Not sure whether you are referring to me, but I do not envision things or something like that, what I'm saying is just something already written in the Quran and shown by the Prophet. And I am not trying to convince you or anyone else. You can take what I have mentioned if you like it or leave it if you don't.

How do you feel about the alteration of the text of the Quran as published by the regime in Saudi Arabia?

 The official web version of the Quran sponsored by the Wahabis actually alters the text by inserting remarks against Jews and Christians, where the Arabic of the time of Mohammed does not mention Jews or Christians. Thus they are distorting the message of the actual text, which could be construed as advice on proper behaviour, with no connection to fighting and in fact urges respect for Christians and Jews. The distorted version then gives rise to a state of mind similar to that found in 1930s European fascists, who taught each other to hate Jews and, in the case of Germans, all non-Germans.

My text from here.

Hi George, and happy bday, if i'm correct.

George: "My side (whatever side that happens to be) are freedom fighters. The other side is composed of terrorists."

I'm not so sure about that. That does not seem to be how we actually use the terms. Look at the paradigm examples: The term "freedom fighters" first became commonplace with the Hungarian freedom fighters" of the 1950s. Wouldn't it be a very marginal use of the term for anyone to call them "Hungarian Terrorists"? Similarly, the term "terrorists" became commonplace in America with 911. Wouldn't it be a very marginal use of English to call the Islamic death cultists behind that attack "freedom fighters"? In saying this, I'm making a sharp distinction between "word meaning" (which remains fairly stable in the short run and makes communication possible) and "speaker's meaning" which often varies so much from "word meaning" that we can't understand what another person is trying to communicate.

Regards,

Tim

George: "My side (whatever side that happens to be) are freedom fighters. The other side is composed of terrorists."

>>> I'm not so sure about that. That does not seem to be how we actually use the terms. <<<

>>> became commonplace with the Hungarian freedom fighters" <<<

>>> Wouldn't it be a very marginal use of English to call the Islamic death cultists behind that attack "freedom fighters"? <<<

>>> what you just said that what George said in far more careful language. <<<

Every government is a parliament of whores. 
The trouble is, in a democracy, the whores are us.

--P. J. O'Rourke 

>>> I am firm.
       You are stubborn
        He, she, it is pig-headed.<g>  <<<<

>How do you feel about the alteration of the text of the Quran as published by the regime in Saudi Arabia?

The official web version of the Quran sponsored by the Wahabis actually alters the text by inserting remarks against Jews and Christians, where the Arabic of the time of Mohammed does not mention Jews or Christians. Thus they are distorting the message of the actual text, which could be construed as advice on proper behaviour, with no connection to fighting and in fact urges respect for Christians and Jews. The distorted version then gives rise to a state of mind similar to that found in 1930s European fascists, who taught each other to hate Jews and, in the case of Germans, all non-Germans.

My text from here.<

Can you please quote which verses that you claim have been altered? By Allah, if anybody tries to alter the message of Allah their efforts will fail and severe punishment awaits them in the hereafter.

I have read your text, I must say that it is an extensive effort of you to study 'Islamic' history from the view of an orientalist, not of the faithful.

G>>
I am firm.
You are stubborn
He, she, it is pig-headed.<g>

From Nel:-

We are assertive
You are wrongheaded
They are bigoted.

Good morning, Abdulrahim

>The faithful do not base their actions on what 'other Muslims' are doing unless it is as what was told to us by God through His prophet.<

How can "the faithful" help these "'other Muslims'" (terrorists operating under the guise of Islamic faith) reign in their criminal activities that clearly go against the teachings of the Quran?

>many people trying very hard to associate Islam with terrorism<

The above mentioned terrorists who have hijacked the teachings of Islam for their own purposes make it quite easy for non-Muslims to make that asociation.
As you say: "(H)aving some people who declare themselves 'Muslim' but (whose) actions are against Islam, of course will not help".

Again, my question is: As a "faithful" Muslim, what are you doing to resolve this problem?

>Sometimes I wonder whether this has anything to do with fighting terrorism, or just because of pure hatred, and fueling more gas on the fire, perhaps as an act of provocation so that those 'Muslim' will believe that all the verses that they quote is indeed an order from God for Muslim to kill all the unbelievers.<

It sounds like a total review and re-clarification of Islam's values are in order.

>Islam is...a 'way of life', and jihad war is absolutely part of the teaching.<

>Islam will not wage a war against anybody just because of different ideology or faith. This is against the teaching of Islam.<

These two above sentiments contradict each other. What exactly did the Prophet Mohammed say about using violence against another human being (regardless of what this other human being's religion is)?

>Only, if someone wage a war against Islam, or deprive them from their homeland, then they have the right to fight against the aggressor.<

I am not familiar with the Quran. But this sounds like a loophole which one may use to go against certain teachings in the Quran.

>Allah does not forbid you to be kind and equitable to those who have neither made war on (your) religion and nor driven you out of your homes. Indeed, Allah loves those who are equitable. 9. But Allah forbids you to make friends with those who have fought against you on account of (your) religion<

Not making friends is one thing. Murdering people is another. In most of the modern world, it's considered anti-social, not to mention criminal.

>The condition to go to war is very strict in Islam<

I thought Islam translated as "peace" (the opposite of war).

>In Quran and Sunnah (prophet sayings and deeds) clearly says that war is not to shed blood among people but for truth and justice<

So jihad (war) is not war in the usual sense, but rather a personal determination to stand up for truth and justice? We Americans have a long tradition of standing up for truth and justice.

>Islam cannot be seen or entered through the door of politics only, or economy only, or jihad only, or heaven and hell only, it must be taken at its complete form.<

This sounds like Buddhism, which is what I practice. In its complete form, Buddhism takes all things into consideration, respecting and causing no harm to every single human being regardless of our differences.

Dominic

Every government is a parliament of whores. 
The trouble is, in a democracy, the whores are us.

--P. J. O'Rourke