Islam

[groove_04]

The religion of Islam is the acceptance of and obedience to the teachings of God which He revealed to His last prophet, Muhammad. Islam means submission to the will of God.
A muslim believes that there is one God - the Supreme, the Creator, and that the last prophet is Muhammad. A muslim's book is the Qur'an. His obligations are to

pray 5 times a day
fulfill Haj, which is the pilgrimage to Mecca (only to those who can afford)
Pay Zakat (tax)

I'm a proud believer of this religion. There was a time I used to be skeptic,but now I am able to grasp the belief. Above is a very simple description on what Islam is about, though the meaning of this religion is very rich.

[ApeTheDog]

Yes, I admit that the Qur'an is written very nicely and that the Islam is a rich religion, but I do not think those are good reasons to believe in it. I like ali baba and the 40 robbers, but it won't make me believe in giant elephant eating birds either.

[groove_04]

Oh, it's hard to explain to ppl ... but once you get into it, you find that the principles of Islam being very just & fair
that's why i love islam - the principles of it just fit together nicely making islam a true Way of Life

ps/ ApetheDog ....when did u study the qu'ran and for how long? what did u find?

[Aryan]

hey and i believe its a good reason too, to go out and distribute manuals of
"how to beat women", right !

I think religion causes more bad than good, any religion in fact, and especially those with strong feelings about them.

[Arioch]

hey and i believe its a good reason too, to go out and distribute manuals of
"how to beat women", right !

I think religion causes more bad than good, any religion in fact, and especially those with strong feelings about them.

This is a logic as flawed of that as the church when they insisted that the sun revolved around the earth. It is the sour taste of events like these that have ruined religion for most western INTP's. This leads them to think that any Western/Middle Eastern religion is flawed.

Ironically they do seem to be fond of the far eastern ones... which are more philosofical then religious.

[Shai Gar]

i had to say it,









TERRORISTS, HELP HELP 9-11

[Arioch]

i had to say it,









TERRORISTS, HELP HELP 9-11

You... are a terrible terrible person.

[laughs]

[Claverhouse]

Islam seems a reasonable religion, with the minimum of human input since, correctly, Allah does everything and creatures submit to His Will.

However, since it is so strongly based on Middle Eastern norms it is unsuitable for societies significantly different, especially Europe. Same as the Judaic religions which do hold sway both there and in America.

Also for those societies and Africa also, there is a lack of the personal redemption from sins through sacrifice bit, that satisfies the need for drama.

If only I could explain to you the perfection of He who hung upon a tree, raised the dead, and discovered the runes.

Modesty forbids though.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Hawkon]

I find especially one thing that makes the coffee jam in my throat:

it's a death's sin to leave Islam. Still they believe that everyone is a muslim and all of the world's religions' gods are the same - Allah. How come they scream jihad whenever someone invades their country? There's the small jihad and the great jihad (sorry about terms, since I've learned about this in Norwegian). The small jihad is when your belief is at stakes - to practice Islam. The great jihad is your own 'war' against yourself, and the fight against bad. When a muslim calls jihad on USA for attacking their country, they are as lost as a puppy on Mars. USA is a country that embraces religions in the way that they can be freely practiced. By calling jihad on USA, they jihad their own religion. And by "they" I mean Middle-East muslims. I bet you've never seen a muslim from Bosnia call jihad on Serbia.

I just have to say that Islam is a healthy religion as long as it's not polluted by diciples, governmental leaders and people like osama bin laden that fools the Islamic people to believe in interpretations done by one person. It's not like they can translate the Koran, but they should _learn_ the views of Muhammad. I mean, come on! It's the same story with Christians. For a very long time, bishops and priests have translated the Bible for the people - often for their own good and urge of power and money.

I'm with Aryan. Religions do more harm than good. It unites a people, but at some time it will corrupt.

Please correct me if I've mixed anything up though. :)

[Pierce]

Much of the animosity in the Middle East is rooted in the all important phrase, "Who's your daddy?" Or perhaps who is the legitimate son and rightful heir of their daddy.

Both groups claim Abraham as their ancestor (father), which is correct. They are in fact "brothers," or half brothers. The divergence comes when they consider who is their mother.

