How peaceful is Islam?

[Fully Fledged]

this is a dangerous fallacy so many people have about atheism. yes, those people were killed because they believed in a god. but there is no "atheist doctrine" that says that atheists should persecute people for believing in a god. point to me an "atheist holy book" accepted by the atheist community that says non atheists should be killed.

I have no problem classifying those mass murderers as atheists. we're not like those muslims and christians (again I am not referring to every muslim/christian) that have the need to separate extremists as not being a "true" believer of the religion because atheism has no doctrine associated with it. just don't step into the danger zone of claiming that there is an atheist doctrine that commands atheists to slaughter believers.

I'm not saying that there is a doctrine that says Atheists should kill the religious. There is though an Atheist movement or why do people call themselves Atheist rather than just saying they don't believe? Atheists have made themselves a collective by taking on a title that groups them together.
There are a large portion of people who don't believe in a spiritual world who hold people who do in contempt. Who look down at people who hold a religious belief as though they are stupid or gullible for believing what they do. I'm not saying that everybody non-believer holds these views but a large proportion do.

 

[Amethyst]

I'm not saying that there is a doctrine that says Atheists should kill the religious. There is though an Atheist movement or why do people call themselves Atheist rather than just saying they don't believe? Atheists have made themselves a collective by taking on a title that groups them together.

The 'New Atheist' movement that has become more prominent in the last 15-20 years as far as I know, is about promoting skepticism, secular humanism and challenging the privileged position religion has held in society for a long time. It's also an attempt to inform people about what atheists actually believe and counter the misinformation that leads people to think things like 'they worship the devil' or other nonsense. In a poll conducted last year 53% of Americans said they were less likely to vote for a candidate if they were an atheist, whereas for 79% it either wouldn't matter or they would be more likely to vote for an Evangelical Christian.

There are a large portion of people who don't believe in a spiritual world who hold people who do in contempt. Who look down at people who hold a religious belief as though they are stupid or gullible for believing what they do. I'm not saying that everybody non-believer holds these views but a large proportion do.

Is it the people they hold in contempt, or is it their views? How do you know a 'large proportion' do? Have you actually got some sound data that backs up that claim or is this just something you've made up?

 

[Fully Fledged]

The 'New Atheist' movement that has become more prominent in the last 15-20 years as far as I know, is about promoting skepticism, secular humanism and challenging the privileged position religion has held in society for a long time. It's also an attempt to inform people about what atheists actually believe and counter the misinformation that leads people to think things like 'they worship the devil' or other nonsense. In a poll conducted last year 53% of Americans said they were less likely to vote for a candidate if they were an atheist, whereas for 79% it either wouldn't matter or they would be more likely to vote for an Evangelical Christian.



Is it the people they hold in contempt, or is it their views? How do you know a 'large proportion' do? Have you actually got some sound data that backs up that claim or is this just something you've made up?

I don't have data that is why I used a general term like large portion rather than giving a specific figure. I base that belief on my years looking through numerous internet forums where discussions about religion are taking place.

 

[Striker10]

I don't have data that is why I used a general term like large portion rather than giving a specific figure. I base that belief on my years looking through numerous internet forums where discussions about religion are taking place.

Do you think that all the conversations on the internet are legitimate? Most good posts on the internet tend to be posts agree with. Most people don't think that one that challenges them is a good post. So in that case the internet is a weird place full of bs to be frank.

 

[shivab]

this thread is offensive and should be shut down. i feel offended being a hindu i have no idea how angry the muslims on this forum must feel. theres plenty of violence and maltreatment of women and the poor in christian and hindu texts. are all hinuds and christians violent wife beating crazies? shut this thread down.

 

[2cents]

this thread is offensive and should be shut down. i feel offended being a hindu i have no idea how angry the muslims on this forum must feel. theres plenty of violence and maltreatment of women and the poor in christian and hindu texts. are all hinuds and christians violent wife beating crazies? shut this thread down.

In fairness Christianity gets an equally hard time on this forum, just look in the "Religion, what's the point?" thread. After Islam and Christianity, other religions get an easy ride on here by comparison.

