Talk:Islam

"Christians, Jews, and all who deny Allah will go to Hell, according to the Koran."

This is... debatable. Certainly it would be worth mentioning Qur'an 2:62:

The [Muslim] believers, the Jews, the Christians, and the Sabians - all who believe in God and the Last Day and do good - will have their rewards with their Lord.

(M. A. S. Abdel Haleem translation)

But on the other hand you can also find the opposite view, i.e. here, which takes the view that this applied only to Jews and Christians in the past... Bunnyform 21:43, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Major cleanup

Everyone:

This article badly needed cleaning up. It is, in fact, next in my "wanted pages" queue on the French branch of the site, and if an article isn't up to standard I bring it up to standard before I translate it.

As an editor and as an administrator, I must remind everyone that an article needs to stay objective in its reporting on differing faith traditions. A forthright declaration as to whether—or not—Islam is embarked on a "third wave of jihad" is a subject perhaps better suited to Conservapedia, because that site has a much wider scope that includes current politics and geopolitics. Or perhaps it is a subject for a submission to the new Essay namespace.

Anyone having a suggestion is welcome to make it here.

To the user who left the link about a thread suggesting that perhaps the statement about "Jews and Christians going to hell" does not apply today, greetings. I will find a way to include it in the article. It could represent yet more evidence that Islam is a religion in crisis, with many voices each claiming to have the answer as to what a Muslim ought to be, and no speaker-for-all declaring definitively what a Muslim is today.--Temlakos^Talk 19:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Im not sure i understand this part in which it states: "It then opened the twenty-first century with a spectacular and shocking incident that cost the :lives of nearly three thousand people, most of them civilians. What shocked the world the more was that it occurred in American territory, the :first such act since the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. "

I think a more parrallel event would be Pearl Harbor, rather than the assassination of JFK. Perhaps you meant to expand your thoughts more? --Tony 19:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's the difference: The raid on Pearl Harbor was an operation carried out by a wing of attack and bomber planes launched from aircraft carriers. Coming as it did before the Japanese ambassador went to see Secretary of State Cordell Hull with an ultimatum, it met the definition of an unprovoked attack. But a terrorist attack is an act of sabotage and/or murder committed by a small group, not a massive force.

The assassination of Robert F. Kennedy was an act of geopolitical murder. The Manhattan/Pentagon Incident was a set of coordinated acts of sabotage. Therein lies the similarity. Both were comparable, in the size of the forces (in the former case, a force of one) that carried them out, to the operations of the original Assassins. The Pearl Harbor attack, by contrast, was comparable to any of several mass attacks by Muhammad or any of his military successors.

I understand a bit better, but I still see similarities in both, however the way you have it is fine with me. Good work. --Tony 01:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The third wave section small 9/11 detail addition

Clarified Khalid Sheikh Muhammad a bit specifically in the "A third wave?" section. I felt it adaquate to add that detail of 9/11 since it was being covered with some specificity. I have a source for it as well, figured I wouldn't add it until you agreed with the change.--Tony 05:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I'd like to accept this. If this were Conservapedia, I would. (You may, if you wish, apply for an account on that site, and tell everyone that you know me from CreationWiki.) But this is CreationWiki, and that kind of operational detail is a bit much. Yes, I mentioned the Manhattan Incident, but naming the chief of ops, training and planning would be a bit like trying to name every member of Muhammad's general staff, or that of Suleyman the Magnificent. So I shall have to put it back the way I left it.

I'm serious, by the way, about Conservapedia. That project has a much wider scope, and details like this would indeed be important—but probably in the article that CP already has on the Manhattan Incident.--Temlakos^Talk 13:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It was a sentence, i didn't think it became the centerpieve of the article or even the focus of the section it was in. It is a quick note that merely mentioned him, such as the name Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden was mentioned as in-charge of al qaida, was merely doing the same to who was truly responsible for planning, execution of 9/11... But fine. --Tony 22:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

But I mentioned Osama bin Laden, not as an actual operational planner, but as the overall commanding general, the equivalent of Muhammad, or Suleiman the Magnificent, or any of the Medina or Baghdad Caliphs. Furthermore, my point was that Osama bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are two contenders, on Sunni and one Shi'ite, for the position of True Caliph of Islam in modern times.--Temlakos^Talk 02:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Surely KSM is to 9/11 what OBL is to al qaida. When bringing up al qaida you cannot go without mentioning OBL and likewise I think one shouldn't bring up 9/11 without mentioning KSM. There is a common misconception out there that the U.S. didn't capture the one responsible for 9/11, and I think within the overall context of a third wave of jihad and the immediate context being 9/11 one sentence describing KSM's role should be added in my opinion.

I understand your stance and will not change that portion.--Tony 06:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Now about KSM: You forget that KSM was OBL's general staff officer in charge of operations, training and planning—the "G3" (or perhaps "J3") we would call it here in the West. Giving him that kind of credit would be the equivalent of citing Napolen's operations chief for the Battle of Austerlitz, or Lord Nelson's operations chief for the Battle of Trafalgar. So OBL is more than just a talker: he had quite a general staff. I say had because that was before KSM got caught with his pants down (literally) and with a laptop computer having all his passwords in a clear-text file. Big. Fat. Mistake. That. Even. I. Don't. Make.--Temlakos^Talk 11:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed if Napoleans chief of operations proposed a plan and oversaw the execution of it, you should credit not Napoleon but his operations chief for that specific action. OBL was the inspiration and allowed the greenlight of it no doubt, but KSM was the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks. That is all I was saying.--Tony 00:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Dialectical Logic of Islamists

Dialectical Logic of Islamists (i.e., of the Lost):

Dialectical Logic is found in the core of Eastern and Western thought. It is a common flaw to the human species. Although the various human cultures have developed their own methods of using this flaw, it is not simply a cultural defect. However, since each culture uses this flaw to defend and to define itself, every attempt to correct the flaw is perceived to be an attack on the culture itself. Islamists are particularly sensitive to this perceived attack; because the dialectical Absolute of the Koran is found in the attempt to synthesize the Old and New Testaments (i.e., "the Book")--FinalNotice 18:07, 13 May 2011 (PDT)