Galatians 4:22 - For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

One son was the legitimate heir to both the physical and spiritual blessings of Abraham, the other was rejected and cast adrift in the desert.

The Jews (from the writings of Moses) claim that Isaac, from whom they trace their descendency, was the son Abraham and the freewoman, Sarah, and that Ishmael, from whom the Arabs claim descendency, was the mother of the bondmaid, Haagar.

Along comes Muhammad with his revelation that the Jews got it wrong -- Ishmael was the son of Abraham and Sarah, and therefore they were the blessed children of Abraham, and the Jews had scurrilously faked the history to steal the true birthright of the Arabs as the legitimate descendents of Abraham. No wonder Muslims hate Jews -- and anyone that supports the Jews (the USA). And is it any wonder that Islam has strong appeal to the "disenfranchised" peoples of the world? They can relate.

The Christians' position simply says that it doesn't matter, which was which, whether Jew, Arab or Gentile. Faith in Jesus Christ makes one a spiritual heir of Abraham -- which is all that matters. Galatians 3:29 - And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

So, the solution to peace in the Middle East is quite simple. Either convice both sides which historical account is correct and require them to peacefully accept their heritage, or convert them all to Christianity, which makes them all equal in the eyes of God.

Seriously, it seems an insurmountable problem to me -- especially given the history they share. They are brothers, and the history of brothers in their books is not encouraging. Cain slew Able over jealousy of their father's acceptance. Jacob deceived and stole the birthright of his first born brother Esau. Joseph's brothers debated killing him, but instead sold him into slavery over jealousy of their father's affection.

Of course,there are other differences between these peoples, but I've never figured out how to get past this one to even bother considering the rest.

[Arioch]

Hmm.... no. The problems have nothing to do "who's your daddy"

Because if one goes back... lets say half a century or more then their wasn't that much of a problem. The real problem began when England and America made a deal with the arabs. "Help us with this and that and you can have the land all to yourself" or something like that. Lawrence of Arabia had a part in this.

However while the arabs held up their part of the bargin some deals were made in secret between England, the US and the Jews. It was basically a win-win situation... the West gets to get rid of most of the Jews (note: I believe this to be the reason.. maybe they had some other motive) while the Jews get a "homeland" called Isreal. Except that the Arabs (legitimately) didn't like this because they were promised the land first.

Now this did not cause for happy neighbours. I mean how would you like it if one of the states of the US were taken over by a forgein power and they started to build their own place there. Pushing the local Americans out while they make make themselves at home. Obviously Isreal was not exactly happy with this but... it did have the weapon power to deal with it (something western powers provided, another reason to not like them). Now put upon this that Isreal is... well the goverment wasn't the nicest blokes. Responcible for at least one genocide. Infact they even have the person primarily responcible for it as their national leader.

This is the root of the original problem. Not "who's got the spiritual legacy" Especially since spiritually everyone is suppose to be equal whether black or white, Arabian or non-Arabian, man or woman.

Whenever I see someone saying that all people are equal under Christ I keep on thinking of the opinion in the dark ages of women. Especially how they were considered the "Portal of Sin" It was not Christianity that said "men and women are equal" but rather secularism, feminism and economic factors that made it so. Whether they truly are is a question for another post.

[Witticism]

I could never embrace a religion with a creator - Mohammed - who had nine wives, one of whom was only NINE years old. How sick is that? I think that Islam is in its very roots sexist, unlike the other religions (while the Old Testament claims that a women is the cause of original sin, Jesus did not actively degrade women).
Added to that the fact that many Muslims in the Far East believe that killing an American grants automatic passage into heaven... That makes for a pretty damn unpalatable religion, if you ask me.

[Pierce]

Hmm.... no. The problems have nothing to do "who's your daddy"

I disagree. I'm sure the Jews and Muslims are acutely aware of the difference of their accounts of their respective geneologies. I do not doubt that the political meddling of other countries of the Middle East exacerbated the tension, but I don't think that's the genesis of it. And I do agree that the relatively recently reimportation of Jews to their historical homeland, in the midst of resentful (as you point out, rightfully so) Arabs does nothing to promote brotherly love.