 

[shivab]

In fairness Christianity gets an equally hard time on this forum, just look in the "Religion, what's the point?" thread. After Islam and Christianity, other religions get an easy ride on here by comparison.

yeah but we would be fooling ourselves if we think that there isnt an ongoing campaign against islam which colours every different sect with the same brush. clearly islamophobia is ramapant and at least people on this forum shouldnt be condoning that or adding to it.

 

[Amethyst]

this thread is offensive and should be shut down.

Why?

i feel offended being a hindu i have no idea how angry the muslims on this forum must feel. theres plenty of violence and maltreatment of women and the poor in christian and hindu texts.

And Christianity also gets a hard time as @2cents rightly points out, just because this thread focusses on Islam doesn't mean other religions are off limits. On this very page we have someone saying 'a large proportion' of atheists hold believers in contempt.

are all hinuds and christians violent wife beating crazies? shut this thread down.

Has anyone suggested that all people of one religion (whether it be muslims, hindus or christians) are 'wife beating crazies'? Find some posts that say that and I'll be happy to ridicule them with you.

 

[VP]

yeah but we would be fooling ourselves if we think that there isnt an ongoing campaign against islam which colours every different sect with the same brush. clearly islamophobia is ramapant and at least people on this forum shouldnt be condoning that or adding to it.

this is a serious accusation. Can you show me where people on here are condoning islamophobia?

 

[shivab]

Why?



And Christianity also gets a hard time as @2cents rightly points out, just because this thread focusses on Islam doesn't mean other religions are off limits. On this very page we have someone saying 'a large proportion' of atheists hold believers in contempt.



Has anyone suggested that all people of one religion (whether it be muslims, hindus or christians) are 'wife beating crazies'? Find some posts that say that and I'll be happy to ridicule them with you.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Why? the title itself represents a biased point of view which is questioning and labelling an entire faith. eg. 'are african americans intelligent' ..bigoted judgements in the form of an 'innocent' question is easy to formulate.

whats mentioned in the thread is another matter there is a religion thread that alreday exists..what was the need for making one just for islam?

 

[Revan]

...

• Second, even bigger problem is the fact that the article is written from USA point of view and is focussing only on groups that are threat to America. For example they discard two very big radical Islamic groups: Hezbollah and Hamas, because they "do not attack American targets". There is no mention of many other radical Islamic groups operating around the world - Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Turkey, China, Albania, India, Mali, Chechnia and many other countries have local radicals, which the article completely ignores, because they are no threat to America. Only Hezbollah's fighters are estimated between 11,000 and 65,000; - adding all these will inflate the numbers several times more.

...

See above.

Where did you got this bizarre idea? Admit it that you only wrote a list of countries you read somewhere that are Muslim (or have Muslims) without having an idea what you are talking about.

 

[shivab]

th

this is a serious accusation. Can you show me where people on here are condoning islamophobia?

isnt the the title islamophobic. maybe im crazy and im overly sensitive about this issue maybe we should ask a muslims opinion on this.

 

[Eboue]

The title is islamophobic? Someone bump the pc thread.

 

[Amethyst]

Why? the title itself represents a biased point of view which is questioning and labelling an entire faith. eg. 'are african americans intelligent' ..bigoted judgements in the form of an 'innocent' question is easy to formulate.

whats mentioned in the thread is another matter there is a religion thread that alreday exists..what was the need for making one just for islam?

The title doesn't represent a biased point of view, it simply asks a question. Even if the title said 'Islam is peaceful' or 'Islam is not peaceful', then so what? That shouldn't be a reason to shut down the thread. You'd have to ask the thread starter why he made a thread specifically on Islam, but I would imagine the response you'll get is 'because I wanted to discuss a particular aspect of one religion and didn't want it to be mixed up in the general religion thread'.

isnt the the title islamophobic. maybe im crazy and im overly sensitive about this issue maybe we should ask a muslims opinion on this.

I think you're looking for something that isn't there, but both muslims and non muslims can report posts they think are islamophobic for the mods to check and potentially remove.

The title is islamophobic? Someone bump the pc thread.

