has a membership of less than a hundred. That rally at Trafalgar square was not even held properly because nobody turns up. The leaflets you talk of were not done by HT. How do I know this? I saw one of them funnily enough posted up on a sikh forum a year or 2 ago, and studied it closely. You know its not written by a Muslim hand because they can’t even get “assalamualaikum” written properly, nor follow the proper etiquettes of writing the name of Allah or Muhammad etc. I could be completely wrong of course which just shows how stupidly moronic these guys really are.

The Sikh/Muslim hatred is in reality Sikh/Pakistani hatred. I know this because I am of Indian origin and never even had a discussion like this with any of my friends who were Sikh, it was only when I went to Bradford and Birmingham that I learnt of this rivalry (incidentally the majority of Muslims in Bradford and Birmingham are of Pakistani origin). You just don’t find this rivalry between Sikh and Muslims of other origins. Do you think that is true?

Overall i'm generally disapointed with many youth of the SIkh faith infact, they have not enhanced the previous qualities of there forefathers of seeking the truth, humility and mercy. The lack of education of the youth in Sikhi history and warrior bravado has lead to thug culture built on hatred of others, but that can be said of youth in general................

I mentioned earlier anti-socialism, yob culture and hooliganism is a modern disease permeating every community. In Muslim communities its manifesting itself most violently.

We obviously disagree on Sharia Law!!!

Which of it do you disagree with? I can’t claim to know the whole of Sharia law, that is like claiming I know English law. Do you have a problem with Sharia wholly or certain parts?

I hope that answers alot of your questions and I hope that has put your mind at rest that The Singh is not a racist!!!!

No no, I don’t think you are a racist!

[moseeds]

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

--Adolf Hitler.

General Franco modelled himself as a twentieth-century Catholic crusader.

Benito Mussolini was a baptized Catholic.

Augusto Pinochet sought (and received) approval from the Vatican for his murderous regime.

There are currently 17 million people dying of AIDS in Africa, and the Vatican uses it's missionary network to spread the message that contraception is evil.

To the Catholic Church, adherence to dogma is more important than human life. The same goes for Islam (50 million deaths in around 1,440 years).

Atheists could never match the death toll from religion. We would be much better off without it.

Hitler had huge sections of the clergy imprisoned, killed or shut up. I saw a program once where there was a rally in Nuremberg. He had naked women as cherubs hanging off a moving float. That was his version of Christianity which says a lot I think about what he thought the Lord’s work was.

George Bush thinks he is a crusader too.

The Vatican stood by while Hitler was doing his work. I think the Vatican has transcended Christianity and become a religion and a law unto itself. You only have to visit St Peters Basilica and see what kind of megalomaniacs controlled the place (successive Popes needed to stamp their approval on the Basilica by building grandiose extensions or just knock down old bits replaced with huge new bits). Pinochet was lauded by Thatcher also. I don’t know how either of them thought Pinochet was also doing the Lord’s work.

You can’t blame AIDS solely on the Vatican. AIDS is epidemic mostly because men can’t keep their pants on and keep sleeping around. That’s the short end of the stick. That is how AIDS has been spread. The Vatican’s stance on contraception is also ridiculous anyway. But not all those people in Africa follow the Catholic Church. There is also a huge social stigma attached to wearing condoms in Africa, as it is somehow a reflection on one’s manliness. There is also the question of availability and price. Sex is free. A condom makes it expensive. So I think it’s a lot more than the Vatican saying condoms are bad.

In India the Catholic Church is nowhere near as popular but the same stigmas and perceptions of condoms exist. There too AIDS is reaching epidemic proportions.

50 million deaths in 1440 years? Where did this figure come from and how was it calculated? I am intrigued to know.

It is quite obvious from the quotes you presented, that it is not religion that is the cause of their actions but their own greed and lust for power. The quote from Hitler proves this. He is claiming he is doing God’s work but God’s own words do not reflect that. So how did he come to that conclusion – greed for power. The same with Mussuloni and the same with every leader who claims to be killing in the name of the Lord. Even today Bin Laden is claiming to do God’s work. People always need to justify their actions. In Rwanda the people believed in the same God, that still didn’t stop the massacres. In China, Mao outlawed religion and killed in the name of the proletariat. The same in USSR. The British Empire killed thousands of people in the name of progress and wealth, going so far as creating the first concept of the concentration camps. The French killed their subjects just because they could and the subjects were deemed inferior – that is a concept alien to all religions (except a few nutty ones of course e.g. KKK, NOI, etc).

In short, what I am trying to say is if somebody wants to kill somebody else, they will always find an excuse for it. Religion is strangely the most credible one.

[moseeds]

Some statements form the Hamas covenent/charter...

"Raise the banner of God over every inch of Palestine,"

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up."

I think that pretty much constitutes the destruction of Israel...

(I do however understand mixed messages have come out in recent year especially since they won this years Palestinian elections, I firmly believe that Hamas will eventually negotiate a two state solution with Israel)

I think until a few years ago Hamas did want to fight till there was no more Israel. Then they pretty much realised that wasn't going to happen, so then it was a case of "if you can't beat them, join them". I think that was progress in the right direction, much like in NI.

This latest Israeli adventure in Lebanon and the hidden story in Gaza is going to test Hamas' new outlook on life to the limit. I hope they remain firm for the sake of Palestine.