Whenever I see someone saying that all people are equal under Christ I keep on thinking of the opinion in the dark ages of women. Especially how they were considered the "Portal of Sin" It was not Christianity that said "men and women are equal" but rather secularism, feminism and economic factors that made it so. Whether they truly are is a question for another post.

Galatians 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

But, you are right about the church getting it wrong during the dark ages and afterward -- just like individuals and groups get it wrong today.

[Claverhouse]

Because if one goes back... lets say half a century or more then their wasn't that much of a problem. The real problem began when England and America made a deal with the arabs. "Help us with this and that and you can have the land all to yourself" or something like that. Lawrence of Arabia had a part in this.
Nothing to do with Lawrence: he was as sick as a dog when he discovered at Versailles the hideous aims of the Allies and how he had been dishonoured by being made a liar to the credulous Arabs. Worse even than being dishonoured by a Turkish commandant. [ Not that I care, if the Arabs were dumb enough to believe the promises of the English... We're not called 'Perfidious Albion' for nothing, you know. And the Yanks are worse. If only because they believe their own lies . ]


However while the arabs held up their part of the bargin some deals were made in secret between England, the US and the Jews. It was basically a win-win situation... the West gets to get rid of most of the Jews (note: I believe this to be the reason.. maybe they had some other motive) while the Jews get a "homeland" called Isreal. Except that the Arabs (legitimately) didn't like this because they were promised the land first.
Sort-of. Except that the reason wasn't to get rid of the jews in the west. Although they had accepted many thousands in the previous 20 odd years, mainly from Russia ( which was willing to do job-lots ), very few of them left the USA or GB ( or even Germany, where postWar they became progressively less popular: one reason why the Zionists and the Nazis got along so well ): the main reason was both to secure jewish wealth for the Allied cause, and to through jewish influence bring the US into the World War on the Allied side: despite the fact it had absolutely nothing to do with them.


Now this did not cause for happy neighbours. I mean how would you like it if one of the states of the US were taken over by a forgein power and they started to build their own place there. Pushing the local Americans out while they make make themselves at home.
This is coming to pass. All those weird little 'furniture-removers' from Israel spying about America are supposed to be scouting for a new homeland once they've been forced out from the Holy Land. The North-West apparently, although the White Supremacists have also decided to retreat there someday against the floods of foreign-born... Sort-of interesting to watch these two bunches of weirdos slogging it out in that lovely countryside.


Obviously Isreal was not exactly happy with this but... it did have the weapon power to deal with it (something western powers provided, another reason to not like them).
And the Soviets. Everyone wanted to help little Israel after WWII. It, and it's primary begettor the 'Holocaust', were the validation for having fought WWII and for it's gruesome settlement.


Now put upon this that Isreal is... well the goverment wasn't the nicest blokes. Responcible for at least one genocide. Infact they even have the person primarily responcible for it as their national leader.
The fattest War-Criminal who ever lived !


This is the root of the original problem. Not "who's got the spiritual legacy" Especially since spiritually everyone is suppose to be equal whether black or white, Arabian or non-Arabian, man or woman.

Whenever I see someone saying that all people are equal under Christ I keep on thinking of the opinion in the dark ages of women. Especially how they were considered the "Portal of Sin" It was not Christianity that said "men and women are equal" but rather secularism, feminism and economic factors that made it so. Whether they truly are is a question for another post.
No form of equality can ever exist between any two creatures. The very question is a red herring designed to subjugate people into acting in various desired ways. But anyway, it was only a few religious who thought of women as inherently sinful ( and amusingly enough managed also in mediaeval times to believe that the soul, once freed from it's earthly bonds by death, was female ). Mediaeval society esteemed woman very highly, more so than say, the 18th century. Now they are 'equal' men no longer esteem them at all for their feminine excellence.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Arioch]

I disagree. I'm sure the Jews and Muslims are acutely aware of the difference of their accounts of their respective geneologies. I do not doubt that the political meddling of other countries of the Middle East exacerbated the tension, but I don't think that's the genesis of it. And I do agree that the relatively recently reimportation of Jews to their historical homeland, in the midst of resentful (as you point out, rightfully so) Arabs does nothing to promote brotherly love.