Exactly. I don't know how else we can expect to have a debate on a subject like religion, when people want discussion to be shut down because someone is offended at a question being asked.

 

[PedroMendez]

That's bullshit. Saying that Stalin killed 20m people in the name of atheism (just cause he was an atheist) is like saying Hitler killed millions of people in the name of Christianity (yes, Hitler was a Christian).

There were religious leaders killed in USSR for sure, and religion wasn't allowed, but the number of people who were killed for that reason is far far lower than 20m. Also, considering that atheism isn't an ideology like religions, there is nothing that can be done in the name of atheism. Atheism is just going a God further and not approving the existence of a God (well, all people all atheists when it comes to majority of Gods), but there is no ideology in that, no holy book and nothing that can be done 'in the name of atheism'.



Same reply for here.

Fun fact: Hoxha - the surname of Albanian dictator from WW2 up to the mid eighties - in Albanian means Mullah (Muslim priest).

Just to clarify my point: Atheism doesn´t make any statements about violence; blaming the idea of atheism for anything but not believing in god makes no sense. Yet still some people, who identified as atheists, used that term to justify discrimination/violence. You can reasonably argue, that those people were confused and also influenced by other ideas (e.g. Marxism/communism/nationalism), but to say, that nobody every killed anyone in the name of atheism is a bit too much, because they literately did.

 

[syrian_scholes]

th

isnt the the title islamophobic. maybe im crazy and im overly sensitive about this issue maybe we should ask a muslims opinion on this.

I don't mind it or blame people for thinking like this, people always try to generalize blame, I can relate to this because I sometimes tend to blame Alawities for what's happening in Syria which isn't completely true.

 

[Momochiru]

Where did you got this bizarre idea? Admit it that you only wrote a list of countries you read somewhere that are Muslim (or have Muslims) without having an idea what you are talking about.

There were Albanian/Kosovan separatists who performed a terrorist attack in Macedonia earlier this year.

P.S. I listed only countries, where there is an active Islamic group that has performed at least one terrorist act this year. Granted I probably should've said Macedonia instead of Albania, but it's Albanian/Kosovan separatists acting in Macedonia, that's why.

 

[Wolverine]

Why do people keep saying this? Nobody is blaming moderate Muslims for the actions of extremists. That would be incredibly unfair and I haven't seen it happening, even in the most right-wing Islamophobic media. Yet we're still seeing these memes doing the rounds about how blaming all Muslims for jihadists is like blaming all Christians for KKK. That's a classic straw man argument. The Muslim people are not being blamed for what's happened, it's their religion that is under scrutiny (specifically its potential to be used to incite violence and intolerance) not the people themselves.

You'll find that Muslims, including secular ones like myself, usually refer to this kind of thing being problematic



"why is it that no one in the Muslim community in France there knew what these guys were up to?"

"the word responsibility comes to mind, you can't shirk that"

Moderate Muslims are indeed blamed for the actions for extremists. The new atheists fanboys and Bill Maher refer to liberals who don't follow their point of view on geopolitics as "regressives" and "apologists" and say that the beliefs shared by the majority of muslims creates an environment where terrorism emerges from. Personally I believe there is some truth in that although many make this point with hyperbole, falsehoods, and outright bigotry at times.

We also know that the terrorist mastermind in France did not attend mosque, according to his family so how on earth the muslim "community" were supposed to know what these guys were up to is beyond me.

 

[Raoul]

th

isnt the the title islamophobic. maybe im crazy and im overly sensitive about this issue maybe we should ask a muslims opinion on this.

 

[Revan]

There were Albanian/Kosovan separatists who performed a terrorist attack in Macedonia earlier this year.

P.S. I listed only countries, where there is an active Islamic group that has performed at least one terrorist act this year. Granted I probably should've said Macedonia instead of Albania, but it's Albanian/Kosovan separatists acting in Macedonia, that's why.

Key word: seperatist. I think it is a process still going on trying to understand what really happened.

Btw, the leader of them was Catholic, so it had nothing to do with Islam. Obviously. the majority were Muslims but that is because the majority of Kosovan Albanians are Muslims.