What we really need to do is examine the situation in the Middle East between Muslims and Jews before the western Jews were imported (if you've lived in the west for a few centuries, your not Middle Eastern anymore). My knowledge of Middle Eastern history is a bit spotty between the end of the Ottoman empire and about... 50 years ago. I know that in theperiods I've studied of Ottoman Empire and before Jews were treated quite well (especailly relative to the time).

Galatians 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

But, you are right about the church getting it wrong during the dark ages and afterward -- just like individuals and groups get it wrong today.

I'm afraid that the Church got it wrong quite a bit sooner. Dear St. Paul did not seem a very "woman friendly" person.

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I don't permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner" (I Timothy 2:11-14)

Anyway I don't see why Christianity is in anyway the solution here. Besides the fact that people don't seem to want to convert it wouldn't do anything to solce the conflict.

I've heard a lot of people from the conflict and I've yet to hear anyone talking about spiritual legacies. It's more "they killed by husband/father/daughter" etc. Or "they tortured me for days on end".

Beside that It's not even a "Muslim vs Jew" thing. It's mostly "Palestine vs Isreal". And not only that but some of the Palestinians are Christians you know. Including one of the eairlist suicide bombers

[songbird36]

Beside that It's not even a "Muslim vs Jew" thing. It's mostly "Palestine vs Isreal". And not only that but some of the Palestinians are Christians you know. Including one of the eairlist suicide bombers

It's a mixture of the two. Many Palestinians and Israeli Jews are of common ethnic origin (the Semitic tribes). So the conflict is largely about religious intolerance, and flowing on from that, the struggle for territory caused by the artificial creation of Israel as the Jewish homeland (I liken it a bit to the creation of the Yugoslav republic under Tito, from a collection of disparate Balkan states).

And going back a few posts about the reasons for Britain's support of Zionism, another reason (perhaps not so obvious) needs to be mentioned. The proponents of the Balfour declaration (Lloyd George, Smuts and Balfour) were all committed Christians well versed in theology and Biblical history. They wanted to see the Jewish homeland restored in accordance with Biblical prophecy, as that was the only way to ensure the second coming of the Messiah. This is not just supposition - it is a theme that came through in speeches supporting the declaration.

[Arioch]

I could never embrace a religion with a creator - Mohammed - who had nine wives, one of whom was only NINE years old. How sick is that? I think that Islam is in its very roots sexist, unlike the other religions (while the Old Testament claims that a women is the cause of original sin, Jesus did not actively degrade women).
Added to that the fact that many Muslims in the Far East believe that killing an American grants automatic passage into heaven... That makes for a pretty damn unpalatable religion, if you ask me.


Aha... [raises left eyebrow]. Have you noticed that none of these women were exactly youthful nubian beauties? That almost all of these women were old widows and that he might have taken them as his wife as a way to take care of them? That the only way to be able to take care of them while keeping their honer intact would be to marry them?

As to the younger girl (called Ai'sha) do you know what happens to young girls who are sexually abused? It tends to cause many ill effects that does not lead to aduquate mental development. Yet Ai'sha is renouwned for her wisdom and such and was counted among the greatist of women

And Islam being sexist? Only if you forget how it raised women from a status less then cattle to being a spiritual equal to men.

And "while the Old Testament claims that a women is the cause of original sin, Jesus did not actively degrade women" has two big faults in it.

One: the origin of "Original Sin". Original Sin was introduced in the New Testement. By Paul (more about him later).

Two: While Jesus himself was not degrading towards women what Jeses said and did is by no means the whole of Christianity.

If one looks in the "The Gospel According to Woman" one might find (among others) the following quote:

"Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil's gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die."

And as promised St Paul

"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

This is among the many verses etc that show that Christianity is sexist. If you want proof of Jewish anti-woman quotes you have only to ask

As to your last paragraph... assuming you mean Middle East instead of Far East are you the same person that just praised Christianity... a religion in which babies are barred from heaven if they die before baptised (which is why in the past when infant mortality was high was in such a hurry to have their baby baptised)? And I have two other words for you "shooting docters that work at abortion clinics"

Now, as to "many Muslims in the Far East believe that killing an American grants automatic passage into heaven." I was not aware that people had done statistics towards that subject yet in the Middle East. Where do you get your information? Thats as much a correct statement as "Many people in the US belong to the KKK and like to burn crosses on sundays"

Please do your research before you go talking about thigns you don't know about. And no research does not include Fox News

[groove_04]

Islam does not degrade women. Before Islam came, women suffered much abuse - they were treated as men's sex slaves and baby girls were buried because they were believed to bring bad luck. When Islam came, it proclaimed that men and women are equal and that no man has the right to abuse a woman.

Yes, it may sound sexually sick to think of a man taking 9 wives, but you should know that the Prophet Muhammad did this out of mercy - women that were widowed, especially those that were of age, could not really survive under the unjust patriachal society.And the prophet took care of them with much care, guided by ethics & principles.

If you are questioning about Muhammad's fidelity, you should know that he only took a sceond wife only when his first, named Khadija, whom he dearly loved, passed away.
Yes, he did marry Aisha when she was 9, but their marriage only went into sexual intimacy when she reached puberty, when she was about 13 years old.

Now, that does not sound harsh, does it? Especially since in most societies once a person reaches puberty, he/she does everything adults do - work, have sex, raise a family. The familiar marrying post-20 years of age is only familiar in modern, rapidly industrialing societies such as ours, dictated by our economic & social norms.

Delving into the current political situation:
Muslims' antagonism over Jews took root when the Jews, kicked from their respective countries over the mass-prejudice of World world II, came into Palestine and kicked Muslims' out. The muslims in Palestine had, for centuries, tolerated Jews in their land, but in the mass exodus of the mid to late 40s, Jews became aggresive in reclaiming what they called the 'land of milk and honey'

Muslims are not against Jews, they're against Zionists. They are against the people who claim that they were battered cruelly for hundreds of years, but only come to pursue that violence themselves once they were liberated.

And oh yes, the prejudice against America. I'm not saying that terrorism is justified, but you should know that the media is biased and that until now, NOT ONE SINGLE 'terrorist's' work have been properly identified. The allegations that are flying, are just, for the most part, allegations. Which leads to the question WHAT IS TERRORISM? IS THERE SUCH THING IN THE FIRST PLACE? Hrmm.

And you have to forgive the muslims' being emotional. Their brothers & sisters in Palestine, Chechnya, Iraq and other countries are suffering. Yes, America does support the freedom to express differentfaith, but it would surely do good if she respects another country's sovereignity. There is NO REASON that allows a country to invade another country.

[Pierce]

People weighing in from different religious and non-religious perspectives... I'm positive no one has convinced anyone of anything. Most all are obviously intelligent and sincere. There we were, at the scene of the hit and run... I know I saw a green car speed away... she is convinced it was red, and the other fellow insists it was blue. Perhaps if we could gather enough people together and vote we could arrive at the truth; then again, perhaps not. Tolerance is our best chance for survival, but I realize we don't have a very good track record. Sigh.

[Arioch]

People weighing in from different religious and non-religious perspectives... I'm positive no one has convinced anyone of anything. Most all are obviously intelligent and sincere. There we were, at the scene of the hit and run... I know I saw a green car speed away... she is convinced it was red, and the other fellow insists it was blue. Perhaps if we could gather enough people together and vote we could arrive at the truth; then again, perhaps not. Tolerance is our best chance for survival, but I realize we don't have a very good track record. Sigh.

Oh well. I hope that at least everyone has learned something today. And at the very least most comments were done with at least some thought.

It's funny how there are four subjects (that I can name) that make rational discussion a lot harder. Sometimes to the point of incoherency. From hardest to least we have:

Islam
Religion
Evolution
Politics

Why that order? Politics is at the lowest because sometimes you can actually talk about politics. People usually stay coherent in the discussion.

Evolution because they're so little evidence available to us to discuss with. Everything you've learned in high school (if you did learn it) is bound to be so full of half truths, vague arguments and outright lies that it's too untrustworthy. I think you'd need a masters in biology and a open mind to be able to properly discuss this one.