Both Kosovo and Albania (especially Albania) are two of the most secular countries in Europe, and certainly there are no Muslim terrorist groups there. There are nutters who have joined ISIS (around 150 people or so), but considering that there are around 7 million Albanians in Balkan, that number is quite low.

Interestingly, the Albanians in Macedonia (which are a big minority, around 30-35% or so) are significantly more religious than those in Kosovo and Albania. I have no idea why is that the case, but every time I have gone to Skopje I have seen more women with traditional Islam clothes, than I have seen in my lifetime in Kosovo/Albania.

Anyway, my point of the post was that you were just making a generalization, putting in the same bracket countries which are completely different to each other, and poiting as Muslim terrorists stuff that has nothing to do with Islam.

I mean, there are certainly better examples than Albania (an atheist state for around 50 years, current prime minister being an orthodox, whose parents are Catholic and whose wife is Muslim) or Kosovo (the legendary president having converted from Islam to Catholic, the current president being a woman, gay marriage allowed with Constitution, and the biggest religious monument being a Catholic church built five years ago). Even Turkey is a very bad example when it comes to Islam terrorists.

 

[Revan]

Just to clarify my point: Atheism doesn´t make any statements about violence; blaming the idea of atheism for anything but not believing in god makes no sense. Yet still some people, who identified as atheists, used that term to justify discrimination/violence. You can reasonably argue, that those people were confused and also influenced by other ideas (e.g. Marxism/communism/nationalism), but to say, that nobody every killed anyone in the name of atheism is a bit too much, because they literately did.

So did Hitler when it comes to Christianity. But no one in their right mind would say that Hitler killed in the name of Christianity:

“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact hat it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exposed.”

So yep, saying that Stalin and Stalin-wannabes killed in the name of atheism is pretty much saying that Hitler killed in the name of Christianity. Both might have used those terms to appeal the masses, but that's it.

On the other side, IS and Crusades were done in the name of religion. A bad interpretation of religion (which might be the reason why the majority of people in both religion condemn those acts) but still in the name of religion.

 

[Momochiru]

Key word: seperatist. I think it is a process still going on trying to understand what really happened.

Btw, the leader of them was Catholic, so it had nothing to do with Islam. Obviously. the majority were Muslims but that is because the majority of Kosovan Albanians are Muslims.

Both Kosovo and Albania (especially Albania) are two of the most secular countries in Europe, and certainly there are no Muslim terrorist groups there. There are nutters who have joined ISIS (around 150 people or so), but considering that there are around 7 million Albanians in Balkan, that number is quite low.

Interestingly, the Albanians in Macedonia (which are a big minority, around 30-35% or so) are significantly more religious than those in Kosovo and Albania. I have no idea why is that the case, but every time I have gone to Skopje I have seen more women with traditional Islam clothes, than I have seen in my lifetime in Kosovo/Albania.

Anyway, my point of the post was that you were just making a generalization, putting in the same bracket countries which are completely different to each other, and poiting as Muslim terrorists stuff that has nothing to do with Islam.

I mean, there are certainly better examples than Albania (an atheist state for around 50 years, current prime minister being an orthodox, whose parents are Catholic and whose wife is Muslim) or Kosovo (the legendary president having converted from Islam to Catholic, the current president being a woman, gay marriage allowed with Constitution, and the biggest religious monument being a Catholic church built five years ago). Even Turkey is a very bad example when it comes to Islam terrorists.

No doubt both Turkey and Albania are very good examples how a modern Muslim country could function in a secular way. However the fact is that NLA (Albanians of Macedonia) is a 5,000 people strong militant organisation of the local Muslim minority performing terrorist acts - hence I have included them in the list. We can always argue how much of the motivation is political, how much is religious, how much is ethnic and how much is just psychopaths drawn to violence. Things are never black and white.

 

[Momochiru]

So yep, saying that Stalin and Stalin-wannabes killed in the name of atheism is pretty much saying that Hitler killed in the name of Christianity. Both might have used those terms to appeal the masses, but that's it.

On the other side, IS and Crusades were done in the name of religion. A bad interpretation of religion (which might be the reason why the majority of people in both religion condemn those acts) but still in the name of religion.

I agree with this - Stalin was training in a seminary to become a priest for a few years and Hitler was a Catholic who used a lot of Christian rhetoric in his speeches, so obviously there is some connection with religion. No one knows what exactly was going on in their heads, however they have done all the atrocities in the name of Communism or National Socialism respectively, not Religion or Atheism.

 

[Revan]

No doubt both Turkey and Albania are very good examples how a modern Muslim country could function in a secular way. However the fact is that NLA (Albanians of Macedonia) is a 5,000 people strong militant organisation of the local Muslim minority performing terrorist acts - hence I have included them in the list. We can always argue how much of the motivation is political, how much is religious, how much is ethnic and how much is just psychopaths drawn to violence. Things are never black and white.

From someone who has lived in that region until 2 years ago, I can say with big confidence that the conflict in Macedonia (2001) was completely ethnic (similar to pretty much every other war in ex-Yugoslavia). NLA also ceased to exist in 2001 after US managed to make a deal between Macedonian government and leaders of NLA to stop the conflict. As part of the deal, Albanians on Macedonia got some basic rights (like Albanian to be used as a second language in municipalities when Albanians are the dominant ethnic group). Still falls short of states that have similar ethnic structure (Belgium for example), and Macedonian government doesn't even respect that treaty anymore (after they managed to get in bad with the leader of NLA and make the government).

That 'terrorist act' had not much to do with NLA. The only thing we know for sure is that some Albanians had some weapons and they were killed by Macedonian police while the government was on pressure after the leader of the opposition was publishing some bad stuff from the government. I think that those people were more a Mafia rather than terrorists in the name of nationality, and then that was used to remove the pressure from the opposition (with the we're at war, stop talking for other less important stuff).

But none - until you today - has ever linked that to Islam terrorism.

 

[Momochiru]

From someone who has lived in that region until 2 years ago, I can say with big confidence that the conflict in Macedonia (2001) was completely ethnic (similar to pretty much every other war in ex-Yugoslavia). NLA also ceased to exist in 2001 after US managed to make a deal between Macedonian government and leaders of NLA to stop the conflict. As part of the deal, Albanians on Macedonia got some basic rights (like Albanian to be used as a second language in municipalities when Albanians are the dominant ethnic group). Still falls short of states that have similar ethnic structure (Belgium for example), and Macedonian government doesn't even respect that treaty anymore (after they managed to get in bad with the leader of NLA and make the government).

That 'terrorist act' had not much to do with NLA. The only thing we know for sure is that some Albanians had some weapons and they were killed by Macedonian police while the government was on pressure after the leader of the opposition was publishing some bad stuff from the government. I think that those people were more a Mafia rather than terrorists in the name of nationality, and then that was used to remove the pressure from the opposition (with the we're at war, stop talking for other less important stuff).

But none - until you today - has ever linked that to Islam terrorism.

Obviously you are more familiar with that situation, however I have read that NLA was disbanded in 2001, but in 2010 some insurgent NLA groups started appearing again with much more radical Islamic ideology than before. Somehow similar to what is happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina - where there was a war based on an ethnic conflict 10-15 years ago and now local terrorist groups are starting to emerge with very radical Islamic ideology based on Wahhabism.

 

[UnitedinRed]

What did he conquer? (Mecca aside, but there's caveats to his 'conquering' of Mecca).

Nobody actually knows as nobody spoke about him for nearly 200 years.

The origins are sketchy, at best.

 

[Revan]

Obviously you are more familiar with that situation, however I have read that NLA was disbanded in 2001, but in 2010 some insurgent NLA groups started appearing again with much more radical Islamic ideology than before. Somehow similar to what is happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina - where there was a war based on an ethnic conflict 10-15 years ago and now local terrorist groups are starting to emerge with very radical Islamic ideology based on Wahhabism.

Nope, there is no NLA or their derivatives anymore. Their commanders are now ministers in Macedonian government. There might be groups who once every three years publish a video threatening some politician but most likely they are angry teens who got a mask.