Religion should be quite clear... people seem to feel very strongly about this. Add to this that most people (a lot less over here but it happens with INTP's as well) seem to lose 20 I.Q. points and you can see how it doesn't go down well.

And Islam, lets think about it. When you talk about Christianity, you at least know something about it. You have Christians around you, you learned something about it in school or something. Very few people seem to be against Far eastern philosophies/religions. But Islam... oh dear. I can hardly blame people though (oh wait... yes I can) since your either bombarded with false information such as "Islam is satanic" etc etc, biased news rapports and virtually no objective information whatsoever. 9 Out of 10 arguments about Islam dissolve into bitterness etc etc. This has been in fact one of the most coherant threads I've seen in years. In and out of INTP groups

Lets face it. Islam is the New Jew ^_^.

[Claverhouse]

And going back a few posts about the reasons for Britain's support of Zionism, another reason (perhaps not so obvious) needs to be mentioned. The proponents of the Balfour declaration (Lloyd George, Smuts and Balfour) were all committed Christians well versed in theology and Biblical history. They wanted to see the Jewish homeland restored in accordance with Biblical prophecy, as that was the only way to ensure the second coming of the Messiah. This is not just supposition - it is a theme that came through in speeches supporting the declaration.
Very true. Douglas Reed's books ( once famous anti-nazi etc. British journalist of the 30s and 40s 1895-1976: but now only of interest to those interested in those years ) are available on pdf from:

Douglas Reed Books (http://www.douglasreedbooks.com/)

except for his final, 'The Controversy of Zion', which can be read here in html:

Controversy of Zion (http://knud.eriksen.adr.dk/index.html)

or downloaded from the usual revisionist sources as a pdf.

In it ( he had been 'vanished' from the mainstream by his attack of American polity in 'Far & Wide', and due to his espousal of historic doubts about the six million business, immediately post-war: by gar, I never realised that anyone doubted it until Rassinier etc. I believed most of it myself until recently; however I've since met people who fought against the nazis here and there, and it seemed to come up that some of them always had had no doubt it was mainly propaganda, even back in 1945 ), he details the delightful way the British decided to give away other people's property ( not that the zionists were grateful, just decided to murder our soldiers, who had been fighting the nazis --- although since the zionists had offered during the war to raise units on the Axis side... ), in particular he discusses how the old puritan mentality of Balfour, Lloyd George etc., raised on the ever-loving creed of the Old Testament predisposed them to this crime. Just the same as the Christian Coalition in present-day America supports Israel and the criminally-minded Bush to the hilt for similar 'religious' reasons.

Bloody old cromwellian bastards. Hope they all rot in hell.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Dman]

It doesn't matter what religion it is, people will read into it what they want and translate it to whichever purpose best suits them. Like it or not it's about power. Who spreads the word of a particular religion? People, and who wrote/translated the books of religion? People. Thus like any social power structure the "truth" can be obscured, taken out of context, misinterpreted, etc. We're talking about centuries of history here, and how often is history, even a couple decades ago, told and translated correctly? Religion is what you want it to be, good or bad.

[Arioch]

It doesn't matter what religion it is, people will read into it what they want and translate it to whichever purpose best suits them. Like it or not it's about power. Who spreads the word of a particular religion? People, and who wrote/translated the books of religion? People. Thus like any social power structure the "truth" can be obscured, taken out of context, misinterpreted, etc. We're talking about centuries of history here, and how often is history, even a couple decades ago, told and translated correctly? Religion is what you want it to be, good or bad.

Islam is protected more against these kind of power manipulations then (lets say) Christians because Islam has no clergy.

I would say more but I have chocolate cake. And it takes priority above you lot :)

[songbird36]

There seems to be a de facto clergy consisting of senior members of the Al Queda movement

[Arioch]

There seems to be a de facto clergy consisting of senior members of the Al Queda movement

Lol... ok, you had me for like two seconds before I noticed that you meant in jokingly. If this wasn't a INTP forum I would be afraid that the comment was serious.