On the other side it is true that in Kosovo (not sure on Macedonia) the Wahabbism is expanding. Saudi Arabia et al made heavy investments in religious stuff after the war and exported Wahabbi monks. There is no risk at the moment although there are some people who had been converted from Hanefi to Salafi/Wahabbism. It isn't a big problem though considering that the majority of Muslims there don't know the shahada or haven't ever been to a mosque.

Btw: both KLA and by extension NLA have never had anything to do with Islam. It was a Serbian propaganda to portray them as Islamists, a card which isn't even played by Serbian politicians anymore. Most of the leaders of KLA (now politicians) are as atheist as me. The only link with Islam is that they have Muslim names (Turkey being there for 6 centuries).

I am not sure how it is the situation in Bosna. They had a reputation for being the most religious nation in Yugoslavia though. @Mihajlovic or @Amar__ can explain how is the situation there better.

 

[UnitedinRed]

this thread is offensive and should be shut down. i feel offended being a hindu i have no idea how angry the muslims on this forum must feel. theres plenty of violence and maltreatment of women and the poor in christian and hindu texts. are all hinuds and christians violent wife beating crazies? shut this thread down.

Yeh, that helps everything.

Can believers stop trying to shut down every discussion on faith simply because its not always positive. Religion is a choice, it should be open to debate. It holds an enormous sway over large populations around the world and should be scrutinised when warranted.

 

[shivab]

Yeh, that helps everything.

Can believers stop trying to shut down every discussion on faith simply because its not always positive. Religion is a choice, it should be open to debate. It holds an enormous sway over large populations around the world and should be scrutinised when warranted.

you mean selectively scrutinized...theres a religion thread..for some reason theres a separate one for islam?? why?

 

[Raoul]

you mean selectively scrutinized...theres a religion thread..for some reason theres a separate one for islam?? why?

Obviously because it's a current event topic that is separate from the broader discussion on whether or not Religion is legitimate

 

[shivab]

Obviously because it's a current event topic that is separate from the broader discussion on whether or not Religion is legitimate

how is it a current event topic?

 

[Raoul]

how is it a current event topic?

Because of the narrative surrounding the Paris bombings. People are discussing it, therefore it stands to reason that people here will discuss it as well.

 

[shivab]

Because of the narrative surrounding the Paris bombings. People are discussing it, therefore it stands to reason that people here will discuss it as well.

what narrative is that?

 

[Raoul]

what narrative is that?

Go figure it out yourself.

 

[shivab]

Go figure it out yourself.

haha..its fine..i know its tricky

You can condemn ISIS, without blaming the whole of Islam. You can condemn particular problematic, regressive interpretations of Islam, and still acknowledge many other interpretations that have millions of other Muslims living ordinary, peaceful lives like yourself.

when you write - is islam peaceful- you are in a way leaving room for the assertion that islam inherently is not peaceful...

its fine..you can have your little discussion peacefully ive said my piece

 

[Phurry]

How gracious of you to give us your permission, just curious, who died and put you in charge?

 

[shivab]

How gracious of you to give us your permission, just curious, who died and put you in charge?

as in you can have your discussion uninterrupted by my statements..which you conveniently just ignored.

 

[UnitedinRed]

you mean selectively scrutinized...theres a religion thread..for some reason theres a separate one for islam?? why?

World events. Its really not that hard.

There is a taboo regarding Islam. Some people would prefer its off limits and questions were not asked. Its also interesting as unlike with Judaism and Christianity, which can easily be traced, you cannot with Islam. There's a lot of gaps and mysteries which makes people curious.

 

[UnitedinRed]

how is it a current event topic?

Really? How was Mars?

 

[shivab]

World events. Its really not that hard.

There is a taboo regarding Islam. Some people would prefer its off limits and questions were not asked. Its also interesting as unlike with Judaism and Christianity, which can easily be traced, you cannot with Islam. There's a lot of gaps and mysteries which makes people curious.

is there a taboo..were you on mars? look around - like its mentioned above, apparently its being discussed 'everywhere' and thats why its being discussed here...its mentioned above by people who are on the same page as you.